I posted a quick video showing how having a rotor with alternating magnetic field passing a pulsed inductor can improve the efficiency of that inductor as far as the inductive kickback output go's.
Tonight i through together a quick pulse motor type setup that is close to the bedini SSG-only triggered by my FG. I was quite surprised at just how much the P/in increased,and the P/out decrease just by removing the spinning rotor with the magnets in it.
How is it that the pulsed inductor provides the energy to spin the rotor,but the efficiency of the system also increases.
Enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVhYGiJFRFY
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 14, 2015, 09:08:53 AM
I posted a quick video showing how having a rotor with alternating magnetic field passing a pulsed inductor can improve the efficiency of that inductor as far as the inductive kickback output go's.
Tonight i through together a quick pulse motor type setup that is close to the bedini SSG-only triggered by my FG. I was quite surprised at just how much the P/in increased,and the P/out decrease just by removing the spinning rotor with the magnets in it.
How is it that the pulsed inductor provides the energy to spin the rotor,but the efficiency of the system also increases.
Enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVhYGiJFRFY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVhYGiJFRFY)
Brad
The title of your clip is "Proof that Magnetic Fields Increase Efficiency in Pulse Motors" and you have proved nothing of the sort. The only thing that you have done is lead yourself down a garden path.
I am basically giving up on all of this circuit analysis stuff and I watched your clip but it's a rare thing for me to do these days. Just like you saw some frustration expressed on the pulse measurement clip I feel the same frustration.
I must have stated hundreds of times over the years that understanding electronic circuits is all about understanding the timing analysis of the circuit. I have said the same thing over and over about pulse motors because they are nothing more than very simple electronic circuits in action - they are a class of circuits called pulse circuits. In pulse circuits timing is king.
Yet you barely pay any attention to the timing of the circuit which is right there on your scope display. Instead you just look at the average reading on your scope display and then look at your multimeters and read the numbers. You use the numbers to arrive at a bogus conclusion and ignore the timing diagram.
I did two screen caps and they are attached. All the answers to explaining what is going on is arrived at by looking at the timing diagrams first and the numbers second.
Your conclusion is dead wrong. See if you and your peers can figure it out.
Quote from: MileHigh on December 14, 2015, 01:31:02 PM
The title of your clip is "Proof that Magnetic Fields Increase Efficiency in Pulse Motors" and you have proved nothing of the sort. The only thing that you have done is lead yourself down a garden path.
I am basically giving up on all of this circuit analysis stuff and I watched your clip but it's a rare thing for me to do these days. Just like you saw some frustration expressed on the pulse measurement clip I feel the same frustration.
I must have stated hundreds of times over the years that understanding electronic circuits is all about understanding the timing analysis of the circuit. I have said the same thing over and over about pulse motors because they are nothing more than very simple electronic circuits in action - they are a class of circuits called pulse circuits. In pulse circuits timing is king.
Yet you barely pay any attention to the timing of the circuit which is right there on your scope display. Instead you just look at the average reading on your scope display and then look at your multimeters and read the numbers. You use the numbers to arrive at a bogus conclusion and ignore the timing diagram.
I did two screen caps and they are attached. All the answers to explaining what is going on is arrived at by looking at the timing diagrams first and the numbers second.
Your conclusion is dead wrong. See if you and your peers can figure it out.
MH
What are you talking about???
The timing never changes,as the transistor is being triggered by my function generator at 37 hZ.
What are the two screen shots suppose to represent?. You have taken one screen shot from the middle of the scope screen,and one to the right hand side of the scope screen.
Are you sure you watched the video?-->sure dosnt seem that way.
The only thing i did,was removed the rotor with the magnets--nothing else was altered within the DUT. So how about having another go at explaining as to why removing the spinning magnets changed the efficiency so much?.
Below is two screen shots from the video. The first with the rotor and magnets in place,and the second without the rotor and magnets in play. Both scope shots now show the vertical center line of the scope screen. So now,please show us where the timing has changed,and !how! the timing could have been changed when the transistor is being triggered by the FG?.
I often wonder who is leading who up the garden path ::)
Brad
Quote from: webby1 on December 14, 2015, 03:46:28 PM
Ya know MH,, this is one of the many reasons I am not so much into "electronics",, way to much math :)
But if "I" were to look at the two pics you posted then I would assume the upper pic has less draw and a higher return than the lower pic,, it is all about what is under the graph,, right?
So the ripple in the yellow trace while the voltage is off is part of the return, and the spike at the end of the voltage on time is also part of the return,, the very short constant (the peak of the blue trace) on time means less than the other one with a flat top,, right?? and then you are supposed to multiply the yellow trace by the blue trace for each point,, right?? something like that anyway I am guessing.
So that then would be if the step down in current for the bottom trace over the longer time at the higher voltage is more or less for the bottom pic than the top pic,, but the return is more with than without simply due to the induction process of the rotating magnets.
I am also guessing that taking the average readings over time in the same way for both does not then reflect on the power dissipated over the time of observation,, I would of thought that if the draw were higher then the averaged reading would be higher as well,,
While these things are not all twisted up I try to follow and learn,, but they get real deep real fast and I then just blow over them,,
Webby
Do not just let this pass you by due to MH mistake.
Think about what is taking place within the DUT. The inductors magnetic field is the source of energy that drives the rotor. This !should mean that either the input should rise,or the output should fall,as some of the available energy should be used to spin the rotor. But as you can clearly see,that is not the case,the spinning rotor with magnets decreases the P/in while increasing the P/out.
MH just got it all wrong,as there is no timing adjustment in the DUT-the timing remains the same-->an apples for apples test,where the apples are bigger with the spinning rotor and magnets in play. The video and DUT is not about efficiency--it is about the increase and decrease of efficiency with and without the spinning magnets.
The data from the scope is telling us that the efficiency of the DUT without the spinning magnets is around 14.38%,and with the spinning magnet(the !only! change made to the DUT),the efficiency is around 22.59%. Our spinning magnets raised the efficiency by 8.21%.
Brad
Quote from: Erfinder on December 14, 2015, 10:50:25 AM
Takes a big person to admit that he may have prematurely dismissed something. It really is good to see the old Tinman at work. Now if I could only convince you to put your damn scope, meters, the need for making comparisons between input and output, and finally the need for proving a case away for a month or two so that we can begin brainstorming. Of all the talented folk out there, you seem to have a pretty good idea of what you want, but, I have yet to hear you voice what it is that you want.
It's time for voicing what we want Tinman, all of us. From that point, we can discuss possibilities.....how we plan on accomplishing the tasks we set for ourselves. This has to happen, without reference to measuring instruments.
Refreshing video.
Regards
Hi Erfinder.
I use my equipment to see what effect changes i make have on the DUT,and also to show those that choose to see the magic behind the permanent magnets magnetic field. It's also to show the guru's,as it gives them something to try and explain away.
Brad
Quote from: webby1 on December 14, 2015, 06:37:49 PM
I was actually taking the opportunity to see if my understanding of what to do with the scope information is reasonable.
While it is not getting all that involved with 2 pics and not a lot of math,, I figure that eventually I might get a "feeling" for the electronics,, I am kind of all thumbs with it right now and I have a nice little scope to use someday,, I would not want to blow it up like my other test equipment or misunderstand what it is showing,, TK's stuff is educational,, but until I have a "feel" for it all I am useless :)
Have you tried rotating the poles of your PM's? that is so that they chase each other nose to tail around the circumference but with a large gap between the PM's? at low speeds it creates a nice little dual voltage thing,, stuff like this is what I play with when I do,, not so much with the circuits and scopes and all that. I had a version of that running one day on a constant DC feed using the snap field when crossing over the PM to allow the rotor to pass,, not overly impressive but it was fun for the day.
The rotor has 8 N52 neo's in it,and they are alternating poles.
Brad
Brad:
If you were wise, you would take it as a given that I am right. Or you can even operate on the basis of assuming that I am right just for the sake of argument and then find out where that leads you and what happens in the end.
Because right now you are balking and therefore not putting any thought into it. So if you aren't going to try to think, then there is no point. Then you can expect yet another experiment that fades into obscurity with no proper analysis and no proper conclusion.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on December 14, 2015, 06:59:56 PM
Brad:
If you were wise, you would take it as a given that I am right. Or you can even operate on the basis of assuming that I am right just for the sake of argument and then find out where that leads you and what happens in the end.
Because right now you are balking and therefore not putting any thought into it. So if you aren't going to try to think, then there is no point. Then you can expect yet another experiment that fades into obscurity with no proper analysis and no proper conclusion.
MileHigh
MileHigh,
You and I had a few discussions a few years ago. At that time I mostly agreed with the things you posted. What happened to you? Your posts in this thread don't make any sense. You allude to some kind of error about timing and never explain what that has to do with anything. When Brad says there is no timing change you ignore that and in a very condescending way tell him he should always know that you are right. Huh? Say what? None of us are ALWAYS right. If you really have a technical explanation for what he is seeing then please explain. Otherwise posting nothing at all would be a better option.
Respectfully,
Carroll
Hi Brad,
I really enjoyed that video. It is interesting. I can think of one thing that might explain some of the effect you are seeing. I do believe the moving magnets are playing an important part in what you are seeing. I think because they are alternating they are helping to put some power back into the coil. I also think the presence of the magnet when the coil is turned on probably affects the impedance of the coil causing it to use less current. Just some random ideas from working with coils and magnets. Keep up the good work.
Carroll
Quote from: MileHigh on December 14, 2015, 06:59:56 PM
If you were wise, you would take it as a given that I am right.
That attitude would be contrary to the principles of the scientific method.
Brad should rebutte your statements with logical arguments and experimental data.
Quote from: citfta on December 14, 2015, 08:55:14 PM
MileHigh,
You and I had a few discussions a few years ago. At that time I mostly agreed with the things you posted. What happened to you? Your posts in this thread don't make any sense. You allude to some kind of error about timing and never explain what that has to do with anything. When Brad says there is no timing change you ignore that and in a very condescending way tell him he should always know that you are right. Huh? Say what? None of us are ALWAYS right. If you really have a technical explanation for what he is seeing then please explain. Otherwise posting nothing at all would be a better option.
Respectfully,
Carroll
I clearly am not saying that I am "always right" and what I am saying makes perfect sense. I am not going to explain anything, I would just be repeating stuff that I have already said 50 times before.
It's time for the experimenters to figure out things for themselves, to challenge themselves. Working on the problem and arriving at the proper conclusion would be the best thing that could happen here.
Quote from: tinman on December 14, 2015, 05:53:47 PM
What are you talking about???
The timing never changes,as the transistor is being triggered by my function generator at 37 hZ.
The word "timing" does not only mean frequency and the time when a pulse begins (like the timing of a spark in a gasoline engine) - in electronics it also means how the entire signal varies in time and how it varies in time compared to other signals.
I am sure MH meant the above.
Quote from: verpies on December 14, 2015, 09:20:53 PM
That attitude would be contrary to the principles of the scientific method.
It's just another method at arriving at a proper conclusion, an exercise in deduction. I arrive at conclusion "A" and then someone tells me that I am totally wrong and there is another conclusion. If I am going to assume for the sake of argument that what this person told me is correct, then I can start over and try to reason things out. If my reasoning results in my arriving at the same conclusion "A" then I have developed an argument to back up my statements. However, if I follow a new path that takes me to a totally different conclusion that refutes my original conclusion and my peers agree with me and we have a consensus, then that is a very worthwhile exercise for myself and my peers. The new conclusion may also be in accord with the unmentioned conclusion that the other person has.
In summary, I will have developed a completely new line of reasoning that hopefully is correct and refutes my original conclusion, and I hopefully will have learned something at the same time.
That's the point.
Hi Brad,
Looking at the still scope shots you can see that the applied voltage going to the coil does not cause the current to reach the saturation point when the magnets are in use. If you look at the same shot without the magnets you can see the top of the curve start to flatten just before the voltage is cut off. This indicates the coil current has almost reached the saturation point. So this does confirm the magnets are affecting the inductance of the coil. You can also see the discharge time is longer when the magnets are spinning past the coil. Hope these ideas help some as we learn about magnets and coils.
Carroll
Quote from: webby1 on December 14, 2015, 03:46:28 PM
I am also guessing that taking the average readings over time in the same way for both does not then reflect on the power dissipated over the time of observation
In a general case you are correct.
Mean current and
mean voltage are useless for
general power calculations ...yet that is what most multimeters display.
However, in the special case, when the DUT is supplied by a constant voltage (v), then the instantaneous input powers are:
v*i
1 , v*i
2 , v*i
3 , ...... , v*i
N
where i
1 , i
2 ,
i3 , ...... , i
N represent the successive input current samples
.
...and the mean input power is:
(v*i
1 + v*i
2 + v*i
3 + ...... +v*i
N) / N
or
v*(i
1 + i
2 + i
3 + ...... +i
N) / N
Note, that the term:
(i
1 + i
2 + i
3 + ...... +i
N) / N
is the arithmetical mean of the current. Let's call it i
MEAN
so we can write, that the mean input power is:
P
MEAN = v * i
MEAN...as long as v is constant.
This formula works even when the current is negative. Positive voltage and negative current mean that energy is returned to the power supply (C.V. source).
Note that this formula
does not work when the DUT is supplied from a variable voltage source (e.g. PDC, AC, DC+AC)
For those other cases,
these methods (http://overunity.com/16250/accurate-measurements-on-pulsed-systems-harder-than-you-think/msg468425/#msg468425) of power measurement and calculation should be used.
Quote from: verpies on December 14, 2015, 09:25:20 PM
The word "timing" does not only mean frequency and the time when a pulse begins (like the timing of a spark in a gasoline engine) - in electronics it also means how the entire signal varies in time and how it varies in time compared to other signals.
I am sure MH meant the above.
I have no idea what MH meant, his statement makes no sense. The current trace shows the current starts to flow at the same time, and stops at the same time. The amplitude of the wave changes simply because the current value changes in the two different cases. Now why dose that current value change?--what causes the current increase? , thats right, the removal of the magnets. MH says that I should just believe he is right--> are you serious?. MH says its all down to timing, without explaining what he means about timing,-then says -just believe me, as im right. This is comedy at it's best-thats what that is.
Brad
Quote from: citfta on December 14, 2015, 09:13:02 PM
Hi Brad,
I really enjoyed that video. It is interesting. I can think of one thing that might explain some of the effect you are seeing. I do believe the moving magnets are playing an important part in what you are seeing. I think because they are alternating they are helping to put some power back into the coil. I also think the presence of the magnet when the coil is turned on probably affects the impedance of the coil causing it to use less current. Just some random ideas from working with coils and magnets. Keep up the good work.
Carroll
Yes, I have set the duty cycle so as the inductor just reaches the point of field saturation, and this is when the transistor is opened. Unlike MH's statement, this is the optimal pulse duration for this particular inductor-the best timing you could have as far as an on time for thevinductor go's. Any less time, and the magnetic field dosnt reach maximum amplitude--any longer, and you start to produce unnecessary heat--wasted power, while the magnetic fied gain no more amplitude.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 15, 2015, 12:04:25 AM
Yes, I have set the duty cycle so as the inductor just reaches the point of field saturation, and this is when the transistor is opened. Unlike MH's statement, this is the optimal pulse duration for this particular inductor-the best timing you could have as far as an on time for thevinductor go's. Any less time, and the magnetic field dosnt reach maximum amplitude--any longer, and you start to produce unnecessary heat--wasted power, while the magnetic fied gain no more amplitude.
Brad
Brad,
An Inductor will take 5 Time Constants to charge to 99.3% of its Current Carrying Capacity. Why they chose 99.3% I don't know. This is sometimes conflicting, 99.3 and 99.7 are common numbers for the same thing. Many sites conflict on this actual number. I got 99.3% from an old Steinmetz Book and stuck with that.
This can be calculated:
T = L / R Where:
T = One Time Constant,
L is Inductance,
and R is of course Resistance.
This curve can be seen on your CSR as a Current Curve. Peak Current is 100% and is seen as a Flat Line for the period of On Time after the 5 Time constants have completed. To give you an idea, the below picture shows approximately 99.3% - It is interesting to note: In a pulsed System, the Magnetic Field is no longer changing in Time after this point! It is very likely that it is not much use to have any On Time past this Time in some systems. However, not always the case though.
There is a Frequency to this time as you can see. In some Systems, a longer On Time is just wasting Power. The Grey Rectangle represents this Time that you may not want to keep the Applied Voltage High.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
It looks like one of the scope shots that is with the rotor is showing the rotor producing some generating in the waveform. Im not sure i understand all of the stepping in the waveform without the rotor.
Mags
Quote from: tinman on December 15, 2015, 12:04:25 AM
Yes, I have set the duty cycle so as the inductor just reaches the point of field saturation, and this is when the transistor is opened. Unlike MH's statement, this is the optimal pulse duration for this particular inductor-the best timing you could have as far as an on time for thevinductor go's. Any less time, and the magnetic field dosnt reach maximum amplitude--any longer, and you start to produce unnecessary heat--wasted power, while the magnetic fied gain no more amplitude.
Brad
One thing on saturation of the coils core and magnets....
If a core is magnetically biased opposing the field made by the coil, saturation point of the core becomes higher than without the magnetic bias from the rotor. If the magnet is in attraction with the coil, the coils core will saturate much sooner than without the magnetic bias from the rotor.
I suppose that is why Bedini most always had used repulsion from coil to rotor magnet.
There are companies that make magnetic biased inductor/transformer cores. It allows for more storage in the core before saturation vs a core that is not magnetically biased.
Mags
Nice Video too!!!
Induction, Time Rate of Change of the Magnetic Field in the proximity of a Conductor. Little bit of both emf = Bvl and also emf = dPhi/dt all there I would say.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Quote from: Magluvin on December 15, 2015, 01:01:47 AM
It looks like one of the scope shots that is with the rotor is showing the rotor producing some generating in the waveform. Im not sure i understand all of the stepping in the waveform without the rotor.
Mags
You mean as the scope shot below show's.
I would say that my FG is unable to supply enough current to the base of the transistor to switch it on hard enough when the current reaches a certain level flowing through the collector/emitter junction-->maybe we could call this transistor slip lol.. If the transistor is switched on hard enough,then the voltage across the collector/emitter should be zero during on time--either that,or the transistor is not so good anymore :D. I would be better off using a mosfet,which i will be changing to from now on.
But that is just a guess.
Brad
Quote from: EMJunkie on December 15, 2015, 01:01:16 AM
An Inductor will take 5 Time Constants to charge to 99.3% of its Current Carrying Capacity. Why they chose 99.3% I don't know. This is sometimes conflicting, 99.3 and 99.7 are common numbers for the same thing.
It is 99.32620530% because 1 - (1/e
5) is that much
Also, it should not be called a "Current Carrying Capacity" but a V/R limit - a consequence of the Ohm's Law.
The V/R limit is a completely different concept than the core saturation limit.
It is all described in detail
here (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2684.msg43692#msg43692).
With a few minor adjustments,we have managed to increase the efficiency even further.
I have the duty cycle set spot on now,and not only did that decrease the P/in (as it would),it also increased the P/out.
So now it is time to put it together as a pulse motor,where we will now use the trigger coil to fire the transistor. Lets see if we can break the 50% efficiency barrier as far as electrical P/in and P/out go's.
Brad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4leXKDz7D8c
Below are the two scope shots that are from the last video(post above),along with the P/in P/out calculations.
P/in with rotor is
180mA @ 12.47v = 2.246 watts
P/out is 74mA @ 12.48v
Efficiency is 41.22%
P/in without rotor
240mA @ 12.47v
P/out is 12.49v @ 74mA = 2.992 watts
Efficiency is 30.88%
Once again-with the duty cycle set at optimum coil performance,the rotor and spinning magnets increased the efficiency by 10.34%.
Brad
In the video below,i have hooked up the trigger coil,and now am running the DUT as a pulse motor.
Straight off the bat,we have smashed the 50% efficiency barrier,as far as electrical P/in and P/out go's. In fact,we have beaten the 60% efficiency barrier<--how's them apples MH,much more than the 30% you once claimed to be about the limit.
P/in
200mA @ 12.49v = 2.498 watts
P/out
119mA @ 12.69v = 1.51 watts.
Electrical efficiency = 60.45%
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTf4Bl79NZk
Brad
Quote from: verpies on December 15, 2015, 05:48:42 AM
It is 99.32620530% because 1 - (1/e5) is that much
Also, it should not be called a "Current Carrying Capacity" but a V/R limit - a consequence of the Ohm's Law.
The V/R limit is a completely different concept than the core saturation limit.
It is all described in detail here (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2684.msg43692#msg43692).
Thanks Verpies!!!
Yes I used the wrong term, V/R limit, simply because the Applied Voltage determines the Current because of R. Higher the Applied Voltage the Higher the Current will go. As you point out, this is Ohms Law.
Thank You for correcting this!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Here you go mate, a second party confirmation with a suggestion how to further boost your results.
Link to video demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwKd7UG1Wb8
Enjoy ;)
Luc
Quote from: EMJunkie on December 15, 2015, 03:07:35 PM
Yes I used the wrong term, V/R limit, simply because the Applied Voltage determines the Current because of R. Higher the Applied Voltage the Higher the Current will go. As you point out, this is Ohms Law.
...and on the scope the V/R limit and the core saturation look like this:
Quote from: gotoluc on December 15, 2015, 06:27:14 PM
Here you go mate, a second party confirmation with a suggestion how to further boost your results.
Link to video demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwKd7UG1Wb8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwKd7UG1Wb8)
Yes, keeping the low resistance of the coil and wiring is very important.
Keeping the "resistance" of the recovery capacitor as low as possible, is very important, too.
The trick is that a discharged capacitor has lower "resistance" than a charged capacitor. This is the reason why a discharged capacitor is a better receiver of the "inductive spike" than a charged capacitor. This is also the reason why the capacitor should be emptied before each "spike" for the most efficient energy recovery
*The third method to increase efficiency is to keep the coil's ON pulse time below its Tau constant (L/R).
Cheers
*MH & TK - please do not admonish me for this colloquiality - I know that the ESR does not change and I know how to analyze that decreasing current of a charging capacitor in a proper technical jargon, but I'm trying to simplify the vernacular as much as possible.
Quote from: gotoluc on December 15, 2015, 06:27:14 PM
Here you go mate, a second party confirmation with a suggestion how to further boost your results.
Link to video demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwKd7UG1Wb8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwKd7UG1Wb8)
Enjoy ;)
Luc
I think that you need to review what you mean by the "efficiency of a coil." Brad has defined it as the average output power from the back spike as compared to the average input power. In your clip I am not clear on what you mean by "efficiency" nor am I clear on what measurements you are attributing to the claim you are making. Perhaps the numbers are there in the clip but they are not standing out for me. Your main point seems to be that a long energizing cycle without a passing rotor magnet inducing a huge amount of EMF in the coil will result in a large amount of current flowing into the coil. Beyond that I am not really sure what point you are making.
Brad: You are still not seeing the forest for the trees. You need to seriously think about the thrust of your argument.
Ditto.
I'm wondering what kind of "efficiency" numbers I'd get from this old thing if I used the same measurement and calculation process that we are calling "efficiency" here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfC5cTHtfYY
Brad:
I believe that you state in your clip that the rotor has eight magnets alternating north-south-north... facing outwards. Are you sure about that because your waveforms don't seem to indicate that.
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 15, 2015, 08:14:03 PM
I'm wondering what kind of "efficiency" numbers I'd get
I think that a good efficiency number would be the energy used to energize the coil's circuit (L1 & R1), divided by the energy gained be the capacitor C1, after S1 opens and the "inductive spike" energy is recovered into C1.
...measuring the gain when starting from an empty capacitor, preferably.
Once, I did some math, that calculated the ratio of:
energy stored in an inductance
vs.
energy dissipated in the resistance used to energize this inductance.
...in a simple LR circuit energized by a constant voltage step and I got the formula below, as a function of time (t):
Note, that this formula evaluates to 1 when t = 1.151389*Tau
P.S.
I would appreciate if some math enthusiast could simplify this formula.
I was going to start a new thread for this but instead decided that the topic of this thread really is the same.
I have done a video with a demonstration of how Electrical Energy is "Generated" - Electrical Energy 101 - Faradays Law of Induction - Part 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y7HKsDfY68&feature=youtu.be)
F = the Force on the Electron, or the Charge in the Conductor. Forcing the ve+ Charge in the Direction of the Arrow F.
References: Spin–charge separation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin%E2%80%93charge_separation), Photoinduced charge separation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoinduced_charge_separation) and Lorentz force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force)
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 15, 2015, 08:14:03 PM
Ditto.
I'm wondering what kind of "efficiency" numbers I'd get from this old thing if I used the same measurement and calculation process that we are calling "efficiency" here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfC5cTHtfYY
Remember
I made it very clear in both my videos and my post a few post back, that I am refering only to the electrical efficiency (P/in to P/out ratio)
I am not trying to calculate mechanical or heat output in these test.
If you think that there is something wrong with my electrical P/in to P/out ratio and efficiency calculations, then please say so.
If you also think there is a way to increase that electrical efficiency (using the coil I am using)without the magnets in play, then feel free to voice your opinion.
Quote from: MileHigh on December 15, 2015, 08:58:25 PM
Brad:
I believe that you state in your clip that the rotor has eight magnets alternating north-south-north... facing outwards. Are you sure about that because your waveforms don't seem to indicate that.
MileHigh
Yes, I am sure about that MH
Things not looking like they should be hey?
Aint that a hoot.
How should they look MH ?
Brad
Tonight, and over the weekend, I will be building my toroidal version of a pulse motor--> im sure Erfinder knows whats coming up.
I hope all the builders out there put all the pieces together ;)
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 15, 2015, 11:14:31 PM
Yes, I am sure about that MH
Things not looking like they should be hey?
Aint that a hoot.
How should they look MH ?
Yes I did a double-take on that one and realize where I went wrong after having a second look at the geometry of the setup. Your eight-pole rotor looks like a four-pole rotor.
The real hoot is that you are still leading yourself down a garden path and Luc is along for the ride. You need to put the pieces of the puzzle together and come up with the right conclusion.
How is it possible that a coil that is driving a rotor can be more efficient than a coil that is not driving a rotor? Conservation of energy is telling you that that makes no sense at all - it's impossible. The magnets are not "increasing efficiency" - try figuring it out by assuming for the sake of argument that I am right.
Think about it, you are on a forum for energy research and you are deceiving yourself and convincing yourself one more time that "magnets are a source of energy" or "magnets increase efficiency seemingly out of nowhere." That's why there are all of these unscrupulous con artists out there because it's such an easy thing to do, it's like taking candy from a baby. Try to figure it out because right now you are spreading disinformation and making it that much easier for the con artists.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on December 16, 2015, 12:21:32 AM
Yes I did a double-take on that one and realize where I went wrong after having a second look at the geometry of the setup. Your eight-pole rotor looks like a four-pole rotor.
The real hoot is that you are still leading yourself down a garden path and Luc is along for the ride. You need to put the pieces of the puzzle together and come up with the right conclusion.
How is it possible that a coil that is driving a rotor can be more efficient than a coil that is not driving a rotor? Conservation of energy is telling you that that makes no sense at all - it's impossible. The magnets are not "increasing efficiency" - try figuring it out by assuming for the sake of argument that I am right.
Think about it, you are on a forum for energy research and you are deceiving yourself and convincing yourself one more time that "magnets are a source of energy" or "magnets increase efficiency seemingly out of nowhere." That's why there are all of these unscrupulous con artists out there because it's such an easy thing to do, it's like taking candy from a baby. Try to figure it out because right now you are spreading disinformation and making it that much easier for the con artists.
MileHigh
Well, they are showing the differences of I/O with and without the rotor. And the differences seem to be showing what they say.
The magnet of the rotor is definitely playing its part by being involved, whether it is generating while spinning or biasing the coil core.
So what are 'we' missing if they dont have it right? Where is the problem in seeing that the efficiency of the system seems to get better with the rotor rather than without?
If there is an answer, please put it out there so that the issue that you pose can be accessed. ;D
Mags
Quote from: MileHigh on December 16, 2015, 12:21:32 AM
Yes I did a double-take on that one and realize where I went wrong after having a second look at the geometry of the setup. Your eight-pole rotor looks like a four-pole rotor.
The real hoot is that you are still leading yourself down a garden path and Luc is along for the ride. You need to put the pieces of the puzzle together and come up with the right conclusion.
How is it possible that a coil that is driving a rotor can be more efficient than a coil that is not driving a rotor? Conservation of energy is telling you that that makes no sense at all - it's impossible. The magnets are not "increasing efficiency" - try figuring it out by assuming for the sake of argument that I am right.
Think about it, you are on a forum for energy research and you are deceiving yourself and convincing yourself one more time that "magnets are a source of energy" or "magnets increase efficiency seemingly out of nowhere." That's why there are all of these unscrupulous con artists out there because it's such an easy thing to do, it's like taking candy from a baby. Try to figure it out because right now you are spreading disinformation and making it that much easier for the con artists.
MileHigh
MileHigh - What a Hoot!!!
You have no clue at all How an Electrical Generator Works do you? Hahahahaha
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Quote from: verpies on December 15, 2015, 07:28:56 PM
...and on the scope the V/R limit and the core saturation look like this:
Thanks Verpies!!! Again and as always, excellent information!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
I have done another video, Part 2, with a demonstration of how Electrical Energy is "Generated" - Electrical Energy 101 - Faradays Law of Induction - Part 2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqStIeja_s)
References: Spin–charge separation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin%E2%80%93charge_separation), Photoinduced charge separation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoinduced_charge_separation) and Lorentz force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force)
Have had a few distractions so please forgive my lack of fluency!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Quote from: MileHigh on December 16, 2015, 12:21:32 AM
Yes I did a double-take on that one and realize where I went wrong after having a second look at the geometry of the setup. Your eight-pole rotor looks like a four-pole rotor.
The real hoot is that you are still leading yourself down a garden path and Luc is along for the ride. You need to put the pieces of the puzzle together and come up with the right conclusion.
That's why there are all of these unscrupulous con artists out there because it's such an easy thing to do, it's like taking candy from a baby. Try to figure it out because right now you are spreading disinformation and making it that much easier for the con artists.
MileHigh
So far,i(and Luc) are the only ones here that have provided proof that it is indeed the magnets that are increasing the efficiency of the DUT. I have given you the opportunity to put forth your argument,and prove that the magnets are not what is increasing the efficiency of the system. All you have to say is-->i should believe what you say(sounds a bit vain),and yet you provide no counter argument.
If it is not the magnets that are increasing the efficiency MH,then what is it ?.
QuoteHow is it possible that a coil that is driving a rotor can be more efficient than a coil that is not driving a rotor? Conservation of energy is telling you that that makes no sense at all - it's impossible.
And yet there it is ,right in front of you--in two video's.
So i ask one last time,put forth your argument,and tell us why it is not the alternating magnetic field that is increasing the efficiency,as i have provided proof to the contrary.
QuoteYour eight-pole rotor looks like a four-pole rotor.
Really(see pic below)
And what dose how many poles it has have to do with your question--Quote: I believe that you state in your clip that the rotor has eight magnets alternating north-south-north... facing outwards. Are you sure about that because your waveforms don't seem to indicate that.
As the frequency has nothing to do with the amount of pole's on the rotor,your question seems to indicate that you did not think the fields were alternating,as the wave form dose not seem to indicate that.
QuoteThe magnets are not "increasing efficiency" - try figuring it out by assuming for the sake of argument that I am right.
Unfortunately MH,you are not right--both video's clearly show that it is indeed the magnets that increase the efficiency-->as we changed nothing else.
QuoteThink about it, you are on a forum for energy research and you are deceiving yourself and convincing yourself one more time that "magnets are a source of energy" or "magnets increase efficiency seemingly out of nowhere."
There is no deception MH,none at all. The conditions of the test were set in both test,and when the rotating magnets were removed,the efficiency went down.
Your dam straight the inductor provided the energy needed to spin the rotor,and that rotor with the magnets in it did indeed increase the efficiency of the electrical P/in to P/out ratio.
We'll see how you go on the next video,but for now,tell us what it was(if not the spinning magnets) that increased the efficiency of the DUT in those test condition's.
Brad
Quote from: MileHigh link=topic=16261.msg468607#msg468607 date=1450
Quote from: MileHigh on December 16, 2015, 12:21:32 AM
Think about it, you are on a forum for energy research and you are deceiving yourself and convincing yourself one more time that "magnets are a source of energy" or "magnets increase efficiency seemingly out of nowhere."
That was not a technical argument. Analysis of self-deception belongs more to the domain of psychology.
Quote from: MileHigh on December 16, 2015, 12:21:32 AM
That's why there are all of these unscrupulous con artists out there because it's such an easy thing to do, it's like taking candy from a baby. Try to figure it out because right now you are spreading disinformation and making it that much easier for the con artists.
But he is making measurements and publishing them here. There is value in this data for more people here that the con-men.
Even if he is making the measurements incorrectly, then this still has an immense educational value.
If he is making a technical error then it should be our duty to point out exactly where this error lays.
So far I can't even figure out where his scope probes are connected...
Quote from: MileHigh on December 16, 2015, 12:21:32 AM
Think about it, you are on a forum for energy research and you are deceiving yourself and convincing yourself one more time that "magnets are a source of energy" or "magnets increase efficiency seemingly out of nowhere." That's why there are all of these unscrupulous con artists out there because it's such an easy thing to do, it's like taking candy from a baby. Try to figure it out because right now you are spreading disinformation and making it that much easier for the con artists.
MileHigh
Im taking a second bite at this one MH,as i am really pissed off with the garbage you have posted above. To have the balls to say that i am spreading disinformation,and making it easier unscrupulous con artists to make a buck,is nothing short of bull shit.
I posted results and video's to back up my finding's,and you say i have it all wrong. What is wrong here MH is people like you post idiotic post's like the one above,and those that were experimenting stop doing so because of dickhead comments like the one you posted above.
If you cant put up MH--then shut up.
The pissed off Aussie.
Quote from: MileHigh on December 16, 2015, 12:21:32 AM
Yes I did a double-take on that one and realize where I went wrong after having a second look at the geometry of the setup. Your eight-pole rotor looks like a four-pole rotor.
I think he said that his rotor was built like this:
Quote from: verpies on December 16, 2015, 05:19:23 AM
I think he said that his rotor was built like this:
Yes Verpies--that is how it is.
Brad
Quote from: gotoluc on December 15, 2015, 06:27:14 PM
Here you go mate, a second party confirmation with a suggestion how to further boost your results.
Link to video demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwKd7UG1Wb8
Enjoy ;)
Luc
Good demo Luc,thanks for looking into that.
In regards to the magnets laying on there side(if we can describe it like that). If you have a look at how my rotor is configured (as verpies posted above),then the fields created will be the same as a long magnet lying on it's side. The rotor was designed to give a true AC sine wave when spun past an inductor. After years of testing,i found this is the best configuration for pulse motor applications. You will even see that not long after,JB went from his !!all north out!! configuration to an alternating magnetic field for pulse motors--not to long after i posted my comparison video.
As you now have seen your self,the inductor provides the energy to cause the rotation of the magnet's,!BUT! the P/in go's down,while the P/out remains the same(my last video using the FG to trigger the transistor) Regardless of what MH says ,the magnets returned a higher value in efficiency than the energy required from the inductor to spin the rotor in the first place--it's that simple. The alternating magnetic fields get the current flowing in the inductor before the transistor switches on,so it's not hard to work out that less current flow from the supply is going to be needed to reach the maximum current flow amplitude in the DUT. We can look at current flow as something that needs a push from an energy source-say like a motor vehicle that needs a push start,where as we have to reach a vehicle speed of 20KPH. So are you your self going to have to supply more energy to get that vehicle up to that 20KPH from a standing start,or more energy if the vehicle is already moving at say 5kph?.
The only opposition you will meet in this sort of research is those that are fixed in there way's,and have no room for change. These guys will also be the one's that will not be able to back up there claim that your information is wrong. They will give you no other means of showing the same effect that we have,but they will still argue the point with you--> !! PERMANENT MAGNETS CANNOT DO USEFUL WORK !!. Even when providing controlled experiment's,they will still argue against you. No matter what we do,it will never agree with these guy's-->that much has become painfully obvious in this thread.
My attitude toward those that argue against our findings with our experiments,and cannot provide proof that what we are seeing is not what is happening,is to simply ignore them.
I am going back to the old me,as i have seen nothing wonderful from those that think they know best--nothing but word's. The only time i ever get anywhere,is when i ignore what they deem to be possible,and carry on with effects i know are real-->the one's you will not find in book's,but only on your bench.
Brad.
MH,
You are not helping anyone by just repeating your mantra that magnets can't do work. If you really have a technical explanation for why the efficiency went down when the magnets were removed then please explain how that is possible without the magnets being part of the equation.
I also strongly disagree that magnets don't or can't do work. I worked for over 30 years as an industrial maintenance electrician. During that time I saw the change from conventional DC motors to motors that had PERMANENT MAGNETS in them that made them much more efficient than the conventional DC motors. I saw with my own eyes and meters that the PM motors were more efficient and ran cooler than the conventional motors. I have some very small RC 3 phase motors used to power my RC planes. These little tiny motors have an unbelievable amount of power because they have very strong and tiny magnets in them.
Having a strong background in electronics should not make a person so narrow minded they can't look at the possibility there may be more than we have been taught.
Carroll
Quote from: citfta on December 16, 2015, 07:02:37 AM
MH,
You are not helping anyone by just repeating your mantra that magnets can't do work. If you really have a technical explanation for why the efficiency went down when the magnets were removed then please explain how that is possible without the magnets being part of the equation.
I also strongly disagree that magnets don't or can't do work. I worked for over 30 years as an industrial maintenance electrician. During that time I saw the change from conventional DC motors to motors that had PERMANENT MAGNETS in them that made them much more efficient than the conventional DC motors. I saw with my own eyes and meters that the PM motors were more efficient and ran cooler than the conventional motors. I have some very small RC 3 phase motors used to power my RC planes. These little tiny motors have an unbelievable amount of power because they have very strong and tiny magnets in them.
Having a strong background in electronics should not make a person so narrow minded they can't look at the possibility there may be more than we have been taught.
Carroll
That is correct Carroll.
There is no electric motor on this planet that is more efficient than the permanent magnet DC motor-none. And what dose a Permanent magnet motor have that no other motor have--Yes,permanent magnets.
Additional information that was not included in my demo video
Brad:
When your scope shows the average current consumption from the CVR it's basically showing you the area under the current pulse, right?
Take a look at the two attached scope shots that I modified, which one has the larger area under the curve?
Holy crap, it's the scope shot of the coil without the rotor in place.
I simply asked you to assume that I was right as an exercise for yourself, to try to get you to think instead of gobbling up the first thing that comes into your mind, and you flat-out refused.
The ironic thing is that you even know this stuff and you even stated it. You stated that you knew the coil without the rotor in place was burning off energy needlessly because it had hit its V/R limit. Then in your second clip you trimmed back on the pulse width for the coil + rotor configuration to make it more efficient. Yet you look at your setup with the rotor spinning and it does not occur to you to trim back on the pulse width for the setup with the coil only because you already have decided that "adding the spinning rotor magnets increases the efficiency." Your desire to believe blinds you and you refuse to think.
The two attached images put both setups on an equal playing field. Both current pulses have been shaved off so that the current rises approximately three divisions on your scope display. In the case without the rotor the current rises faster and therefore it tales less energy per pulse to produce approximately the same back spike energy. In the case with the rotor the current rises slower and therefore it takes more energy per pulse to produce approximately the same back spike energy. The current rises slower in the case with the rotor because the coil has to do more work per pulse because it has to keep the rotor spinning. Part of the voltage applied to the coil does not increase the current in the coil, rather, it is used to push on the rotor. Hence the current rises more slowly in the case with the spinning rotor.
Just go on your bench and trim the pulse width back and keep the same pulse frequency for the case without the rotor. You will see that the efficiency in this case will be better than the case with the rotor in place.
You don't even need to mark up the timing diagrams like I did, it is as plain as day just like I said to you in my first posting - look at the timing diagrams.
You simply refused to analyze this situation properly even though you knew the coil was burning power needlessly in the case without the rotor and even though you knew that trimming the width of the pulse can increase efficiency. You had all the pieces to the puzzle in your hands but you refused to put them together. You led yourself down a garden path one more time.
MileHigh
AND another experiment that any body can do is ma FIGAMAGIG.THAT PROVE
WITHOUT A DOUBT that magnets can do work..To prove just remove the two ceramic
magnets then just note the voltage difference on the output. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_EmpBso3Fw
Quote from: seychelles on December 16, 2015, 09:26:06 AM
AND another experiment that any body can do is ma FIGAMAGIG.THAT PROVE
WITHOUT A DOUBT that magnets can do work..To prove just remove the two ceramic
magnets then just note the voltage difference on the output. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_EmpBso3Fw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_EmpBso3Fw)
Will you please resize your image?
yep
sorry
Quote from: MileHigh on December 16, 2015, 09:17:09 AM
Brad:
When your scope shows the average current consumption from the CVR it's basically showing you the area under the current pulse, right?
Holy crap, it's the scope shot of the coil without the rotor in place.
You don't even need to mark up the timing diagrams like I did, it is as plain as day just like I said to you in my first posting - look at the timing diagrams.
MileHigh
QuoteTake a look at the two attached scope shots that I modified, which one has the larger area under the curve?
The scope shot taken without the rotor. But why do you think that is MH-->it's because there was a higher current draw with the rotor removed.
QuoteI simply asked you to assume that I was right as an exercise for yourself, to try to get you to think instead of gobbling up the first thing that comes into your mind, and you flat-out refused.
When some one tells me just to assume they are right,when i see the exact opposite,then i will most certainly refuse. Even Verpies stepped in and said-Quote this is not the scientific method.
QuoteThe ironic thing is that you even know this stuff and you even stated it. You stated that you knew the coil without the rotor in place was burning off energy needlessly because it had hit its V/R limit. Then in your second clip you trimmed back on the pulse width for the coil + rotor configuration to make it more efficient. Yet you look at your setup with the rotor spinning and it does not occur to you to trim back on the pulse width for the setup with the coil only because you already have decided that "adding the spinning rotor magnets increases the efficiency." Your desire to believe blinds you and you refuse to think.
No,no,no MH.
You need to listen more carefully. I said in the video that i trimmed the duty cycle until i got no more P/out,but the P/in still rose-->without the rotor in play. I then dropped the duty cycle down 1%,so as the inductors P/in to P/out ratio was at it optimum.
QuoteThe two attached images put both setups on an equal playing field. Both current pulses have been shaved off so that the current rises approximately three divisions on your scope display. In the case without the rotor the current rises faster and therefore it tales less energy per pulse to produce approximately the same back spike energy.
No MH,you have that ass about. As the pulse duration is set,that only means more current flows through the CVR if that current risses faster as seen in the trace on the scope.
QuoteIn the case with the rotor the current rises slower and therefore it takes more energy per pulse to produce approximately the same back spike energy.
Once again,you have it ass about. Did you not see this in the scopes mean calculations?.
QuoteThe current rises slower in the case with the rotor because the coil has to do more work per pulse because it has to keep the rotor spinning.
No,the current rises slower because the spinning magnets have already started to create a current flow in the inductor before the transistor switches on.
QuoteJust go on your bench and trim the pulse width back and keep the same pulse frequency for the case without the rotor. You will see that the efficiency in this case will be better than the case with the rotor in place.
As above--this is what i did before the second video MH. The duty cycle was trimmed to obtain maximum efficiency from the coil before the spinning rotor was set in to play.
QuoteYou simply refused to analyze this situation properly even though you knew the coil was burning power needlessly in the case without the rotor and even though you knew that trimming the width of the pulse can increase efficiency. You had all the pieces to the puzzle in your hands but you refused to put them together. You led yourself down a garden path one more time.
No MH,not this time. I afraid you lead your self down your own garden path,and got lost.
You didnt listen to the video(edit 1.18 to 1.25 in the video in question--with or !without! the rotor in play),and you jumped to conclusions due to your inability to accept change that go's against your beliefs.
Now that you know that you messed it all up,and you know the duty cycle was trimmed so as the coil gained maximum efficiency without the rotor in play,can you now tell us all what it was that increased the efficiency of the DUT--if not the rotating magnets.
Brad
Quote from: seychelles on December 16, 2015, 09:40:14 AM
you better be nice to me milehigh otherwise i will tell my mother
in law about you.ok
Please do NOT fill this thread with rubbish seychelles.
A one of request.
Brad
TINMAN for a great improvement of your pulse motor ,
1 Make all the magnets on the rotor N and then place two ceramic
magnets on the sides of the coil facing facing NORTH to each other..
Brad:
QuoteNo,no,no MH.
You need to listen more carefully. I said in the video that i trimmed the duty cycle until i got no more P/out,but the P/in still rose-->without the rotor in play. I then dropped the duty cycle down 1%,so as the inductors P/in to P/out ratio was at it optimum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4leXKDz7D8c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4leXKDz7D8c)
Ar 1:11 in your second clip you say, "I've dropped the duty cycle down to 23%" in the configuration with the rotor in place. I see you made one more clip but I haven't watched that clip.
What I can tell you is this: Without the rotor in place and by trimming down the pulse with and keeping the pulse frequency the same (although the pulse frequency is not that relevant) then you will get better power-out to power-in performance than any configuration with the rotor in place and spinning. Without the power drain of the spinning rotor the coil will perform better. The shorter the energizing pulse, the less final current in the coil, and the less the total i-squared-R losses will be. That's why DC-to-DC converters use a high frequency pulsing technique - it's to keep the current in the coil to a minimum in order to reduce the useless resistive losses in the wire.
When you compare the case with the spinning rotor to the case with no rotor, the pulse width is simply too wide for the case with no rotor and you are losing efficiency by needlessly burning off power in the coil in the form of resistive losses in the wire - and seeing higher current consumption. You look at the case with the rotor spinning and see less current consumption are you are deceiving yourself into thinking that the spinning rotor magnets are giving you
more efficiency when in fact what is taking place is that the too-long pulse width without the rotor is giving you
less efficiency.
You are putting the rotor in place and thinking you are getting more efficiency because of the magnets when what you should be thinking is that you are losing efficiency when there is no rotor in place because of unnecessary resistive losses because of bad pulse timing (and associated higher current consumption) when you remove the rotor. That is your big failure to see what's really taking place.
You are confusing a decrease in efficiency for case "B" (no rotor) for an increase in efficiency with case "A" (with the rotor). Adding the spinning rotor is
not increasing your efficiency at all, it is decreasing your efficiency.
I can flip it around for you: You have an optimum power-out to power-in efficiency with just the coil only. The pulse width is narrow and the resistive losses are minimized. Then when you add the spinning rotor you are obligated to increase the pulse width to support the added load of the spinning rotor -
which will also increase the current consumption. You will have to put more power into the coil to get about the same amount of power out. Therefore,
adding the spinning rotor reduces the power-out to power-in efficiency.
The above paragraph really describes what is happening in your tests. A proper measurement without the rotor in place will give you a better power-out to power-in efficiency as compared to any spinning rotor configuration. You can clearly see it in the timing diagrams.
Look, higher efficiency to the left, poorer efficiency to the right:Lousy pulse timing: <poor eff. with rotor> <even worse eff. without rotor>
Good pulse timing: <good eff. without rotor> <poor eff. with rotor>
You are looking at the lousy pulse timing and thinking <poor efficiency with the rotor> is "magnet magic" because it's better than <even worse efficiency without the rotor>. That is dead wrong.
MileHigh
AS SUCH
Brad:
Me: Take a look at the two attached scope shots that I modified, which one has the larger area under the curve?
You: The scope shot taken without the rotor. But why do you think that is MH-->it's because there was a higher current draw with the rotor removed.
You take a look again. I said modified scope shots. I added the blue rectangles on the right side of each pulse so that you would only be looking at the dark area under the curve for each pulse.
Quote from: tinman on December 16, 2015, 05:49:50 AM
Yes Verpies--that is how it is.
...and how are your scope probes connected to this circuit ?
For example:
Ch1 --> point B
G1 --> point C
Ch2 --> GND
G2 --> point C
Quote from: webby1 on December 16, 2015, 02:18:31 PM
Do me a flavor and read post 28,, then get on the correct video that was done to "fix" the error you are hounding on.
When does adding a load reduce the cost?
Yes, I agree. Look at post #28 (image attached) and you can see exactly the same thing that I am highlighting in my original screen captures. The average current in the no-rotor case is higher because it rises faster. You can see it as plain as day so there was no point in doing the work to mark up another set of screen captures.
One more time, you are asking the wrong question.
The question should be, "
When does not adding a load increase the cost?"
That is the
real question, and if you fail to realize what the real question is and try to answer the wrong question instead then you end up leading yourself down a garden path. And the con artists know this and the art of deception and deflection is already 3/4 done for them by a willing audience that wants to believe.
Answering the real question properly as has already been done clearly shows that the magnets are doing nothing. The magnets are just passive dead-as-a-doornail components being pushed around by the coil which is being energized by the battery.
How many times have you seen clips where people add a load and the power consumption goes down? The answer is that we have all seen it hundreds of times with too many experiments to mention. You have to work on understanding electronics to explain why instead of just blindly believing that "magnets are magic and they are adding power to the system."
Taking another example, this is just a variation on seeing your source battery voltage increase while you run your experiment and convincing yourself that "power is being returned to the battery" when the circuit doesn't even have a means to return power to the battery. I remember seeing that in the old days all the time but now people are wiser.
Quote from: MileHigh on December 16, 2015, 03:02:42 PM
Yes, I agree. Look at post #28 (image attached) and you can see exactly the same thing that I am highlighting in my original screen captures. The average current in the no-rotor case is higher because it rises faster. You can see it as plain as day so there was no point in doing the work to mark up another set of screen captures.
One more time, you are asking the wrong question.
The question should be, "Why does not adding a load increase the cost?"
That is the real question, and if you fail to realize what the real question is and try to answer the wrong question instead then you end up leading yourself down a garden path. And the con artists know this and the art of deception and deflection is already 3/4 done for them by a willing audience that wants to believe.
This is just a variation on seeing your source battery voltage increase while you run your experiment and convincing yourself that "power is being returned to the battery" when the circuit doesn't even have a means to return power to the battery. I remember seeing that in the old days all the time but now people are wiser.
OOOOOHHHHHHHhhhhhhh the Drivel....
Why is the Voltage on the yellow Trace got this funny squiggly bit from one to the other Capture, what could this funny squiggly bit be I wonder?????
In 1831 Michael Faraday discovered Induction, MileHigh still has not discovered it!!!!! You driveling old Git!!!!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Quote from: EMJunkie on December 16, 2015, 03:19:24 PM
In 1831 Michael Faraday discovered Induction, MileHigh still has not discovered it!!!!! You driveling old Git!!!!
Will you get over your ridiculous Faraday fetish you twit? I suppose the explanation for what is happening in Tinman's experiment is over your head since you don't understand how a coil works. Do you remember when we had the discussion with MarkE?
Quote from: MileHigh on December 16, 2015, 03:29:34 PM
Will you get over your ridiculous Faraday fetish you twit? I suppose the explanation for what is happening in Tinman's experiment is over your head since you don't understand how a coil works. Do you remember when we had the discussion with MarkE?
Are you Blind and Stupid?
Your ability to CHOOSE Ignorance over Logic and Evidence is just too overwhelming for some people!!!
By the way, Your Computer is POWERED the very same principle's that Michael Faraday gave you 184 Years ago!!! But I know, you CHOOSE to be ignorant of it!
The PROOF speaks volumes, MileHigh is just a cretin that has no desire to look at facts!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
P.S: MarkE never dismissed Faraday's Laws of Induction, he was much smarter than that!!!
How about you just stop making silly gratuitous attacks and instead discuss the subject at hand in the thread?
Quote from: MileHigh on December 16, 2015, 03:50:47 PM
How about you just stop making silly gratuitous attacks and instead discuss the subject at hand in the thread?
TOPIC: Rotor makes for a HIGHER Efficiency - Proven to be true.
I propose there is enough evidence to say "Faradays Law of Induction" is clearly seen on the Scope Shots Tinman has provided.
You dispute the evidence...
So who is really distracting the masses here? Its you MileHigh.
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Quote from: EMJunkie on December 16, 2015, 03:57:28 PM
TOPIC: Rotor makes for a HIGHER Efficiency - Proven to be true.
I propose there is enough evidence to say "Faradays Law of Induction" is clearly seen on the Scope Shots Tinman has provided.
No, the only thing that has been proven is that adding the rotor increased the overall impedance of the coil. Why is that? Where is the power going without the rotor vs. with the rotor? What is transpiring inside the coil when there is no rotor in place vs. when there is a rotor in place?
I have already stated that the coil will be more efficient without a rotor in place. Brad can prove that for himself if he wants to by doing the test. The lower the final current in the coil (shorter pulse) before the transistor switches off the more efficient the coil will be.
Please stop the Straw Man argument where you state that I am denying Faraday, it's laughable.
Quote from: webby1 on December 16, 2015, 04:23:10 PM
Do I have it wrong then that it is the area under the spike? I thought it was the area under the spike that was what is supposed to be compared.
So the marginally smaller area under the one with rotor is more power? the height of the voltage with rotor is less than without.
It is the area under the spike. The average current reported by the scope for both of the current pulse traces is effectively the area under the spike.
The smaller area under the one with rotor represents
less power. The area for the one without the rotor in place is the larger area. And that translates into a higher input power.
Quote from: EMJunkie on December 16, 2015, 03:19:24 PM
Why is the Voltage on the yellow Trace got this funny squiggly bit from one to the other Capture, what could this funny squiggly bit be I wonder? ??? ?
A "squiggly bit" like this can mean:
1) An LC oscillation
2) The response of the coil to a changing external flux (from the approaching and departing magnet)
3) Superposition of the following 2 currents:
a) When a resistive coil is powered from a constant voltage source, the current through it has the shape of an inverse exponential curve (see the 1
st plot).
b) When a coil is subjected to a varying external flux from the approaching and departing magnet, the coil responds by inducing current in its windings to keep the magnetic flux through itself - constant (see the 2
nd plot).
I don't think it's Case #1 because the capacitor is separated by a diode that would allow it to make only ½ of the LC oscillation.
I wish I had scopeshots with properly connected scope probes so I could make sure of that (with a moving and stationary rotor, of course)
Quote from: MileHigh on December 16, 2015, 04:31:25 PM
No, the only thing that has been proven is that adding the rotor increased the overall impedance of the coil. Why is that? Where is the power going without the rotor vs. with the rotor? What is transpiring inside the coil when there is no rotor in place vs. when there is a rotor in place?
I have already stated that the coil will be more efficient without a rotor in place. Brad can prove that for himself if he wants to by doing the test. The lower the final current in the coil (shorter pulse) before the transistor switches off the more efficient the coil will be.
Please stop the Straw Man argument where you state that I am denying Faraday, it's laughable.
But the waveforms MileHigh, the Waveforms...
Coils, Magnets, Time Rate of Change (Velocity of the Permanent Magnets) - Faradays Law of Induction...
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Quote from: EMJunkie on December 16, 2015, 04:36:18 PM
But the waveforms MileHigh, the Waveforms...
Coils, Magnets, Time Rate of Change (Velocity of the Permanent Magnets) - Faradays Law of Induction...
If you can make a cogent technical argument about the test being discussed, please feel free to do so. If you can't add any value to the technical discussion then please just read.
Quote from: webby1 on December 16, 2015, 05:04:20 PM
Understanding that the approaching magnet induces a voltage which raises the impedance of the coil thus reducing the input power.
Generally yes, but because the "impedance" is a different concept, to be absolutely correct you'd have to state that:
the approaching magnet induces a voltage across the coil, which subtracts from the power supply voltage, thus reducing the overall voltage available to push the current into the coil and the overall current flowing in the coil decreases.
...or
the approaching magnet induces a current in the coil, which subtracts from the current pushed by the power supply, thus reducing the overall current flowing in the coil
However, a departing magnet does the opposite.
Furthermore, an approaching magnet of a different polarity, does the opposite, too...
Quote from: webby1 on December 16, 2015, 05:04:20 PM
So the added losses from adding the rotor are less than the decrease in power In due to the increase in impedance for the same power Out.
I think this is in line with what the information shows.
Yes, that is more or less the essence of it. Adding the rotor represents a "loss" because some of the power going into the coil is providing the power to make the rotor turn. But adding the rotor is sort of "throwing a monkey wrench" at the setup because the overall impedance increases and the total power consumption goes down. I use the term "overall impedance" in an abstract sense: lower average input power = higher "overall impedance."
If you look at Brad's scope shot with the rotor in place, you can see that when the transistor switches off the AC voltage is about +/-4 volts. So when the 12-volt power is applied across the coil, it dominates over the +/-4V AC induced in the coil. Therefore, the current waveform still resembles an inverse exponential curve but there is a barely detectable (if you are not looking for it) "wiggle" superimposed on the inverse exponential current waveform due to the superimposed AC voltage from the induced EMF. If you looked at Luc's current waveform you can see that the EMF from the passing rotor magnet in his setup actually dominates over the battery supply at one point and actually reverses the current flow.
Quote from: MileHigh on December 16, 2015, 10:53:52 AM
Brad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4leXKDz7D8c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4leXKDz7D8c)
MileHigh
QuoteAr 1:11 in your second clip you say, "I've dropped the duty cycle down to 23%" in the configuration with the rotor in place. I see you made one more clip but I haven't watched that clip.
Ar-please go and watch the clip again. Listen carefully from 10 min 30 seconds this time.
Maybe some one else will post my exact words for you MH,so as you dont have to go and watch it again.
QuoteWhat I can tell you is this: Without the rotor in place and by trimming down the pulse with and keeping the pulse frequency the same (although the pulse frequency is not that relevant) then you will get better power-out to power-in performance than any configuration with the rotor in place and spinning.
This is why i dont just take your's or any other guru's word as gospel,as you are dead wrong,and i can prove that without a shadow of doubt-->and i already have,and i will do it again,only in the next video,i will show the trimming of the pulse width without the spinning rotor and magnets first.
QuoteWithout the power drain of the spinning rotor the coil will perform better.
Wrong. The power drain is less with the spinning rotor and magnets,and after the next video,!! you MH !! will have to explain why.
QuoteThe shorter the energizing pulse, the less final current in the coil, and the less the total i-squared-R losses will be.
Firstly,the energizing pulse remains a time constant--only an amplitude change is seen during that energizing pulse.
QuoteWhen you compare the case with the spinning rotor to the case with no rotor, the pulse width is simply too wide for the case with no rotor and you are losing efficiency by needlessly burning off power in the coil in the form of resistive losses in the wire - and seeing higher current consumption.
No. The coil is trimmed(pulse width adjusted) so as to get the maximum efficiency from that coil !before! the rotor is set in motion.
QuoteYou look at the case with the rotor spinning and see less current consumption are you are deceiving yourself into thinking that the spinning rotor magnets are giving you more efficiency when in fact what is taking place is that the too-long pulse width without the rotor is giving you less efficiency.
No,the spinning rotor with magnets is defiantly raising the efficiency of the coil.
QuoteYou are putting the rotor in place and thinking you are getting more efficiency because of the magnets when what you should be thinking is that you are losing efficiency when there is no rotor in place because of unnecessary resistive losses because of bad pulse timing (and associated higher current consumption) when you remove the rotor. That is your big failure to see what's really taking place.
No,i am putting the rotor in place and i am seeing an increase in efficiency.
There is only one failure here MH,and that is you did not listen to what i said in the video. You are wrong--dead wrong,and i -along with anyone else can prove this,as it is a very easy experiment. Even TK will not find a !! red herring !! in this one.
It is time to throw the books away MH,and take not of reality.
QuoteYou are confusing a decrease in efficiency for case "B" (no rotor) for an increase in efficiency with case "A" (with the rotor). Adding the spinning rotor is not increasing your efficiency at all, it is decreasing your efficiency.
It is not me that is confused here MH--it is you.
QuoteI can flip it around for you: You have an optimum power-out to power-in efficiency with just the coil only. The pulse width is narrow and the resistive losses are minimized. Then when you add the spinning rotor you are obligated to increase the pulse width to support the added load of the spinning rotor - which will also increase the current consumption. You will have to put more power into the coil to get about the same amount of power out. Therefore, adding the spinning rotor reduces the power-out to power-in efficiency.
What you describe above is exactly what i did,only the outcome is the opposite to what your !! book fueled !! conclusion is.
QuoteThe above paragraph really describes what is happening in your tests. A proper measurement without the rotor in place will give you a better power-out to power-in efficiency as compared to any spinning rotor configuration. You can clearly see it in the timing diagrams.
No it dose not,as the opposite is true.
The alternating external magnetic fields increase the efficiency of the coil.
You can hold me to those word's MH. write down the number of this post,and hold it close to you-->this is your ammunition against me in the future.
QuoteYou are looking at the lousy pulse timing and thinking <poor efficiency with the rotor> is "magnet magic" because it's better than <even worse efficiency without the rotor>. That is dead wrong.
What is dead wrong in this case MH is you.
My time will now be spent proving you wrong MH,(and it will be easy to do),-->as a lesson to every experimenter out there-->!! Always believe in your self,and look at what you are seeing on your bench. Never take the word of those that !think! they know better,or believe that there knowledge is far greater than your own gained on the bench.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 16, 2015, 06:29:55 PM
Ar-please go and watch the clip again. Listen carefully from 10 min 30 seconds this time.
Maybe some one else will post my exact words for you MH,so as you dont have to go and watch it again.
Okay, so you trimmed back the pulse width on the setup with the spinning rotor in place so you get 74 mA @ 12.49 volts going into charging battery. In other words, the output from the coil is 74 mA @ 12.49 volts and that's the narrowest pulse that gives you that power output. You "trimmed up" the pulse for the narrowest pulse that will give you the maximum output. The duty cycle ON time is 23%. The pulse is so narrow that you had to use a motorized rubber wheel to spin up the rotor to get it to sync up with the function generator pulse.
Then you stop your rotor and measure the power input which is 240 mA @ 12.47 V. The output is the same, 74 mA @ 12.49V.
However, with the rotor spinning, the input power is 180 mA @ 12.47 volts. That is less than the case with the rotor stopped or removed.
WOW.And you have the gall to say this, "Maybe some one else will post my exact words for you MH,so as you dont have to go and watch it again," trying to pretend that I didn't catch that or see that or whatever.
Everything I have posted in this thread has fully acknowledged your measurements so stop playing that game. In addition, I have explained your real-world measurements and what they mean between something like
three and five times in this thread already.
If you are not understanding what I am saying, just ask me. Lay your cards on the table, don't bluff if you are not understanding something. Don't zone out or feign that I am not seeing what you are presenting in your clips because I saw what you said and I fully acknowledged what you said and acknowledged your measurements in this very thread about 10 times.
To me it looks like you are doing nothing more than saying, "You are not seeing my numbers so you must be daft." Nothing could be further from the truth. I saw and acknowledged your numbers and explained it all - several times already.
The bottom line is this: It's not me that has to look at your clips because "I am not catching something" - It's you that has to reread this thread and try to understand it and come back if you have any comments or questions and I will be pleased to respond. It's time for you to stop this "revolving door" where you say "look at my clips" because I have looked at your clips. Just read the thread and that will be readily apparent.
MileHigh
Adding magnets if timed right might help, I never tried that yet.
I'm inducing The same polarity permanent magnetic field at the collapsing field of an electro-magnet.
Which was used for drive.
The kick back increases when you do this.
More bang for your buck.
I think it's just a matter of timing?
artv
Below is 2 scope shots of my version of the Lasersaber ez spin motor and the simple circuit. All 24 coils in series is 15kohm. 1000uf cap and 24 alternating magnets on the rotor. The first shot is of me spinning up the rotor and it is charging the cap when the reed switch closes where you can see the motor is generating then gets clamped down to the cap voltage when the reed closes, and back up again when the reed opens. The second shot is of the motor running down with the cap as the source. The motor runs for quite some time on that cap. The reason it does is that the motor is generating, while running, almost as much voltage as what is in the cap. so being very little difference there, the motor doesnt draw much at all from the cap. Under 500ua at the rpm providing the scope shots.
So this is where the efficiency of brads claim lies. When his coil is pulsed without the rotor, he gets a measured Pin and Pout. When he adds the rotor, the rotor mags generate voltage potential in the coil before the pulse happens. So the motor generating gives the coil a head start before the pulse and the pulse doesnt have to do all the work it was doing without the rotor.
Been fiddling with the ez spin while getting used to the new scope. Yesterday was spinning and watching and thinking. Thinking that the motor only needs a smidgen more voltage out to the cap while running to get what we all would like to see here. Been bangin my head around it. How do I get more voltage from the motor? While looking at the scope something came to me. The negative (below center) part of the trace is doing nothing when it comes to the motor. So I thought, what if I could charge another cap with that part of the wave form cycle and configure those caps in series when pulsing the motor. That would be twice what is being generated by the motor, not just a smidgen. ;) :o
I have a couple ideas on how to do it but I gota run them on sim or on the bench to see if they work out.
Mags
Quote from: MileHigh on December 16, 2015, 07:26:29 PM
Okay, so you trimmed back the pulse width on the setup with the spinning rotor in place so you get 74 mA @ 12.49 volts going into charging battery. In other words, the output from the coil is 74 mA @ 12.49 volts and that's the narrowest pulse that gives you that power output. You "trimmed up" the pulse for the narrowest pulse that will give you the maximum output. The duty cycle ON time is 23%. The pulse is so narrow that you had to use a motorized rubber wheel to spin up the rotor to get it to sync up with the function generator pulse.
Then you stop your rotor and measure the power input which is 240 mA @ 12.47 V. The output is the same, 74 mA @ 12.49V.
However, with the rotor spinning, the input power is 180 mA @ 12.47 volts. That is less than the case with the rotor stopped or removed.
WOW.
And you have the gall to say this, "Maybe some one else will post my exact words for you MH,so as you dont have to go and watch it again," trying to pretend that I didn't catch that or see that or whatever.
Everything I have posted in this thread has fully acknowledged your measurements so stop playing that game. In addition, I have explained your real-world measurements and what they mean between something like three and five times in this thread already.
If you are not understanding what I am saying, just ask me. Lay your cards on the table, don't bluff if you are not understanding something. Don't zone out or feign that I am not seeing what you are presenting in your clips because I saw what you said and I fully acknowledged what you said and acknowledged your measurements in this very thread about 10 times.
To me it looks like you are doing nothing more than saying, "You are not seeing my numbers so you must be daft." Nothing could be further from the truth. I saw and acknowledged your numbers and explained it all - several times already.
The bottom line is this: It's not me that has to look at your clips because "I am not catching something" - It's you that has to reread this thread and try to understand it and come back if you have any comments or questions and I will be pleased to respond. It's time for you to stop this "revolving door" where you say "look at my clips" because I have looked at your clips. Just read the thread and that will be readily apparent.
MileHigh
You have completely lost the plot MH.
Everything I have posted and shown is fact, and everything you have posted is wrong, and only wrong because it dosnt conform to you outdated understandings.
I give you 1 opportunity here to tell me how you would like me to tune the pulse width to optimum coil performance before the rotor is bought into play-I will follow your instructions to the letter. We will calculate that efficiency before and then after the rotor is bought into play. When I once again show that the rotor with the magnets increases the efficiency above your optimum efficiency, you are then to explain as to how that happened.
I will tell you right now MH, your conservation of energy law will not hold up in this situation. But now is your chance to prove me wrong-which you are yet to do.
Brad
It's showdown time mate!
Got me popcorn ready and bets on you ;)
DING, DING, DING
Well I was going to go and see star wars but this looks a lot more interesting. 8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MooNISe8aM
I'm not going to click on that MH as I suspect it maybe a spoiler EDIT: Could not help myself I googled the URL. Very appropriate :)
Quote from: tinman on December 16, 2015, 11:28:17 PM
You have completely lost the plot MH.
I give you 1 opportunity here to tell me how you would like me to tune the pulse width to optimum coil performance before the rotor is bought into play-I will follow your instructions to the letter. We will calculate that efficiency before and then after the rotor is bought into play. When I once again show that the rotor with the magnets increases the efficiency above your optimum efficiency, you are then to explain as to how that happened.
Start with a pulse width of zero and the slowly increase the pulse width so that the maximum current at the end of the pulse hits 500 mV, 1V and 1.5V as per the attached diagram and calculate the three efficiencies.
My one concern is your core material and how much hysteresis losses there might be. I don't know what the material is and what the losses might be. By trying three pulse widths I am hoping that I have my bases covered. I am assuming that very short pulses may be more affected by hysteresis losses. Likewise there is a chance that the longer pulse width that you are using to drive the rotor will be minimally affected by the hysteresis losses. Somebody like Verpies or TK would probably have a handle on that issue.
You may have to switch over to a digital multimeter if the scope can't make a reliable measurement on the input current for the short pulse widths. If that happens then you need to keep a level playing field by also using a digital multimeter for the input current when you are driving the rotor with a longer pulse width. This all goes back to Poynt99's excellent videos that show how accurate digital multimeters can be in cases like this. You are already using a digital multimeter to measure the output current so you should be fine there.
On your end you have to follow the plot. I gave you a lot of information in this thread explaining the how, what, and why of what you are observing and measuring you have not commented on any of it, and for all I know you have ignored it and/or not understood it. That is not acceptable and you have to do better than that. Also, you have not put forth any kind of technical argument to make your case and that is something that you need to do. As you know TK often states that you have to do real experiments and not just make observations. Right now all that you are doing is making observations.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on December 17, 2015, 12:50:04 AM
MileHigh
QuoteStart with a pulse width of zero and the slowly increase the pulse width so that the maximum current at the end of the pulse hits 500 mV, 1V and 1.5V as per the attached diagram and calculate the three efficiencies.
I will do better than that. I will start at the 500mV(mA) mark,and increase the pulse width until we hit the 750mV mark,and i will go up in 250mV increments,as that was what i was going to do anyway. So i will double the precision you ask for.
QuoteMy one concern is your core material and how much hysteresis losses there might be. I don't know what the material is and what the losses might be. By trying three pulse widths I am hoping that I have my bases covered. I am assuming that very short pulses may be more affected by hysteresis losses. Likewise there is a chance that the longer pulse width that you are using to drive the rotor will be minimally affected by the hysteresis losses. Somebody like Verpies or TK would probably have a handle on that issue.
As i stated in the video in question,that coil is the first one i ever built--way back in 1999. The core material is the larger gauge soft iron wire they used in coat hangers back in those days. Each cut length was dipped into a pot of varnish,and allowed to dry. They are then glued into the former with two pack epoxy.
QuoteYou may have to switch over to a digital multimeter if the scope can't make a reliable measurement on the input current for the short pulse widths. If that happens then you need to keep a level playing field by also using a digital multimeter for the input current when you are driving the rotor with a longer pulse width.
that is also the other thing i was going to do,and i will be adding 3 of those large caps between the battery and DMM to smooth out any pulses of current.
QuoteThis all goes back to Poynt99's excellent videos that show how accurate digital multimeters can be in cases like this. You are already using a digital multimeter to measure the output current so you should be fine there.
You get no argument from me there,and i have stated many times that DMMs do a very good job at smoothing out the pulses.
QuoteOn your end you have to follow the plot. I gave you a lot of information in this thread explaining the how, what, and why of what you are observing and measuring you have not commented on any of it, and for all I know you have ignored it and/or not understood it.
I have done nothing but comment on your assumptions MH,and i am trying to tell you that you have it ass about. Everything you said to try and explain what was going on,was incorrect,as it was based around the assumption that i tuned the coil while the rotor was running,which you later found out was incorrect.
QuoteThat is not acceptable and you have to do better than that. Also, you have not put forth any kind of technical argument to make your case and that is something that you need to do. As you know TK often states that you have to do real experiments and not just make observations. Right now all that you are doing is making observations.
The only reason that you dont see what you deem a technical argument MH,is because what is happening here(in the DUT) dose not fit what you accept as reality. Reality is on the bench MH,not in the laws of days gone by.
In fact MH, thinking about it some more,i am going to increase the stepped increments even more,so as we can be 100% certain that we dont miss some sort of sweet spot in the coil. I will start from a 1% duty cycle,and raise it by 1% increments until we hit your 1.5 amps-which would be 1.5 v peak over the CVR. That is the best i can do. All we have to find during this test is an efficiency that exceeds that of what we had with the rotor,and that efficiency was 41.22%
So this is the bench mark your test has to show or beat MH-->41.22%,as this is the best electrical P/in to P/out i have achieved so far with the rotor in play. I will of course run that test again using the DMMs amp meter,so as to keep it all far and square.
It is my wedding anniversary today,and my wife and myself are going out to dinner in about an hour. BUT,even though i have work tomorrow,i will be burning the midnight oil to get this video up tonight for you. In return,all i ask is that you open your eyes,and try to put away what you believe is real,and see that permanent magnets can do useful work,and in this system(the DUT) they do that by reducing the P/in while the P/out remains the same.
My argument will not sit with you MH,as it go's against what you believe. You are also under the assumption that what you see me post is all that i have done. Well im sorry MH,but i have gone much further than what you have seen,but as i got to see first hand,if you just throw it all out there at once,then you get called all sorts of thing's. So from now on,it is bit by bit,and the first thing to prove is that the magnets are actually doing useful work.
You may be now figuring out what the ! accurate power measurements in pulsed systems harder than you think! thread was all about. I already knew how to measure power accurately,as poynt taught me this long ago--i could even dig up the thread if need be,but im sure poynt will vouch for this. But wasnt it funny to see that some of the best of them had to go away and think about it for a while,and figure out what was going on. That very thread was a lead up to this thread,and to make sure we all had the same idea on how to accurately measure P/in and P/out.
So long story short MH,i knew i was going to meet opposition from guys like your self,when i made the claim that permanent magnets can do useful work. I have had this planed out for some time,and i have carried out the very test you put forward above many time's-->and yes,i already know the outcome. Do you really think that this presentation(the DUT,and the results that go with it) was thought up over night. No,there have been many late nights over many years building up to this moment--the moment you see permanent magnets doing useful work. What you see here is only the beginning,as i have gone as far as thermal test data on the inductors core it self--just so as it cant be said that the thermal energy is being transformed into electrical energy.
So we shall see soon enough.
Brad.
Quote from: verpies on December 16, 2015, 11:18:56 AM
...and how are your scope probes connected to this circuit ?
For example:
Ch1 --> point B
G1 --> point C
Ch2 --> GND
G2 --> point C
That is not my circuit.
Circuit and scope connections below.
Brad
Brad:
I am assuming that you are going to place a miltimeter across the CSR to measure voltage to measure the average current draw from the source battery.
It's purely a question of personal taste but I think my preference would be to put the CSR above the transistor and then have the scope and function generator ground be the same as the source battery ground. Then have a "floating" multimeter across the CSR.
That way the scope, function generator, and the battery array share the same ground and they don't "bounce" relative to each other like you have in your existing schematic. The way it is set up right now you can have a teenie amount of AC coupling between the battery array and the scope + fucntion generator. You are also putting what amounts to an AC load on the top of the CSR because it has to make the whole scope and function generator "bounce" relative to the batteries. Presumably the batteries will be AC coupled to the floor or table, a kind of virtual AC ground reference. There is probably a slim possibility that the small amount of AC coupling will affect your results. I can't tell you for sure because I have never done that.
MileHigh
Quote from: tinman on December 17, 2015, 06:06:50 PM
That is not my circuit.
Circuit and scope connections below.
If the FG's ground was at the circuit ground thene CSR at the emitter would weaken the turn-ON of the transistor because it would decrease the base-emitter voltage, but since you have the FG's ground at the top of the CSR, then that problem is mitigated. You FG is "shaking" at little by the CSR's V
DROP, though.
The other difference I see is that you substituted a battery for the previous 100Ω resistor across the recovery cap.
Moving the diode on the other side of the cap does not make much difference.
You recovery circuit still will not operate at full efficiency because C2 is not empty before each "flyback" pulse. It just sits at the voltage of the battery.
Only an empty capacitor can absorb the "flyback" pulse with the most efficiency.
P.S.
Maybe you do not have a stiffening capacitor C1 but you should in a pulsed circuit. It should be connected with thick short wires to the point where the CSR connects to the circuit's ground and to the positive side of the coil.
Quote from: verpies on December 17, 2015, 07:34:36 PM
The CSR at the emitter weakens the turn-ON of the transistor because it decreases the base-collector voltage. Oh well...
The other difference I see is that you substituted a battery for the previous 100Ω resistor across the recovery cap.
Moving the diode on the other side of the cap does not make much difference.
I am not quite sure what you mean by decreasing the base-collector voltage? Perhaps you meant the base-emitter voltage? If that's the case it's no problem because the function generator is "bouncing" along with the top of the CSR potential. However, in my previous posting I express some concerns about that in general.
I think having a battery instead of the 100-ohm resistor is preferable for measuring the output power. You reduce the affect of the diode drop in the basic output power measurement like that. So I think a conventional "JB charging battery" configuration will be fine for his test.
Quote from: MileHigh on December 17, 2015, 07:48:36 PM
I am not quite sure what you mean by decreasing the base-collector voltage? Perhaps you meant the base-emitter voltage? If that's the case it's no problem because the function generator is "bouncing" along with the top of the CSR potential. However, in my previous posting I express some concerns about that in general.
Yes, base-emitter. Good catch.
Thanks
Quote from: verpies on December 17, 2015, 07:34:36 PM
If the FG's ground was at the circuit ground thene CSR at the emitter would weaken the turn-ON of the transistor because it would decrease the base-emitter voltage, but since you have the FG's ground at the top of the CSR, then that problem is mitigated. You FG is "shaking" at little by the CSR's VDROP, though.
The other difference I see is that you substituted a battery for the previous 100Ω resistor across the recovery cap.
Moving the diode on the other side of the cap does not make much difference.
You recovery circuit still will not operate at full efficiency because C2 is not empty before each "flyback" pulse. It just sits at the voltage of the battery.
Only an empty capacitor can absorb the "flyback" pulse with the most efficiency.
P.S.
Maybe you do not have a stiffening capacitor C1 but you should in a pulsed circuit. It should be connected with thick short wires to the point where the CSR connects to the circuit's ground and to the positive side of the coil.
Verpies
I think you have my DUT mixed up with Luc's, as I have never had a recovery cap with a 1K ohm resistor--I have always had the second battery recieving the recovered energy.
Quote from: MileHigh on December 17, 2015, 06:38:57 PM
Brad:
I am assuming that you are going to place a miltimeter across the CSR to measure voltage to measure the average current draw from the source battery.
It's purely a question of personal taste but I think my preference would be to put the CSR above the transistor and then have the scope and function generator ground be the same as the source battery ground. Then have a "floating" multimeter across the CSR.
That way the scope, function generator, and the battery array share the same ground and they don't "bounce" relative to each other like you have in your existing schematic. The way it is set up right now you can have a teenie amount of AC coupling between the battery array and the scope + fucntion generator. You are also putting what amounts to an AC load on the top of the CSR because it has to make the whole scope and function generator "bounce" relative to the batteries. Presumably the batteries will be AC coupled to the floor or table, a kind of virtual AC ground reference. There is probably a slim possibility that the small amount of AC coupling will affect your results. I can't tell you for sure because I have never done that.
MileHigh
Yes, I will be using multimeter to read the voltage across the CVRs. One on the input, and one on the output.My DMMs actually have a higher resolution than my scope, as they go one decimal point of a milivolt, where as the scope dose not. At the low current levels, the scopes mean V across the CVR seems to jump up and down in 4mv lots, where as the DMMs go up in .1mv lots, and the DMMs are much more stable.
My wife and myself stayed out a bit late last night, so I didnt get much done.
Also I agree that the SSG type circuit will do just fine for this test.
Brad
Here is my new test device which uses the coils flyback to do work.
Link to video demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8kwdrHCyig (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8kwdrHCyig)
Same observation, it's more efficient with the coil and magnet rotor.
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on December 18, 2015, 12:20:10 AM
Here is my new test device which uses the coils flyback to do work.
Link to video demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8kwdrHCyig (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8kwdrHCyig)
Same observation, it's more efficient with the coil and magnet rotor.
Luc
What do you mean by "efficiency?" I asked you the last time you posted something and you did not answer so I am asking you again for this new posting.
What I am seeing in your scope captures is that without a rotor in place the current draw of the coil increases so your math trace shows increased power consumption of the coil. That's pretty much expected. I don't think I see any measurements for the back spike power. So what information are we supposed to be getting from your scope captures?
Quote from: tinman on December 17, 2015, 11:17:23 PM
I think you have my DUT mixed up with Luc's, as I have never had a recovery cap with a 1K ohm resistor--I have always had the second battery recieving the recovered energy.
I don't think so.
You posted this schematic
here (http://overunity.com/16167/sharing-ideas-on-how-to-make-a-more-efficent-motor-using-flyback-moderated/msg468258/#msg468258).
Aslo, I was writing about a 100Ω resistor, not 1K, because I heard/saw one in your video.
Quote from: verpies on December 18, 2015, 02:01:36 AM
I don't think so.
You posted this schematic here (http://overunity.com/16167/sharing-ideas-on-how-to-make-a-more-efficent-motor-using-flyback-moderated/msg468258/#msg468258).
Aslo, I was writing about a 100Ω resistor, not 1K, because I heard/saw one in your video.
Verpies
Your in the wrong thread. This thread i have always used the SSG circuit with second battery,not the schematic you posted. Read the very first post of this thread,and watch the very first video. The schematic you posted is from Luc's thread-not this one.
To go mixing up different schematics from different threads will only add confusion.
Brad
Quote from: gotoluc on December 18, 2015, 12:20:10 AM
Here is my new test device which uses the coils flyback to do work.
Link to video demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8kwdrHCyig (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8kwdrHCyig)
Same observation, it's more efficient with the coil and magnet rotor.
Luc
Hey Luc
The video is set to private--cant view it.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 18, 2015, 04:30:07 AM
Hey Luc
The video is set to private--cant view it.
Brad
Yes, sorry about that. I forgot to make it public after I edited the two parts together.
Should be good to go now.
Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8kwdrHCyig (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8kwdrHCyig)
The circuit used is as below.
I inverted Ch2 to keep the scope shots looking like the previous or else the voltage would be inverted to the current?
Luc
I made an error in the above circuit.
Please find the correct scope shots below. First is with the rotor then the next is without and below is the same but with math.
Luc
OK,after many attempts to get to the workshop to get this done,here are the result's.
MH
If this is not how you wanted it done,let me know.
The video is unlisted,and no adds,so you must use the link below to view.
Brad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL6uBgDoVaY
Brad:
Great first clip. On the measurement side the percentage efficiencies without the rotor are clearly not that great and I am wondering why that is. Some possible candidates include 1) there are major losses due to the core material, 2) the measurements are off because you are not using non-inductive CVRs. There may be some others that I am not thinking of.
I can't believe that I didn't mention the use of non-inductive CVRs because that has been drilled into my head over the years and it especially applies to cases like this where when the transistor shuts off and you have an instant switch-on of current. If you have an analog scope you should take a look at the waveform across the power-out CVR. Crank up the brightness and see if you can see any leading and trailing spikes on the output current pulse from the coil. There are also simple filtering circuits that give your multimeter an assist for making the average current measurement but I don't know if you really need them.
Please see the attached diagram compliments of Verpies that shows you the energizing efficiency for a coil when you are pulsing it. If you measure the resistance of the coil wire and the inductance of the coil, then you can calculate the Tau for the coil itself. If you are pulsing the coil for a fraction of the Tau time then your efficiency should get very good. For example, at 0.25 Tau the ratio is 6:1 for energy stored vs. energy dissipated when energizing the coil which translates into 85.7% efficiency in energizing the coil. Then that energy is pumped into a 12.6 volt battery with a relatively short pulse of current. So let's say for the sake of argument the discharge efficiency is 80%. That means the overall efficiency should be about 68% and you are nowhere near that.
MileHigh
Carroll:
Quoting myself:
QuoteFantastic work like usual Itsu.
For you scope traces, this time after taking a one-minute look, I cannot see any appreciable differences between the two waveforms. However, your multimeter is showing slightly higher voltage across the capacitor which is telling us that slightly more current is being drawn by the drive coil when the rotor is stopped. This is to be expected because there is no influence from any counter-EMF in the drive coil from the moving magnets in the spinning rotor.
With respect to attempting to measure the added power that has to be pumped into the drive coil to make the rotor spin, that could be done. However, that would require some thought and careful preparation and developing the right measurement regime to detect it. Right now what is happening is that when the rotor is in place and spinning, the reduced current draw due to the counter-EMF induced into the drive coil is overshadowing the extra power that is added to make the rotor spin. In other words, the preliminary analysis is that more current draw is reduced due to the counter-EMF than the extra current draw that is required to make the rotor spin. There are two opposite effects that are happening at the same time with respect to the current draw and it is not necessarily that easy to separate them from each other.
Then you said this:
MH,
Did you read what you wrote? You just posted that the magnets are generating more power back into the coil than the extra power it takes to turn the rotor. That has to mean the system is more efficient with the rotor than without. I am amazed you can't see that. Every single person that has done this test for you has shown you that either the rotor made no difference (only one as I recall) or in all other cases the input power went down. I just don't understand how you can keep saying adding a rotor is not making these systems more efficient.
And by the way you never did comment about why so many industrial motors now have permanent magnets in them since you claim magnets can't do any work.
Respectfully,
Carroll
>>>>
Okay, let's take a look at what I said and your follow-up comments.
I am suggesting that there are two effects happening on the current draw at the same time and one is masking the other. You, on the other hand are suggesting that, "magnets are generating more power back into the coil than the extra power it takes to turn the rotor."
The magnets are not "generating power back into the coil." The moving magnets are inducing a counter-EMF in the coil and that's a completely different thing. All the counter-EMF is doing is reducing the current draw of the coil. That's it, there is no power generation. Here is an equivalent effect: Imagine as a thought experiment where the rotor is turning but there is only power provided by the coil to make it turn, but there is no counter-EMF from the moving rotor magnets. Instead, we have "replaced" the counter-EMF with a small DC battery placed inside the coil that produces a DC counter-EMF that is equivalent to the moving magnet counter-EMF. We run the test and we get exactly the same results. Can you imagine that?
So that suggests an interesting test, a test that should be able to measure the "masked" power required to make the rotor turn. Again, the assumption is this: We can't directly measure the power required to make the rotor turn because two effects are happening at the same time that counteract each other: 1) counter-EMF due to the moving rotor magnets is reducing the current draw of the coil and doing nothing else, and 2) the power required to make the rotor turn is increasing the current draw of the coil.
The simple test is this:
1) Run the pulse motor with the rotor spinning with a narrow and efficient pulse and measure the average power draw of the coil and the average power in the back spike as accurately as possible.
2) Now, keeping the exact same pulse width pulse the coil without the rotor in place. For starters, we will expect to see an increased average power draw from the coil, and also an increased average power in the back spike.
3) Here is the step where we should (finally) be able to measure how much power it takes to make the rotor spin: With the setup unchanged from step 2) above, we will now slowly reduce the voltage that we drive the coil with. By slowly reducing the drive voltage on the coil, we are in effect emulating the counter-EMF from the (now not present) moving rotor magnets. Here is the key point: We slowly reduce the drive voltage to the coil until the average back spike power is identical to the average back spike power in step 1).
Finally, you compare the coil average input power in step 1) with the coil input power in step 3). Note that in both cases we have the identical average back spike power. All that we did was lower the drive voltage in step 3).
If you do this carefully, you should see that the average coil input power in step 1) (rotor turning), is higher than the average coil input power in step 2) (no rotor).
The difference in the two input powers will effectively be the power required to make the rotor spin. Note that it takes very little power to make the rotor spin so it will be a tricky measurement to make.
Please anyone that wants to comment on this test let me know what you think.
MileHigh
Carroll:
QuoteAnd by the way you never did comment about why so many industrial motors now have permanent magnets in them since you claim magnets can't do any work.
There is really nothing significant to say for this. Perhaps older-generation industrial motors used the mains power flowing through windings to emulate the needed magnets to make the motor work. I forget what the name for that kind of motor is. That made for a cheap and inefficient motor, and perhaps magnets were much more expensive to manufacture back then.
Nowadays we are more concerned with motor efficiency and will get that efficiency with better motors built with permanent magnets. It has nothing to do with "magnets doing work." The work is done back at the power plant.
MileHigh
Quote from: tinman on December 19, 2015, 08:47:01 AM
OK,after many attempts to get to the workshop to get this done,here are the result's.
MH
If this is not how you wanted it done,let me know.
The video is unlisted,and no adds,so you must use the link below to view.
Brad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL6uBgDoVaY
Tinman,
An efficiency of 40% is very low for a boost converter. If you were to modify your circuit, layout, and drive parameters specifically intending to make a better boost converter without the rotor, 60% or better efficiency would seem much more reasonable (with 75-85% not an unrealistic expectation).
My take on this thread is that you have constructed a very inefficient boost converter. Most likely, a portion of the efficiency loss is due to non-idealized switching of the inductor. With the rotor in play, some of the energy being wasted in the non-idealized switching of the inductor is used to accelerate the rotor. During the off time, energy stored in the rotor's inertia is recovered by the inductor in generator like action. In this fashion, energy being lost or wasted without the rotor is instead being stored and recovered with the rotor.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on December 19, 2015, 12:32:38 PM
Tinman,
An efficiency of 40% is very low for a boost converter. If you were to modify your circuit, layout, and drive parameters specifically intending to make a better boost converter without the rotor, 60% or better efficiency would seem much more reasonable (with 80-90% not an unrealistic expectation).
PW
PW, in your efficiency calculations of Brad's boost converter, have you included the power dissipated of each 1 Ohm CVR (in and out) and the DC resistance of his non ideal coil?
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on December 19, 2015, 12:49:37 PM
PW, in your efficiency calculations of Brad's boost converter, have you included the power dissipated of each 1 Ohm CVR (in and out) and the DC resistance of his non ideal coil?
Luc
Luc,
No, I just grabbed a number from Tinman's video. Even with 10-20% measurement errors and losses, as a boost converter the efficiency seems very low.
There's plenty of room for improving the circuit as a boost converter, including some of the areas you mentioned.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on December 19, 2015, 12:57:46 PM
Luc,
No, I just grabbed a number from Tinman's video. Even with 10-20% measurement errors and losses, as a boost converter the efficiency seems very low.
There's plenty of room for improving the circuit as a boost converter, including some of the areas you mentioned.
PW
So does it really matter if this device is not an efficient boost converter?... I don't think so, as Brad's device stays the same non efficient way since all he changes is adding or removing one thing... the magnet rotor.
I think it's a valid comparison test and we have to stop trying to make it something it can never be, like a boost converter which the coil would need to be in a potted ferrite core to be efficient, which means the coil could
not be used as a motor coil, right?... as there are no efficient boost converters with open end cores (like Brad's coil) and on top of that, operating at low frequency that will ever be efficient. So why try to even go there?
Just my opinion
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on December 19, 2015, 01:24:45 PM
So does it really matter if this device is not an efficient boost converter?... I don't think so, as Brad's device stays the same non efficient way since all he changes is adding or removing one thing... the magnet rotor.
I think it's a valid comparison test and we have to stop trying to make it something it can never be, like a boost converter which the coil would need to be in a potted ferrite core to be efficient, which means the coil could not be used as a motor coil, right?... as there are no efficient boost converters with open end cores (like Brad's coil) and on top of that, operating at low frequency that will ever be efficient. So why try to even go there?
Just my opinion
Luc
Luc,
I'm not trying to burst bubbles here, but I suspect that if the transistor's drive current, layout inductance, rail impedance, switching time, etc, were modified the circuit could be made more ideal as a boost converter using that inductor.
What I take away from the videos is that given the test parameters used, the rotor makes the circuit less "inefficient" and that is most likely due to the capturing and recovering of a portion of the losses via the rotor's inertia.
Just because "something" makes something less inefficient does not necessarily mean that "that something" is actually providing energy to the system.
PW
Great observations PW. I was expecting to see better efficiency also, perhaps 60% or greater. I am not an expert in layout and other considerations like you expressed. I like your thoughts about the rotor acting like a kind of "energy football" and creating a means for reducing the inefficiency. In a way it's the classic apparent conundrum, "I add a load and my power consumption goes down." Part and parcel of not accounting for all of your waste heat power and where it goes.
We can't forget that the basis for this investigation is "Proof that Magnetic Fields Increase Efficiency in Pulse Motors" as in when you add a spinning rotor in front of a pulsing coil to make a pulse motor. The argument is that somehow the magnets themselves are acting like a source of power that is boosting the efficiency. Or should that be lowering the inefficiency?
MileHigh
This thread reminds me of a project that I did years ago called the "Light Multiplier". A number of people on this forum looked at it. Here is the video where I did simple amp draw measurements:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afEWXadfpqY
Nothing really special is going on here ---I think. A Phd friend of mine did math calculations on it and found something interesting. He was going to build one for further study but I don't think that he ever did.
Here is the build video if anyone wants to try it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faDZLDUls48
--Rusty
I think the real problem here is what people are defining as "work". A turbo does not do any "work". But when you add one to a gasoline or diesel engine it most certainly improves the efficiency. Maybe that is not "work" but is is most definitely beneficial. I see the rotor the same way. Maybe the magnets don't do "work" but they sure seem to be beneficial in almost all the tests that have been done on this forum. If you don't want to call that work that is fine with me. But until I see otherwise I have to believe the rotor with magnets is causing a beneficial effect.
Carroll
Lidmotor:
Great pair of clips and yes indeed the effect is there also. Six years later and you are still making clips!
Carroll:
The rotor may improve the efficiency by reducing the inefficiency, if you get what I mean. Nonetheless, you are still expending electrical power to make the rotor turn. Brad is not stating that, and that's the sticking point.
It's not easy to do a full energy audit for a device. In this case we are talking about a full energy audit without the rotor, and one with the rotor. In the pie chart for the setup with the rotor, there is a slice, no matter now small it may be, that is the slice that goes into powering the rotor and making it spin. There is no "magnet energy" slice in the pie chart.
MileHigh
MH--
The energy pie gets eaten that is for sure. Everything grabs a piece of it. Old Mr. Heat takes a big slice and never even says thank you. >:(
You raise a very good point. Is there such a thing as "magnet energy" that can be added to the pie. So far (going back hundreds of years) the answer has come up --no.
Quote from: Lidmotor on December 19, 2015, 03:45:40 PM
MH--
The energy pie gets eaten that is for sure. Everything grabs a piece of it. Old Mr. Heat takes a big slice and never even says thank you. >:(
You raise a very good point. Is there such a thing as "magnet energy" that can be added to the pie. So far (going back hundreds of years) the answer has come up --no.
@Lidmotor - I must disagree. Energy is already there in the Copper Conductor. The Magnet does do work, separating the Charges in the Copper Conductor.
The trusty Electrical "Generator" has provided us with Electrical Energy for some 184 Years.
See:
Electrical Energy 101 - Faradays Law of Induction - Part 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y7HKsDfY68)Electrical Energy 101 - Faradays Law of Induction - Part 2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqStIeja_s)Electrical Energy 101 - Faradays Law of Induction - Part 3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LkrGGzLNJU)Electric Motors DC Motors and Generators - Part 1 - 1961 US Army Training Film (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSVF-atWWZk)Electric Motors AC Motors and Generators - Part 2 - 1961 US Army Training Film (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlnXP2L7RSs)Electricity & Electronics Current 1974 US Air Force Training Film (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T5iYuOBgsk)and
Electricity & Electronics - Voltage - 1974 US Air Force Training Film (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzpOXZSMJ9U)How Magnets Produce Electricity - 1954 US Navy Training Film (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xhqMDMMgz0) Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Quote from: MileHigh on December 19, 2015, 02:37:57 PM
Lidmotor:
Great pair of clips and yes indeed the effect is there also. Six years later and you are still making clips!
Carroll:
The rotor may improve the efficiency by reducing the inefficiency, if you get what I mean. Nonetheless, you are still expending electrical power to make the rotor turn. Brad is not stating that, and that's the sticking point.
It's not easy to do a full energy audit for a device. In this case we are talking about a full energy audit without the rotor, and one with the rotor. In the pie chart for the setup with the rotor, there is a slice, no matter now small it may be, that is the slice that goes into powering the rotor and making it spin. There is no "magnet energy" slice in the pie chart.
MileHigh
The same argument could be used for the turbo also. Putting the turbo into the exhaust stream restricts the exhaust stream to some extent and this does indeed reduce the efficiency of the ICE. BUT that is more than offset by the large increase in efficiency caused by the increase in fuel and air mixture that is forced into the cylinder. So turbos are used regularly to increase the OVERALL efficiency of the ICE.
I want to make one thing clear at this point. I started watching this thread and the others dealing with this subject with an open mind. I did not know whether a spinning rotor would make a coil more efficient or not. I thought the rotor might cause the efficiency to go down. But I didn't know that so I kept an open mind and waited to see what the tests would show. I have been way too busy with home projects to have time to set up these tests myself. My sincere thanks to those of you that have taken the time to do the tests. Now I know a spinning rotor with magnets is beneficial.
Carroll
Nope, there is no "charge separation." A battery or the windings in a generator coil will raise the voltage of the electrons so that they continue on their merry way through the circuit. It's like marbles that roll down a track and when they get to the bottom an elevator lifts them up so they can roll down the track again. The battery or the generator will act like the elevator lifting up the marbles. No charges are separated like in a capacitor or other static electricity example.
Quote from: citfta on December 19, 2015, 05:40:27 PM
The same argument could be used for the turbo also. Putting the turbo into the exhaust stream restricts the exhaust stream to some extent and this does indeed reduce the efficiency of the ICE. BUT that is more than offset by the large increase in efficiency caused by the increase in fuel and air mixture that is forced into the cylinder. So turbos are used regularly to increase the OVERALL efficiency of the ICE.
I want to make one thing clear at this point. I started watching this thread and the others dealing with this subject with an open mind. I did not know whether a spinning rotor would make a coil more efficient or not. I thought the rotor might cause the efficiency to go down. But I didn't know that so I kept an open mind and waited to see what the tests would show. I have been way too busy with home projects to have time to set up these tests myself. My sincere thanks to those of you that have taken the time to do the tests. Now I know a spinning rotor with magnets is beneficial.
Carroll
Yes the turbo taps into the usable and untapped power available in the exhaust gasses.
The question remains: If you had the choice between a spinning rotor with magnets to reduce power consumption and simply reducing the drive voltage to reduce power consumption which one would you choose?
I will leave it at that and we will see what Brad has to say. I like the fact that Brad has a real power-out to power-in metric to work with. If you don't have a tangible application or metric it all becomes a variation on angels dancing on the head of a pin.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on December 19, 2015, 10:38:36 AM
For example, at 0.25 Tau the ratio is 6:1 for energy stored vs. energy dissipated when energizing the coil which translates into 85.7% efficiency in energizing the coil.
How did you get from 6:1 ratio to 85.7% efficiency?
Also, what happens to efficiency when I allow the current in the coil to stabilize? I think they call it the V/R limit.
Finally, how can I see on the scope that I am close to this limit?
Quote from: MileHigh on December 19, 2015, 05:41:30 PM
Nope, there is no "charge separation." A battery or the windings in a generator coil will raise the voltage of the electrons so that they continue on their merry way through the circuit. It's like marbles that roll down a track and when they get to the bottom an elevator lifts them up so they can roll down the track again. The battery or the generator will act like the elevator lifting up the marbles. No charges are separated like in a capacitor or other static electricity example.
How MileHigh, How does a Magnetic Field Cutting the Conductor at right angles, raise the Voltage Potential? When normally we would see none!
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
This is a fantastic read: Spin–charge separation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin%E2%80%93charge_separation)
I quote, because its such a good read:
Quote
In condensed matter physics, spin–charge separation is an unusual behavior of electrons in some materials in which they 'split' into three independent particles, the spinon, orbiton and the chargon (or its antiparticle, the holon). The electron can always be theoretically considered as a bound state of the three, with the spinon carrying the spin of the electron, the orbiton carrying the orbital degree of freedom and the chargon carrying the charge, but in certain conditions they can become deconfined and behave as independent particles.
The theory of spin–charge separation originates with the work of Sin-Itiro Tomonaga who developed an approximate method for treating one-dimensional interacting quantum systems in 1950.[1] This was then developed by Joaquin Mazdak Luttinger in 1963 with an exactly solvable model which demonstrated spin–charge separation.[2] In 1981 F. Duncan M. Haldane generalized Luttinger's model to the Tomonaga–Luttinger liquid concept[3] whereby the physics of Luttinger's model was shown theoretically to be a general feature of all one-dimensional metallic systems. Although Haldane treated spinless fermions, the extension to spin-½ fermions and associated spin–charge separation was clear so that the promised follow-up paper did not appear.
Spin–charge separation is one of the most unusual manifestations of the concept of quasiparticles. This property is counterintuitive, because neither the spinon, with zero charge and spin half, nor the chargon, with charge minus one and zero spin, can be constructed as combinations of the electrons, holes, phonons and photons that are the constituents of the system. It is an example of fractionalization, the phenomenon in which the quantum numbers of the quasiparticles are not multiples of those of the elementary particles, but fractions.
Since the original electrons in the system are fermions, one of the spinon and chargon has to be a fermion, and the other one has to be a boson. One is theoretically free to make the assignment in either way, and no observable quantity can depend on this choice. The formalism with bosonic chargon and fermionic spinon is usually referred to as the "slave-fermion" formalism, while the formalism with fermionic chargon and bosonic spinon is called the "Schwinger boson" formalism. Both approaches have been used for strongly correlated systems, but neither has been proved to be completely successful. One difficulty of the spin–charge separation is that while spinon and chargon are not gauge-invariant quantities, i.e. unphysical objects, there are no direct physical probes to observe them. Therefore more often than not one has to use thermal dynamical or macroscopic techniques to see their effects. This implies that which formalism we choose is irrelevant to real physics, so in principle both approaches should give us the same answer. The reason we obtain radically different answers from these two formalisms is probably because of the wrong mean field solution we choose, which means that we are dealing with the spin–charge separation in a wrong way.
The same theoretical ideas have been applied in the framework of ultracold atoms. In a two-component Bose gas in 1D, strong interactions can produce a maximal form of spin–charge separation.[4]
So normally, we go from no Voltage Potential Difference at all, to a Voltage potential difference simply by cutting the Conductor at 90 degrees with a Magnetic Field... What is it that could be doing this to the Conductor?
Chris Sykes
hyiq.org
Quote from: MileHigh on December 19, 2015, 02:37:57 PM
Lidmotor:
Great pair of clips and yes indeed the effect is there also. Six years later and you are still making clips!
Carroll:
It's not easy to do a full energy audit for a device. In this case we are talking about a full energy audit without the rotor, and one with the rotor. In the pie chart for the setup with the rotor, there is a slice, no matter now small it may be, that is the slice that goes into powering the rotor and making it spin. There is no "magnet energy" slice in the pie chart.
MileHigh
QuoteThe rotor may improve the efficiency by reducing the inefficiency, if you get what I mean. Nonetheless, you are still expending electrical power to make the rotor turn. Brad is not stating that, and that's the sticking point
.
Here is what i stated in the very first line,on the very first post
Quote: I posted a quick video showing how having a rotor with alternating magnetic field passing a pulsed inductor can improve the efficiency of that inductor as far as the inductive kickback output go's. ---> That is what i stated,and that is what i meant.
Regardless of how or why the external magnetic field dose it--it dose it,and if the external alternating magnetic field is changing the operating parameters of that inductor ,so as the efficiency (electrical) is increased,then those magnets are doing useful work.
We are not here to discus how efficient boost converters can be made,or to compare an efficient boost converter to what we have here as a DUT. We have taken an inductor that was hand wound on non ideal core material with chicken scratching windings,and have increased the efficiency of that inductor with the introduction of external alternating magnetic fields.
All losses that have been mentioned (E.G-transistor,resistor-ETC) are all present in both situations.
QuoteQuote from MH-->The rotor may improve the efficiency by reducing the inefficiency, if you get what I mean. Nonetheless, you are still expending electrical power to make the rotor turn.
You have just proven my claim,which was(as can be seen in my first paragraph in this thread)-I posted a quick video showing how having a rotor with alternating magnetic field passing a pulsed inductor can improve the efficiency of that inductor. The part you have wrong is that it takes more electrical power to spin that rotor,than what the rotor(external alternating magnetic fields) dose in improving the efficiency of that inductor--as can be clearly seen in all the tests carried out. If what you say were true,then we would see an increase of P/in,or a decrease in P/out-->which we do not.
QuoteThe magnets are not "generating power back into the coil." The moving magnets are inducing a counter-EMF in the coil and that's a completely different thing.
This statement is absolutely wrong MH-->a quick circuit analysis along with the scope shots below should tell you that the magnets !are! generating power to the charge battery,and thus the magnets are causing the coil to generate. The 1N5408 diode on the collector has a voltage drop of .4 volt's,and the charge battery at this scope shot point was 12.58 volts. Any voltage generated across the coil that is above 12.98v,a current begins to flow to the charge battery. We can clearly see in the scope shot that without the rotor,we see only the run (supply) battery voltage across the collector/emitter junction,but with the rotor we see a peak of about 14 volts across the collector/emitter junction,and once a voltage above 12.98 is reached,then the collector diode will start to conduct,and current will begin to flow through the charge battery/coil loop.
QuoteQuote MH Instead, we have "replaced" the counter-EMF with a small DC battery placed inside the coil that produces a DC counter-EMF that is equivalent to the moving magnet counter-EMF. We run the test and we get exactly the same results. Can you imagine that?
If you did that,then the P/in would rise,and the small battery would be discharged,where as the magnets are not discharged. You should also know that the spinning magnets are creating a current flow in the coil that is in the same direction as that that is supplied by the source battery-->the collector diode makes sure of this.
MH--and other guru's
Regardless of how you guys try to twist thing's around ,or make them sound,i have proven that what i claimed is exactly what is happening here,and that is that an external alternating magnetic field has indeed increased the efficiency of this DUT. It would also help if you looked a little closer and understand as to how this simple circuit operates. We would then not have incorrect statements like !!The magnets are not "generating power back into the coil." The moving magnets are inducing a counter-EMF in the coil and that's a completely different thing.!! being made here,as the magnets are clearly generating a current flow through the coil/charge battery loop during the off time of the transistor.
Next we will get down to the DC motor issue,which is electromagnet V permanent magnet's. Here we will see how much electrical energy is save when we replace the electromagnet with a PM.
Once again,we will see how the PM increase the efficiency of an electric motor.
Brad
Quote from: MileHigh on December 19, 2015, 02:37:57 PM
Lidmotor:
Great pair of clips and yes indeed the effect is there also. Six years later and you are still making clips!
MileHigh
That is a different effect. What is going on with Lidmotors experiment,is when in the presence of the rotating magnetic field,it is the magnetic field that is doing the switching of the transistor,and that frequency of switching is much lower than when the coil is removed from the external alternating magnetic field,and the DUT go's into self oscillation mode. As can be seen in both Lidmotors experiment,and Jonny Darvo's replication,the self oscillating mode produces much more light output from the LED's. So that is why you are seeing a P/in decrease when the coil is placed within the external magnetic field. With my DUT,the frequency and duty cycle remain the same,so these two effects are not the same.
Brad
Brad:
I will try to respond to the issues you raised. For starters nobody is contesting that you get less waste heat when you add the spinning rotor. PW suggested that it was the fact that the rotor was acting as a temporary store for the pulse energy coming from the coil and then kicking it back a fraction of a second later. I was suggesting that the passing rotor magnets were inducing counter-EMF in the coil and thus reducing its current draw, reducing its waste heat, and still giving you a decent back spike. For example, we have seen examples where the current draw drops in the middle of the ON time and then comes back up at the end giving you a decent back spike and also improves efficiency. There is no argument there. Effectively, the spinning rotor changes the overall electro-mechanical impedance of the pulse motor system and you get the same or perhaps an even better back spike with less waste heat.
However, here is a quote from you from the thread:
QuoteThe only opposition you will meet in this sort of research is those that are fixed in there way's,and have no room for change. These guys will also be the one's that will not be able to back up there claim that your information is wrong. They will give you no other means of showing the same effect that we have,but they will still argue the point with you--> !! PERMANENT MAGNETS CANNOT DO USEFUL WORK !!. Even when providing controlled experiment's,they will still argue against you. No matter what we do,it will never agree with these guy's-->that much has become painfully obvious in this thread.
So are you arguing for this test that permanent magnets can do useful work or not? I have heard you either post that claim in the past or perhaps you stated it in one of your clips.
I think that in the thread today before you recently posted that the general consensus was that permanent magnets cannot do useful work. Really all that is happening is the use of the rotor magnets is changing the configuration. Here is something for you to ponder: Suppose you changed the bearing for a Cadillac bearing that was as smooth as silk and the current consumption went down. Would you say that the new bearing was doing useful work?
I will try to respond to your comments in the next posting.
MileHigh
Brad:
QuoteI posted a quick video showing how having a rotor with alternating magnetic field passing a pulsed inductor can improve the efficiency of that inductor as far as the inductive kickback output go's. ---> That is what i stated,and that is what i meant.
Fair enough. However, there is a very decent chance that simply reducing the drive voltage for the coil without the rotor will give you the same or better results.
If you want to split hairs, "improving the efficiency of the inductor" is a poor choice of words. You are improving the efficiency of the system. Just like PW pointed out how better switching or layout can improve the efficiency of the system, or no rotor and a lower drive voltage may improve the efficiency of the system. What you are really trying to do is reduce the waste heat in the system, not "improve the efficiency of the inductor."
QuoteRegardless of how or why the external magnetic field dose it--it dose it,and if the external alternating magnetic field is changing the operating parameters of that inductor ,so as the efficiency (electrical) is increased,then those magnets are doing useful work.
No, just like changing the bearing for a Cadillac bearing and getting a more efficient system will not be doing useful work. Reducing the waste heat is absolutely not equivalent to doing useful work. The magnets are not doing useful work.
QuoteThis statement is absolutely wrong MH-->a quick circuit analysis along with the scope shots below should tell you that the magnets !are! generating power to the charge battery,and thus the magnets are causing the coil to generate.
Whatever power the magnets may be generating was received from the electrical energy that was pumped into the coil, which made the rotor spin faster, and then a fraction of a second later the rotor slowed down when power was put into the charging battery. This is the point that PW made. The rotor could indeed be acting like a small impedance matching improvement allowing more of the power pumped into the coil to make it to the charging battery. This is done in a roundabout way via the speeding up and slowing down of the spinning rotor. The magnets are not "generating power," they, along with the mechanical energy in the spinning rotor, are just acting like a link in a chain to get power pumped into the charging battery.
MileHigh
Brad:
Quotef you did that,then the P/in would rise,and the small battery would be discharged,where as the magnets are not discharged. You should also know that the spinning magnets are creating a current flow in the coil that is in the same direction as that that is supplied by the source battery-->the collector diode makes sure of this.
No, if you had an imaginary counter-EMF battery inside the coil then it would be in the opposite direction as the drive battery and it would get charged during the ON cycle and the input power would decrease.
Anyway, I hope that you can appreciate my points.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on December 19, 2015, 10:34:11 PM
Brad:
No, if you had an imaginary counter-EMF battery inside the coil then it would be in the opposite direction as the drive battery and it would get charged during the ON cycle and the input power would decrease.
Anyway, I hope that you can appreciate my points.
MileHigh
MH
If we place this imaginary counter EMF battery inside the coil,this is what would happen/
1-the P/in would decrease.
2-the battery would be charged.
3-the P/out would be decreased by slightly more than the P/in.
4- It can be clearly seen that with the rotor in place and spinning,creating our external alternating magnetic fields,there is no loss in P/out,and a clear drop in P/in.
This imaginary battery that creates the CEMF would make the coil no more efficient--and that is fact,as it just so happens that i have the very coil where we can place this imaginary counter EMF battery right in the middle of the winding's.
Here is what you are saying MH.
The magnets are inducing a CEMF in the coil,and this is what is reducing the P/in.
The P/in is supplying the electromagnetic energy that turns the rotor,that induces this CEMF in the coil. All this is happening while the P/out remains the same.
So the P/in is spinning the rotor.
The rotor induces a CEMF in the coil.
This CEMF is what reduces the P/in
All while the P/out remains the same
Do you not see what you are saying here MH?.
So no MH,your CEMF conclusion dose not hold water,and dose not increase the efficiency of the coil as per your CEMF battery experiment go's.
Brad
Brad:
QuoteIf we place this imaginary counter EMF battery inside the coil,this is what would happen/
1-the P/in would decrease.
2-the battery would be charged.
3-the P/out would be decreased by slightly more than the P/in.
4- It can be clearly seen that with the rotor in place and spinning,creating our external alternating magnetic fields,there is no loss in P/out,and a clear drop in P/in.
Let's assume that the passing rotor magnets induce counter-EMF in the coil and that it exists as some kind of waveform. You can open-circuit your coil and spin the rotor and see what it looks like. When I suggest a counter-EMF "battery" in the coil it's just to average out the counter-EMF waveform and turn it into an average DC voltage, that's all. It's not even a battery that gets charged, it's just an imaginary device that outputs a DC voltage to emulate the average counter-EMF waveform from the coil. That will make the average current draw of the coil decrease and chances are you will still have the same amount of power in the back spike.
The next step is to say, "Hey, who needs a DC counter-EMF voltage source inside the coil, I will simply reduce the supply voltage for the coil and I will get the same result."
That's the point, that all of this investigation into the "beneficial effects of a spinning rotor in front of a coil" can be approximately replicated by having no rotor and simply reducing the drive voltage to the coil. If you can reduce the drive voltage and have no rotor and get the same back spike power as the case where you have the regular drive voltage and a rotor then you can say mission accomplished.
This is just reasonable speculation: lower drive voltage with no rotor is equivalent to regular drive voltage with a rotor.
Unfortunately, your signals are buried in the "noise" of all of the power lost to heat and it's not necessarily easy to confirm this. Or perhaps a quick test will confirm this, I don't know.
MileHigh
QuoteHere is what you are saying MH.
The magnets are inducing a CEMF in the coil,and this is what is reducing the P/in.
The P/in is supplying the electromagnetic energy that turns the rotor,that induces this CEMF in the coil. All this is happening while the P/out remains the same.
So the P/in is spinning the rotor.
The rotor induces a CEMF in the coil.
This CEMF is what reduces the P/in
All while the P/out remains the same
Do you not see what you are saying here MH?.
So no MH,your CEMF conclusion dose not hold water,and dose not increase the efficiency of the coil as per your CEMF battery experiment go's.
You have the understanding correct, but I don't know why you are concluding my final conclusion doesn't hold water. I rewrote it in the previous posting just in case it made thing a bit clearer. I am not telling you I "know" this, I am just telling you what I think I am seeing.
Here is the rationale: With the normal voltage and no rotor you have excessive resistive losses. With normal voltage and the spinning rotor the counter-EMF reduces your resistive losses and you still get a decent back spike. So if you reduce the voltage with no rotor you might reduce your resistive losses and still get a decent back spike.
It's sort of six of one and half a dozen of the other. You are trying a new approach for reducing your resistive losses and still managing to get a decent back spike.
If this was true, then it makes the spinning rotor redundant. It's all about making the right design choices to get the job done. The fist solution you come across is not necessarily the best solution.
Look, let's think outside the box for a second. The higher the voltage of the charging battery, the faster the back spike discharges, and the less energy is lost in the coil from resistive losses during the back spike discharge phase. Would something similar happen on the energizing side? Think about it. If you have a higher voltage to energize the coil, the coil reaches it's "discharge current level" faster. To me that sounds like it's more efficient right there. It's something for you to think about.
As you can see, there is more than one way to skin a cat when your goal is the best possible power-out to power-in ratio you can get for the coil, and a rotor may or may not play a part in achieving that goal. I am just brainstorming with you.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on December 20, 2015, 03:07:24 AM
Brad:
Let's assume that the passing rotor magnets induce counter-EMF in the coil and that it exists as some kind of waveform. You can open-circuit your coil and spin the rotor and see what it looks like. When I suggest a counter-EMF "battery" in the coil it's just to average out the counter-EMF waveform and turn it into an average DC voltage, that's all. It's not even a battery that gets charged, it's just an imaginary devices that outputs a DC voltage to emulate the average counter-EMF waveform from the coil. That will make the average current draw of the coil decrease and chances are you will still have the same amount of power in the back spike.
The next step is to say, "Hey, who needs a DC counter-EMF voltage source inside the coil, I will simply reduce the supply voltage for the coil and I will get the same result."
That's the point, that all of this investigation into the "beneficial effects of a spinning rotor in front of a coil" can be approximately replicated by having no rotor and simply reducing the drive voltage to the coil. If you can reduce the drive voltage and have no rotor and get the same back spike power as the case where you have the regular drive voltage and a rotor then you can say mission accomplished.
This is just reasonable speculation: lower drive voltage with no rotor is equivalent to regular drive voltage with a rotor.
Unfortunately, your signals are buried in the "noise" of all of the power lost to heat and it's not necessarily easy to confirm this. Or perhaps a quick test will confirm this, I don't know.
MileHigh
MH
Reducing the input voltage will reduce the input current. This in turn will reduce the strength of the magnetic field,and that will reduce the P/out when that field collapses,as the field now has less stored energy. Also,to say that the heat is being converted to electrical energy is also not valid. If we reduce the input current,then yes,the heat will be less. But at the same time,we can then raise the input current back to it's original amount,and thus the heat dissipated by the coil will be higher,as the output current would have also gone up,and so the total current flowing through the coil will now be higher-even though the input current is still at it's starting point. The alternating magnetic fields would also introduce further eddy currents in the core,and this would also result in higher core temperatures.
Every example you have given in decreasing the P/in,results in a drop of the P/out.
So i ask you to provide a way where as the P/in is reduced,while the P/out remains the same--without the use of an external alternating magnetic field.
In fact,i invite any of the EE guys to tell me how this can be done-without the use of the external alternating magnetic fields. This dose not include a total rebuild of the coil/inductor-->this is an apples for apples test-->same coil,same frequency,same duty cycle--or a duty cycle of your choice.
Brad.
Quote from: MileHigh on December 19, 2015, 10:38:36 AM
For example, at 0.25 Tau the ratio is 6:1 for energy stored vs. energy dissipated when energizing the coil which translates into 85.7% efficiency in energizing the coil.
How did you get from 6:1 ratio to 85.7% efficiency?
Also, what happens to efficiency when I allow the current in the coil to stabilize? I think they call it the V/R limit.
Finally, how can I see on the scope that I am close to this limit?
Quote from: tinman on December 20, 2015, 03:34:40 AM
MH
Reducing the input voltage will reduce the input current. This in turn will reduce the strength of the magnetic field,and that will reduce the P/out when that field collapses,as the field now has less stored energy. Also,to say that the heat is being converted to electrical energy is also not valid. If we reduce the input current,then yes,the heat will be less. But at the same time,we can then raise the input current back to it's original amount,and thus the heat dissipated by the coil will be higher,as the output current would have also gone up,and so the total current flowing through the coil will now be higher-even though the input current is still at it's starting point. The alternating magnetic fields would also introduce further eddy currents in the core,and this would also result in higher core temperatures.
Every example you have given in decreasing the P/in,results in a drop of the P/out.
So i ask you to provide a way where as the P/in is reduced,while the P/out remains the same--without the use of an external alternating magnetic field.
In fact,i invite any of the EE guys to tell me how this can be done-without the use of the external alternating magnetic fields. This dose not include a total rebuild of the coil/inductor-->this is an apples for apples test-->same coil,same frequency,same duty cycle--or a duty cycle of your choice.
Reducing the input voltage will indeed reduce the input current and it will reduce the final current. That could be critical. However, nothing is stopping you from measuring the final current with the spinning rotor when the coil discharges, and then you will know if you have "headroom" to operate at a lower voltage and still get the same sized back spike without the rotor in place. Assume that without the rotor you are free to set any pulse width you want. And as I mentioned in my previous posting, increasing the drive voltage without the rotor in place will get you to the "desired back spike current level" that much faster with a shorter ON pulse, and that sounds mighty tempting to me.
QuoteSo i ask you to provide a way where as the P/in is reduced,while the P/out remains the same
Unless I am really screwing up, I think a higher drive voltage and a shorter ON time would do the trick.
If anything, I hope that this discussion is putting some ideas in your head! For example, one of my favourites is to replace the charging battery with a big fat capacitor and a variable bleeder resistor. If the voltage across the cap is close to DC you will get a deadly accurate RMS voltage reading with one of your multimeters. You just have to make a spot-check on the value of the variable bleeder resistor and read off the voltage and get your power out - with added benefit of being able to dial up any "charging battery voltage" you want. You could prove for yourself that the efficiency will go up as the capacitor voltage goes up. It sounds like fun to me!
MileHigh
Quote from: NoBull on December 20, 2015, 03:38:04 AM
How did you get from 6:1 ratio to 85.7% efficiency?
6:1 means six parts magnetic energy to one part resistive dissipation. So that's 6/7 total which is 85.7%.
MH
Here is your CEMF imaginary battery test i did--just for hoots :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J20qEB9Bc0U
Quote from: MileHigh on December 20, 2015, 03:57:50 AM
6:1 means six parts magnetic energy to one part resistive dissipation. So that's 6/7 total which is 85.7%.
Thanks for explaining.
Are my remaining questions too stupid to deserve an answer?
Hi Folks,
I would like to draw your attention to a test on an air cored electromagnet coil and the work done by the electromagnet. Input power to the coil was insured from a 10000 uF electrolytic capacitor, always charged up from a battery to around 12.5V DC before each test and the work it performed was to repel away cylinder shaped ceramic and Neo magnets. The mass of the magnets was measured and the distances covered by the magnets were also measured.
The result of the tests showed that the Neo magnet was pushed 4 to 5 times longer distance versus the distance covered by the ceramic magnet, even though the Neo magnet weighed heavier than the ceramic one. The mass of the ceramic magnet was 15 grams and of the Neo was 50 grams (the mass of the Neo was measured later and included in a thread here at overunity.com circa 8 years ago).
Here is the video showing the test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kCkROMSGG0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kCkROMSGG0)
From my part, no any special claim is made from the test, the question is:
why did the Neo magnet with a higher mass cover a longer distance than the ceramic magnet did with a lower mass?
Putting this otherwise:
How can the same input energy to an electromagnet exert higher pushing force on a body with higher mass compared to a body with a lower mass?
Of course we know that the bodies are that of a ceramic (15 gram) and Neo (50 gram) magnets which have differing magnetic strengths. At the end of the video you can see that the outside diameter of the two magnets was around the same (when they snapped together).
Gyula
Quote from: NoBull on December 20, 2015, 04:29:46 AM
Thanks for explaining.
Are my remaining questions too stupid to deserve an answer?
Sorry, I was tired and I suggest that you start a thread on the basic concepts and stuff like that and take it from there.
Quote from: tinman on December 20, 2015, 04:22:00 AM
MH
Here is your CEMF imaginary battery test i did--just for hoots :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J20qEB9Bc0U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J20qEB9Bc0U)
It was indeed a hoot. I don't know why you changed the setup but at least you have a coil that has superior performance compared to your original coil. You apparently did no investigation into the timing of the new device when I said to you timing is everything for this stuff. I am betting that the inductance of the new coil is higher. You used a 1kHz 12% duty cycle pulse on the coil and read some numbers. So that's not even remotely comparable to the pulse motor timing you were working with before. I don't know what the resistance of the coil wire is, nor do I know what the impedance of the battery is and if they are comparable to each other and if the battery impedance will have an effect or not on the timing. Incidentally, you don't need to put a resistor in the center of a coil to measure the current flowing through the coil. Your test was inconclusive.
Here was the real test with your original setup: You have your power-in and power-out numbers with the rotor in place and without the rotor in place using your trimmed-down minimal pulse timing for maximum efficiency. We know that the numbers are better with the rotor in place. Then, replace the battery with a variable power supply. Remove the rotor and with the same pulse timing start off at 12.6 volts and replicate the poorer numbers. Then, slowly lower the battery voltage and make some power-out and power-in measurements. Will you find some lower voltage that gives you the same power-out and a lower power-in so that the numbers are more competitive with your spinning rotor numbers? If you then play with the pulse width a bit can you find a configuration that gives you better numbers? Taking it a step further, like I previously stated, a higher drive voltage and a shorter pulse time going into a higher voltage charging battery might give you better numbers.
If the counter-EMF from the spinning magnets is the main agent reducing your input power you might achieve a better result. On the other hand, if what PW said about the spinning rotor acting as an agent for conveying power to the battery by acing as a temporary mechanical energy store is true, you might not. And like I said before, with the amount of waste heat power you have "masking the signal," it may be difficult to discern anything.
I'll also address your comments and Digitalindustry's comments here:
Quotethey will simply never say you are correct because they want to draw out every point so that you keep spending time on videos running over tiny points and less time on innovation, trusting that if you self loop YT will pull the video, or it will be trolled as 'fake'
everyone can see what is obvious but every time you will be asked to do more videos, how many videos have these guys posted showing these concepts?
ha ha it's like they are sitting back and demanding you make videos for them, the 'EEE' = 'EE Elite'
Nothing could be further from the truth, the above comments are total horseshit. Brad what you do is up to you. But making one simple test and reading some numbers on some meters and then nearly blindly proclaiming that you have a setup with "magnets doing useful work" is ultra shortsighted. Right now, you are simply an amateur experimenter testing a coil on a bench, nothing more. You dropped a line somewhere back in the thread with the old cliche that you were doing new research that the Old School would not understand. One more time, nothing could be further from the truth. Your biggest mistake is to do a one-shot test and proclaim victory. Your "counter-EMF" test clip that I am commenting on in this posting is a good example of your shortsightedness. You need to take your time and invent tests in your head to double-check your conclusions before you make any definitive statements. Meanwhile the sycophants want to proclaim victory the minute they see something and almost without thinking. Do you remember the madness that took place with the RomeroUK fiasco? That's a lesson that everybody needs to learn - don't jump to conclusions.
MileHigh
Quote from: gyulasun on December 20, 2015, 10:53:37 AM
Hi Folks,
I would like to draw your attention to a test on an air cored electromagnet coil and the work done by the electromagnet. Input power to the coil was insured from a 10000 uF electrolytic capacitor, always charged up from a battery to around 12.5V DC before each test and the work it performed was to repel away cylinder shaped ceramic and Neo magnets. The mass of the magnets was measured and the distances covered by the magnets were also measured.
The result of the tests showed that the Neo magnet was pushed 4 to 5 times longer distance versus the distance covered by the ceramic magnet, even though the Neo magnet weighed heavier than the ceramic one. The mass of the ceramic magnet was 15 grams and of the Neo was 50 grams (the mass of the Neo was measured later and included in a thread here at overunity.com circa 8 years ago).
Here is the video showing the test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kCkROMSGG0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kCkROMSGG0)
From my part, no any special claim is made from the test, the question is:
why did the Neo magnet with a higher mass cover a longer distance than the ceramic magnet did with a lower mass?
Putting this otherwise:
How can the same input energy to an electromagnet exert higher pushing force on a body with higher mass compared to a body with a lower mass?
Of course we know that the bodies are that of a ceramic (15 gram) and Neo (50 gram) magnets which have differing magnetic strengths. At the end of the video you can see that the outside diameter of the two magnets was around the same (when they snapped together).
Gyula
A simple but telling test Gyula.
The same results will be had by any type of motor that requires a fixed magnetic field to operate. If you replace the electromagnets for permanent magnets,you will reduce your P/in requirements,while maintaining the same mechanical output. The permanent magnet is now doing the work the electromagnet was--it is that simple. It will be said that the waste heat from the electromagnet has now been turned into mechanical energy,but i say-what made that conversion?,and was work required to make that conversion from heat to mechanical energy?. The other thing is,you can now increase the P/in back to what it was when the electromagnet was in place,and dissipate the same amount of heat,but at the same time,you have also increased the mechanical output of that motor.
So far i have carried out the test given to me by those !!in the know!!,and so far the results from those test have not shown that the PM's are not doing work--everything is showing that they are.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 20, 2015, 06:22:18 PM
A simple but telling test Gyula.
The permanent magnet is now doing the work the electromagnet was--it is that simple. It will be said that the waste heat from the electromagnet has now been turned into mechanical energy,but i say-what made that conversion?,and was work required to make that conversion from heat to mechanical energy?.
So far i have carried out the test given to me by those !!in the know!!,and so far the results from those test have not shown that the PM's are not doing work--everything is showing that they are.
Brad
If you believe that the permanent magnet is doing work in this test or your pulse motor test, then why don't you write up an explanation? For this magnet-coil test you can talk about the energy components per pulse. Even for your pulse motor, you may find it easier to just use energy and describe what's happening with a single pulse instead of expressing things in terms of average power, your choice.
If you are making a claim that permanent magnets are doing work, then how many joules of work and where in the cycle is it happening, etc? Draw a timing diagram showing where and when the magnets are doing work.
I am not sure what you mean by a conversion from heat to mechanical energy but what I can tell you is this: After looking at the clip and knowing that many of you guys have DSOs nowadays, it took me five minutes to come up with a first version of a revamped magnet-coil test that would prove conclusively that the magnets are not doing any work when they get pulsed by the coil. The test would clearly explain why the heavier Neo magnet gets pushed much farther also. It would actually make a good "pulse motor build off" type of challenge.
You can believe what you want Brad but if you claim the magnets are doing work then you should take up my challenge: Do a write-up explaining exactly how, when, and why the magnets are doing work in one of your tests. Like I said before, just looking at numbers on multimeters and saying, "Look, the numbers say the magnets are doing work" is not good enough.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on December 20, 2015, 07:35:46 PM
If you believe that the permanent magnet is doing work in this test or your pulse motor test, then why don't you write up an explanation? For this magnet-coil test you can talk about the energy components per pulse. Even for your pulse motor, you may find it easier to just use energy and describe what's happening with a single pulse instead of expressing things in terms of average power, your choice.
If you are making a claim that permanent magnets are doing work, then how many joules of work and where in the cycle is it happening, etc? Draw a timing diagram showing where and when the magnets are doing work.
I am not sure what you mean by a conversion from heat to mechanical energy but what I can tell you is this: After looking at the clip and knowing that many of you guys have DSOs nowadays, it took me five minutes to come up with a first version of a revamped magnet-coil test that would prove conclusively that the magnets are not doing any work when they get pulsed by the coil. The test would clearly explain why the heavier Neo magnet gets pushed much farther also. It would actually make a good "pulse motor build off" type of challenge.
You can believe what you want Brad but if you claim the magnets are doing work then you should take up my challenge: Do a write-up explaining exactly how, when, and why the magnets are doing work in one of your tests. Like I said before, just looking at numbers on multimeters and saying, "Look, the numbers say the magnets are doing work" is not good enough.
MileHigh
Lets use a series wound universal motor running on a DC current for example. Now, are the stator electromagnets doing work?.
We run some mechanical load tests on the motor by way of a load generator placed on the output shaft of the motor. We can then get a base line of P/in for the motor, and P/out for the generator. We also place 2 CVRs on the motor so as the brushes for the rotor are between these CVRs. This way we can calculate the power that the rotor it self is consuming.
Now we know that as we are using a DC current, the stator windings will be dissipating heat. We now replace the two stator windings with PMs of the same field strength the stator windings were producing. We now adjust the power to the rotor so as it is to the value of that we measured before we replaced the stator windings with PMs. Now our motor is doing the same work it was before the changes were made.
So 1- is our motor now dissipating more or less heat over all now the PMs are in place?
2- has the P/in been reduced to obtain the same mechanical output energy
3- if the stator windings were doing useful work, then how is it that the PMs that replaced them are not?
4- is work being done when heat is converted to electrical or mechanical energy?.
Quote from: gyulasun on December 20, 2015, 10:53:37 AM
How can the same input energy to an electromagnet exert higher pushing force on a body with higher mass compared to a body with a lower mass?
Is this a trick question? I believe you answered yourself below...Quote
Of course we know that the bodies are that of a ceramic (15 gram) and Neo (50 gram) magnets which have differing magnetic strengths.
Quote from: tinman on December 20, 2015, 09:05:29 PM
Lets use a series wound universal motor running on a DC current for example. Now, are the stator electromagnets doing work?.
We run some mechanical load tests on the motor by way of a load generator placed on the output shaft of the motor. We can then get a base line of P/in for the motor, and P/out for the generator. We also place 2 CVRs on the motor so as the brushes for the rotor are between these CVRs. This way we can calculate the power that the rotor it self is consuming.
Now we know that as we are using a DC current, the stator windings will be dissipating heat. We now replace the two stator windings with PMs of the same field strength the stator windings were producing. We now adjust the power to the rotor so as it is to the value of that we measured before we replaced the stator windings with PMs. Now our motor is doing the same work it was before the changes were made.
So 1- is our motor now dissipating more or less heat over all now the PMs are in place?
2- has the P/in been reduced to obtain the same mechanical output energy
3- if the stator windings were doing useful work, then how is it that the PMs that replaced them are not?
4- is work being done when heat is converted to electrical or mechanical energy?.
No, your example is not workable. In a universal motor by design you are expending electrical overhead to create the magnetic fields associated with the stator. A very simplified model is a resistive power burn (that does not output mechanical work) to sustain the "static" stator magnetic fields and then more power to go to the rotor windings to do the actual mechanical output work. I suppose in reality both the stator fields and the rotor fields in repulsion acting against each other do the work - and all of that work is coming from the input electrical power. After all, they are just electromagnets in repulsion.
Yes, the input power will go down if you put in permanent magnets for the stator, but that is meaningless. You are effectively saying, "I am burning resistive waste heat power to sustain my stator field, and I want to replace them with permanent magnets." That power saving doesn't count towards anything and does not in any way represent "magnetic energy."
You need to find another setup for explaining how magnets are a source of energy. For example, start off with a DC motor that has permanent magnets for the stator. Where is the magnetic power in watts or magnetic energy in joules in that case? I am sure that you have done many projects where you are claiming permanent magnets are doing work, like the one you are working on right now. And "work" means joules of energy, in whatever form they manifest themselves. You are alleging that joules of energy are in the form of "magnetic energy" coming from the magnets themselves. Please cite an example with a full explanation like I requested in my previous posting. Again, I am not asking for a measurement procedure, I am asking you for an explanation of a device that includes a "magnetic energy" component.
The same question goes out to all of the Timnan supporters that believe in "magnetic energy" - describe it working in a system. Walk the walk.
MileHigh
Something to think about.
What is the efficiency of the system without the rotor? Switching supplies that convert well can have excellent efficiency. But thinking about it, the magnetic field of the best switching supplies are closed systems. No magnetic openings for motoring. So if the efficiency of the system without the rotor is not of a high rating, then adding the motoring had better bring that eff level up to something very respectable in order for it to matter. Many of the very efficient bldc motors out there dont have any notable time between switching poles vs pulsing of which has time periods of no force on the rotor at all. But they may have bemf between pwm pulsing. But if not much then.....
If we look at a 3 phase bldc, the way the switching happens, there probably isnt any field collapse to capture, as each switching reverses the coils polarity with brute force. So if we look at the circuit below of a 3 phase bldc, I would change the circuit to have each coil on its own circuit, not having the coils connected to each other at all. This way we can run 2 coils at once while the third does have an off period, in the cycle of things, to collect field collapse currents. This will allow constant drive of the motor while giving off periods.
Im doing some tests on my electric bike motor this week. Not the Tidalforce motor I talked about earlier, it is a motor from ebay that is 8 yrs old with about 20kmi on it. I want to look at the pulsing to the drive coils to see if I can pull bemf between pulses. Im figuring just a bridge rectifier across all 3 pairs of wires. If the bemf capture is above input to the coils, the bridge to cap storage should not interfere with running of the motor by pulling from the input, because the cap(s) voltage should be most always higher than the input while running.
Mags
Quote from: MileHigh on December 20, 2015, 10:30:51 PM
No, your example is not workable. In a universal motor by design you are expending electrical overhead to create the magnetic fields associated with the stator. A very simplified model is a resistive power burn (that does not output mechanical work) to sustain the "static" stator magnetic fields and then more power to go to the rotor windings to do the actual mechanical output work. I suppose in reality both the stator fields and the rotor fields in repulsion acting against each other do the work - and all of that work is coming from the input electrical power. After all, they are just electromagnets in repulsion.
You need to find another setup for explaining how magnets are a source of energy. For example, start off with a DC motor that has permanent magnets for the stator. Where is the magnetic power in watts or magnetic energy in joules in that case? I am sure that you have done many projects where you are claiming permanent magnets are doing work, like the one you are working on right now. And "work" means joules of energy, in whatever form they manifest themselves. You are alleging that joules of energy are in the form of "magnetic energy" coming from the magnets themselves. Please cite an example with a full explanation like I requested in my previous posting. Again, I am not asking for a measurement procedure, I am asking you for an explanation of a device that includes a "magnetic energy" component.
The same question goes out to all of the Timnan supporters that believe in "magnetic energy" - describe it working in a system. Walk the walk.
MileHigh
QuoteYes, the input power will go down if you put in permanent magnets for the stator, but that is meaningless. You are effectively saying, "I am burning resistive waste heat power to sustain my stator field, and I want to replace them with permanent magnets." That power saving doesn't count towards anything and does not in any way represent "magnetic energy."
I disagree. What that dose tell us for sure,is that the permanent magnet will reduce waste heat and energy consumption within that motor,and the end result is an increase in efficiency. Now what was it that increased the efficiency of that motor?,and how did it increase the efficiency of that motor-->and the big one MH-->can you give,or do you have an example where the efficiency of that motor can be increased the same without the use of permanent magnets?.
How is the permanent magnet doing useful work?
Well,not only did it reduce the amount of input power,and maintained the same mechanical output power,it also reduced the waste heat of that motor-there is your useful work being done.
It would seem that the term !useful work! has grown into the belief that in order for useful work to be done,then an energy increase on the output must be seen. But this is just not true,as a reduction in energy input while maintaining the same energy output is also useful work being done.
Lets forget about the heat loss for a bit,and look at domain alignment in the core material. It takes work to align and maintain the alignment of the magnetic domains in that core material,but with the PM,it is already done.
This brings me to my first DUT,the one with the spinning rotor and alternating magnetic field.
First i will state that this is not yet backed up with further timing tests needed to confirm the below belief.
It is my belief that the work being done in this DUT by the permanent magnets is related to eddy currents and magnetic domain alignment. Without the rotor,we had X amount in P/in,and Y amount of P/out. When the rotor was in play,the P/in went down, but the P/out remained the same. I believe that the permanent magnets on the rotor are aligning the magnetic domains within the core material before the transistor switches on. I also believe that eddy currents are the result of this domain alignment,and without the rotor in place,the supply battery is also delivering the power required to align these domains,and also the eddy currents that accompany the domain alignment. With the rotor in play,this domain alignment is done by the permanent magnets,and so the power to do this is no longer required by the source power--that being the supply battery.
We know that the magnetic field produced by the coil must be the same as the field of the magnet that just past the core of the coil,otherwise the rotor would stop. So we know that the domain alignment (or some of) has taken place within the core material of the coil before the current begins to flow in that coil. We also know that it takes energy(work must be done) to align the domains--there for we must also get that energy back when the transistor switches of,and the magnetic field collapses,whether in the way of heat or electrical energy. We must also take into consideration that the opposite field is now approaching the core of the coil,and this will switch the magnetic domains to be opposite to which they were during switch on time. Are we also getting this energy back when the domains once again switch ?.
Anyway,that is what i have for you so far MH.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 21, 2015, 05:23:11 AM
I disagree. What that dose tell us for sure,is that the permanent magnet will reduce waste heat and energy consumption within that motor,and the end result is an increase in efficiency.
Tinman,
Perhaps you should provide us with a clear definition of what you consider to be "useful work".
Would the small efficiency gained by replacing copper wire with silver wire in a motor demonstrate that the silver is doing "useful work"?
Does the use of house insulation, low rolling resistance tires, turbochargers, or even ball bearings fit within your definition of doing "useful work"?
Just wondering...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on December 21, 2015, 11:22:58 AM
Tinman,
Perhaps you should provide us with a clear definition of what you consider to be "useful work".
Would the small efficiency gained by replacing copper wire with silver wire in a motor demonstrate that the silver is doing "useful work"?
Does the use of house insulation, low rolling resistance tires, turbochargers, or even ball bearings fit within your definition of doing "useful work"?
Just wondering...
PW
None of the above mentioned fit PW.
Home insulation-simply reflects heat back up into the roof space--but the heat is still there.
low rolling resistance tires-still have resistance,and still produce waste heat.
Turbochargers-increase fuel usage as boost rises,which creates more waste heat.
Ball bearing's-even when new,still have friction,and will still produce waste heat.
Interesting to note,in regards to the bearings--the only bearing that has no friction or waste heat,is the permanent magnet bearing. ;)
None of the above you mentioned removes the loss of waste heat altogether,where as replacing the stator coils with permanent magnets removes all the waste heat that was generated by the stator coils.
You have provided examples of improvements--but not elimination of waste heat
The permanent magnet provides elimination of waste heat in the case of the universal motor,and your above mentioned bearings. The magnets that replace the stator coils will remove all the waste heat those stator coils produced--your silver wire will not.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 21, 2015, 06:15:38 PM
None of the above mentioned fit PW.
Home insulation-simply reflects heat back up into the roof space--but the heat is still there.
low rolling resistance tires-still have resistance,and still produce waste heat.
Turbochargers-increase fuel usage as boost rises,which creates more waste heat.
Ball bearing's-even when new,still have friction,and will still produce waste heat.
Interesting to note,in regards to the bearings--the only bearing that has no friction or waste heat,is the permanent magnet bearing. ;)
None of the above you mentioned removes the loss of waste heat altogether,where as replacing the stator coils with permanent magnets removes all the waste heat that was generated by the stator coils.
You have provided examples of improvements--but not elimination of waste heat
The permanent magnet provides elimination of waste heat in the case of the universal motor,and your above mentioned bearings. The magnets that replace the stator coils will remove all the waste heat those stator coils produced--your silver wire will not.
Brad
Tinman,
You seem to want to include elimination of a specific or particular portion of waste heat into your definition of "useful work".
House insulation, low rolling resistance tires, turbochargers, and ball bearings all eliminate or reduce a portion of waste heat and reduce energy consumption.
Would replacing the stator windings with superconducting windings fit within your definition of "useful work"?
Did the "with rotor versus without rotor" tests demonstrate the elimination of all of the heat produced by something?
As I said, perhaps you should provide us with your definition of "useful work".
PW
Quote from: picowatt on December 21, 2015, 06:53:25 PM
Tinman,
You seem to want to include elimination of a specific or particular portion of waste heat into your definition of "useful work".
House insulation, low rolling resistance tires, turbochargers, and ball bearings all eliminate or reduce a portion of waste heat and reduce energy consumption.
Would replacing the stator windings with superconducting windings fit within your definition of "useful work"?
Did the "with rotor versus without rotor" tests demonstrate the elimination of all of the heat produced by something?
As I said, perhaps you should provide us with your definition of "useful work".
PW
I have already provided my definition of useful work being done in my last reply to MH.
To totally remove (not reduce) a wasted energy from a system, and have that removal result in either the input energy remain , while the wanted output energy increases, or to have the wanted output energy remain the same while the input energy has decreased, then useful work had to be done in this waste elimination process.
As I stated before, you provided improvements-not a complete conversion.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 21, 2015, 07:57:39 PM
I have already provided my definition of useful work being done in my last reply to MH.
To totally remove (not reduce) a wasted energy from a system, and have that removal result in either the input energy remain , while the wanted output energy increases, or to have the wanted output energy remain the same while the input energy has decreased, then useful work had to be done in this waste elimination process.
As I stated before, you provided improvements-not a complete conversion.
Brad
Tinman,
Did the "with rotor versus without rotor" tests "totally remove (not reduce) a wasted energy from a system" or were those tests merely a demonstration of an "improvement" and not a demonstration of "useful work" as you define it?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on December 21, 2015, 08:02:23 PM
Tinman,
Did the "with rotor versus without rotor" tests "totally remove (not reduce) a wasted energy from a system" or were those tests merely a demonstration of an "improvement" and not a demonstration of "useful work" as you define it?
PW
Unclear yet-as I stated in my last reply to MH.
PW
All these questions you are asking have already been answered in my last post to MH.
You are free of course to provide another option to eliminate all waste heat from the stator coils in the universal motor example, and have that result in a 50% plus efficiency increase in that motor -without the use of permanent magnets of course.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 21, 2015, 08:23:25 PM
Unclear yet-as I stated in my last reply to MH.
PW
All these questions you are asking have already been answered in my last post to MH.
You are free of course to provide another option to eliminate all waste heat from the stator coils in the universal motor example, and have that result in a 50% plus efficiency increase in that motor -without the use of permanent magnets of course.
Brad
Tinman,
I am not trying to be flippant or difficult. I am just trying to understand your definition of "useful work" to ensure we are not just arguing semantics.
Your remarks regarding your videos seemed to indicate that you believed that the videos proved something about magnets that contradicts normal convention by demonstrating that the magnets were doing "useful work". But now, based on your definition of "useful work", I am not sure what the videos actually proved or demonstrated. It seems the rotor only offered an "improvement". At the least, the videos did not appear prove that the rotor "totally removed (not reduced) a wasted energy from a system".
Would the elimination of the I
2R losses of the stator windings of a motor by replacing those windings with superconductors be an example of those superconductive windings doing "useful work" as per your definition?
PW
Quote from: tinman on December 21, 2015, 08:23:25 PM
Unclear yet-as I stated in my last reply to MH.
PW
All these questions you are asking have already been answered in my last post to MH.
You are free of course to provide another option to eliminate all waste heat from the stator coils in the universal motor example, and have that result in a 50% plus efficiency increase in that motor -without the use of permanent magnets of course.
Brad
Tinman,
How or where did you arrive at the "50% plus efficiency increase" ?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on December 21, 2015, 09:10:52 PM
Tinman,
How or where did you arrive at the "50% plus efficiency increase" ?
PW
That is in regards to the universal motor mods.
It must be true that the stator windings are doing 50% of the work, and the rotor is also doing 50% of the work -equal and opposites. So by removing the stator windings and replacing them with PMs, then we can say an efficiency increase of 50% has been made-if we take the motors starting efficiency as the 100% starting point, in that that was the maximum efficiency of that motor before the PMs were installed.
With all this talk of efficiency, I think many will appreciate the level of innovation and efficiency involved in the making of this product.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mzV7Y9B0tk
:)
Quote from: tinman on December 21, 2015, 09:26:22 PM
That is in regards to the universal motor mods.
It must be true that the stator windings are doing 50% of the work, and the rotor is also doing 50% of the work -equal and opposites. So by removing the stator windings and replacing them with PMs, then we can say an efficiency increase of 50% has been made-if we take the motors starting efficiency as the 100% starting point, in that that was the maximum efficiency of that motor before the PMs were installed.
Tinman,
A quick read of searches related to motor efficiency indicates that this is an overly simplistic view. Besides I
2R losses, there are also iron losses, eddy current losses, brush resistance losses, cooling (fan)/windage losses and bearing/brush friction losses.
Although cheap consumer universal motors can have very poor efficiency ratings, a properly sized industrial universal motor is typically around 70% efficient.
Ignoring for now the additional sources of loss mentioned above, what are you stating the efficiency improvement would be for a 70% efficient universal motor if the stator EM's were replaced with PM's? Are you saying that the efficiency would improve by 15%?
(Also of possible interest was a paper I glanced thru that discussed additional eddy current losses produced when NdFeB magnets are used instead of ferrites.)
PW
Quote from: picowatt on December 22, 2015, 03:28:07 AM
Tinman,
PW
Quote
A quick read of searches related to motor efficiency indicates that this is an overly simplistic view. Besides I2R losses, there are also iron losses, eddy current losses, brush resistance losses, cooling (fan)/windage losses and bearing/brush friction losses.
I agree with all this,but if you have a look at the losses you posted,some are removed when the stator electromagnets are replaced with ferrite or ceramic permanent magnets. Resistive losses that existed in the stator windings are now gone-iron losses that existed in the stator cores are now gone-eddy current losses from the stator cores are now gone-cooling needs are now reduced to accommodate the cooling of the rotor only. Brush friction can also be eliminated with a small redesign of the motor,but this has nothing to do with what effects the permanent magnets have had on the motor.
QuoteAlthough cheap consumer universal motors can have very poor efficiency ratings, a properly sized industrial universal motor is typically around 70% efficient.
And i have a 2HP permanent magnet motor that is 76% efficient--off the shelf. This is just a universal motor that has had it's stator windings replaced with permanent magnets.
QuoteIgnoring for now the additional sources of loss mentioned above, what are you stating the efficiency improvement would be for a 70% efficient universal motor if the stator EM's were replaced with PM's? Are you saying that the efficiency would improve by 15%?
Yes,and 15% would be on the low side. PM DC motors these days are reaching efficiencies of 92%+,and if one takes care with how everything is arranged,then efficiencies much higher that 92% can be reached.
Quote(Also of possible interest was a paper I glanced thru that discussed additional eddy current losses produced when NdFeB magnets are used instead of ferrites.)
That is correct,as NdFeB magnets are made from conductive materials,and ferrite(ceramic) dose not conduct,and so no eddy currents-->or reduced to near 0. Eddy currents can also be reduced within an inductor if an external magnetic field aligns the magnetic domains prior to a current flowing through that inductor-->hence my theory on some of the input energy reduction in my spinning rotor test.
So i ask you these questions PW
1--has useful work been done,or has work been done when heat is converted into electrical or mechanical power?
2--do we or do we not convert heat into mechanical power that is added to the output of the motor,or into electrical power that is added back into the supply power when the stator electromagnets are replaced with permanent magnets?.
3--is there any other way you know of to convert the waste heat from the stator coils into either electrical or mechanical energy other than permanent magnets.
And 4--are the stator coils doing work in a universal motor?.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 22, 2015, 04:52:30 AM
Eddy currents can also be reduced within an inductor if an external magnetic field aligns the magnetic domains prior to a current flowing through that inductor-->hence my theory on some of the input energy reduction in my spinning rotor test.
Tinman,
I am not sure I follow what you are saying above, or can agree with it.
If an inductor has a conductive core within which eddy currents can flow, any dynamic magnetic field applied to that conductive core will produce eddy currents irregardless of its source.
That is to say, an approaching PM will also induce eddy currents in that core.
As for the rest of your post, I'll have to have a bit more coffee...
I do think you will need to consider a high resolution method for observing the acceleration, deceleration, and timing of your rotor in your "spinning rotor tests" if you intend to study this further. I have a few ideas regarding that if you are interested.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on December 22, 2015, 06:15:19 AM
Tinman,
I am not sure I follow what you are saying above, or can agree with it.
If an inductor has a conductive core within which Eddy currents can flow, any dynamic magnetic field applied to that conductive core will produce Eddy currents irregardless of its source.
That is to say, an approaching PM will also induce Eddy currents in that core.
I do think you will need to consider a high resolution method for observing the acceleration, deceleration, and timing of your rotor (as per the videos) if you intend to study this further. I have a few ideas regarding that if you are interested.
PW
Eddy currents--Quote: In a transformer, the magnetic flux created by the primary coil induces a current in the core. This occurs in order to oppose the change that produced the magnetic flux (Lenz's Law). The currents flowing in the core are called eddy currents. These currents produce heat, using up energy and so causing inefficiency.
So,we know that it is the magnetic flux that creates these eddy currents,so if an approaching permanent magnet of the right field orientation induces eddy currents into the core before the current starts to flow through the winding's,then once the current dose start to flow through the windings,the eddy currents have already been produced within the core from the approaching magnet--and so no electrical power is wasted in producing these eddy current's,as they already exist. I believe eddy currents are the result of the magnetic domain alignment,and our PM has already aligned these domains.
QuoteAs for the rest of your post, I'll have to have a bit more coffee...
Sure,have all the coffee you like,but answer with your own thoughts,and not those biased toward an untruth that agree's with the good old book's of yesty year. They are not hard question's,and deserve a straight forward answer.
Here are the questions again,so as there is no mix up.
1--has useful work been done,or has work been done when heat is converted into electrical or mechanical power?
2--do we or do we not convert heat into mechanical power that is added to the output of the motor,or into electrical power that is added back into the supply power when the stator electromagnets are replaced with permanent magnets?.
3--is there any other way you know of to convert the waste heat from the stator coils into either electrical or mechanical energy other than permanent magnets (added to make clearer)-->where there is no loss incurred,or no work being done.
And 4--are the stator coils doing work in a universal motor?.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 22, 2015, 06:42:57 AM
Eddy currents--Quote: In a transformer, the magnetic flux created by the primary coil induces a current in the core. This occurs in order to oppose the change that produced the magnetic flux (Lenz's Law). The currents flowing in the core are called eddy currents. These currents produce heat, using up energy and so causing inefficiency.
So,we know that it is the magnetic flux that creates these eddy currents,so if an approaching permanent magnet of the right field orientation induces eddy currents into the core before the current starts to flow through the winding's,then once the current dose start to flow through the windings,the eddy currents have already been produced within the core from the approaching magnet--and so no electrical power is wasted in producing these eddy current's,as they already exist. I believe eddy currents are the result of the magnetic domain alignment,and our PM has already aligned these domains.
Then you had to waste mechanical power by using the approaching PM's to produce eddy currents, which will also produce a magnetic field in opposition to your approaching PM's. Either way the production of eddy currents degrades efficiency. Hence, all efforts are made to reduce or eliminate eddy currents.
Quote
Sure,have all the coffee you like,but answer with your own thoughts,and not those biased toward an untruth that agree's with the good old book's of yesty year. They are not hard question's,and deserve a straight forward answer.
Well that's a lot of "attitude" for so early in the morning...
Regarding your questions:
Quote
1--has useful work been done,or has work been done when heat is converted into electrical or mechanical power?
Please keep in mind that I do not claim to be a physicist and that there are likely others here more properly suited to answering this question precisely as it is given. However, because you used the word "power", I would say yes.
Quote
2--do we or do we not convert heat into mechanical power that is added to the output of the motor,or into electrical power that is added back into the supply power when the stator electromagnets are replaced with permanent magnets?.
I would say we do not. Although using the permanent magnets "eliminates" Joule heating caused by I
2R losses, there is no "conversion" of any heat into something else taking place.
Quote
3--is there any other way you know of to convert the waste heat from the stator coils into either electrical or mechanical energy other than permanent magnets (added to make clearer)-->where there is no loss incurred,or no work being done.
As per number 2, I don't see any "conversion" taking place. Since what you are eliminating is I
2R losses by using PM's, anything that reduces "R" to zero would work as well. Although a bit impractical at this time, as a thought experiment, superconductors come to mind.
Quote
And 4--are the stator coils doing work in a universal motor?.
This is a good question. The conundrum I am having with arriving at the answer is that they are "stator" coils. When I accelerate my car, pushing off against the road so to speak, is the road doing work to move my car?
PW
ADDED: With regard to question one, I see you used the term "useful work". I may have to reconsider my answer after I go back and look at how you defined "useful work".
Quote from: picowatt on December 22, 2015, 07:16:38 AM
PW
QuoteThen you had to waste mechanical power by using the approaching PM's to produce eddy currents, which will also produce a magnetic field in opposition to your approaching PM's. Either way the production of eddy currents degrades efficiency. Hence, all efforts are made to reduce or eliminate eddy currents.
Not true PW. If an apposing field was produced by the core,then the magnet would not be attracted to it. The field at the core end nearest to the approaching magnet will be the opposite field to that of the magnet,as like fields do not attract.
QuoteWell that's a lot of "attitude" for so early in the morning...
Regarding your questions:
There was no attitude intended PW,maybe more a culture differential ?
I just posted my thought's. I have been asked by many to carry out test as per there specifications many times on many devices,and i have done that to the best of my ability. I only ask the same of you-to answer what !you! know to be true,and what makes sense to you.
QuotePlease keep in mind that I do not claim to be a physicist and that there are likely others here more properly suited to answering this question precisely as it is given. However, because you used the word "power", I would say yes.
i hope you have kept in mind that power as i mentioned can also be output power--as in HP,or KW-mechanical.
QuoteI would say we do not. Although using the permanent magnets "eliminates" Joule heating, there is no "conversion" of any heat into something else taking place.
This answer go;s against your first answer--and i will explain at the bottom of this post.
QuoteAs per number 2, I don't see any "conversion" taking place. Since what you are eliminating I2R losses by using PM's, anything that eliminates the "R" would work as well. Although impractical, as a thought experiment, superconductors come to mind.
I would have to say that a super conductor is not right PW--unless you know of a room temperature super conductive material ?. If not,then energy is required to keep the super conductive material at temperatures where it becomes super conductive.
QuoteThis is a good question. The conundrum I am having with arriving at the answer is that they are "stator" coils. When I accelerate my car, pushing off against the road, so to speak, is the road doing work?
I think this analogy is a bit wrong.
The road would be your motor housing,the wheels your stators,and the engine your rotor.
If we look at it like this,are your wheels doing work ?.
OK,answers 1 and 2
Question 1--1--has useful work been done,or has work been done when heat is converted into electrical or mechanical power?
Answer--However, because you used the word "power", I would say yes.
Question 2--do we or do we not convert heat into mechanical power that is added to the output of the motor,or into electrical power that is added back into the supply power when the stator electromagnets are replaced with permanent magnets?.
Answer--I would say we do not. Although using the permanent magnets "eliminates" Joule heating, there is no "conversion" of any heat into something else taking place.
Lets have a look at what happens here when we swap out the stator coils for PM's.
Lets say the two stator windings consume 1/2 the amount of power as the rotor,and we have a power draw of say 3 watt's--1/2 a watt for each stator winding,and 2 watts for the rotor(these are just example figures) As each of the stator windings have a DC current flowing through them,we can assume that each stator is dissipating 1/2 a watt of heat energy. So our motor will be a little lower that 66% efficient due to the heat loss also in the rotor. Anyway,so we are putting in 3 watts of power,and loosing !lets just stick to 1 watt! of power by way of dissipated heat. So now we replace the two stator windings with ceramic magnets of the same magnetic strength that the stator windings provided. We now have dropped the P/in by 1 watt. So as to keep the P/in the same,we can now put that 1 watt into the rotor,so as we keep our 3 watt P/in. Do we now have the same mechanical power output,or do we have more? If we have more,has not the instalation of the PM's converted/transformed the 1 watt of waste heat into mechanical power--as our P/in has remained the same. And the second gain(although unwanted)is now that the rotor has more power being delivered to it,will it also not dissipate more heat energy?
So by removing the stator coils,and installing the PM's,we have converted that waste heat from the stator coils into mechanical output power,and also increased the heat energy dissipated by the rotor--all while maintaining the same P/in. If it was not the permanent magnets that made this transformation/conversion possible,then what was it?
It is said-in order to show that permanent magnets are doing useful work,you must show an energy gain when those magnets are put into place within the system.
Did we not just do that?
Brad.
Quote from: picowatt on December 22, 2015, 07:16:38 AM
Then you had to waste mechanical power by using the approaching PM's to produce eddy currents, which will also produce a magnetic field in opposition to your approaching PM's. Either way the production of eddy currents degrades efficiency. Hence, all efforts are made to reduce or eliminate eddy currents.
Well that's a lot of "attitude" for so early in the morning...
Regarding your questions:
Please keep in mind that I do not claim to be a physicist and that there are likely others here more properly suited to answering this question precisely as it is given. However, because you used the word "power", I would say yes.
I would say we do not. Although using the permanent magnets "eliminates" Joule heating caused by I2R losses, there is no "conversion" of any heat into something else taking place.
As per number 2, I don't see any "conversion" taking place. Since what you are eliminating is I2R losses by using PM's, anything that reduces "R" to zero would work as well. Although a bit impractical at this time, as a thought experiment, superconductors come to mind.
This is a good question. The conundrum I am having with arriving at the answer is that they are "stator" coils. When I accelerate my car, pushing off against the road so to speak, is the road doing work to move my car?
PW
ADDED:
QuoteWith regard to question one, I see you used the term "useful work". I may have to reconsider my answer after I go back and look at how you defined "useful work".
Useful work in that quotation means taking a waste energy(heat) and converting it into a wanted(useful) energy (electrical or mechanical power)
Quote from: tinman on December 22, 2015, 08:05:26 AM
Not true PW. If an apposing field was produced by the core,then the magnet would not be attracted to it. The field at the core end nearest to the approaching magnet will be the opposite field to that of the magnet,as like fields do not attract.
If your core is ferromagnetic, very likely attraction will overcome the repulsion produced by the eddy currents. Try spinning your rotor near a sheet of copper and see what the induced eddy currents do for you. I believe the eddy current thing is a non-starter and only produces losses.
Quote
i hope you have kept in mind that power as i mentioned can also be output power--as in HP,or KW-mechanical.
This answer go;s against your first answer--and i will explain at the bottom of this post.
I would have to say that a super conductor is not right PW--unless you know of a room temperature super conductive material ?. If not,then energy is required to keep the super conductive material at temperatures where it becomes super conductive.
Hence my "not practical at this time" and "thought experiment" comments. However, the results would be similar.
Quote
I think this analogy is a bit wrong.
The road would be your motor housing,the wheels your stators,and the engine your rotor.
If we look at it like this,are your wheels doing work ?.
I believe my analogy was just fine as it was. If the road is the "motor housing" as you put it, is not the stator firmly attached to that housing?
As well, if I am a swimmer pushing off against the wall of a pool, is the pool wall doing work to accelerate me?
Quote
Lets have a look at what happens here when we swap out the stator coils for PM's.
I understand what you are saying, but again, although you are "eliminating" a source of heat, no heat is being "converted". If I swap out my incandescent bulbs for LED's, are my LED's converting heat into something? I say no. Depending on whether I choose to increase or decrease the input, I can achieve the same light output for less input, or more light output for the same input. The use of LED's has increased the input/output efficiency but nowhere in the LED is heat being converted into something else (ignoring the heat generated by the LED of course).
I am not arguing against the increase in efficiency by using PM's, just the idea that heat is somehow being converted by the PM's. You can choose to produce the same HP out for less input or more HP out for the same input. But again, there is no mechanism converting heat into something.,
Quote
It is said-in order to show that permanent magnets are doing useful work,you must show an energy gain when those magnets are put into place within the system.
Did we not just do that?
There you go with the "useful work" phrase again... Do you mean to say non-conservative or perhaps just work?
In any event, measurements accepted, the spinning rotor test had a 40% or so efficiency without the rotor, and something better with it. What was seen was a decrease of the system's inefficiency (or increase of efficiency if you prefer).
Other modifications could also improve the efficiency, possibly more so than the PM's, but the constraints you placed on your definition of "useful work" does not allow those improvements to be considered useful work.
If the core of your inductor was replaced with ferrite to eliminate all eddy currents in the core, would that not qualify as "useful work" per your definition? All losses by that particular mechanism would be eliminated, not just reduced...
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on December 20, 2015, 09:15:14 PM
QuoteHow can the same input energy to an electromagnet exert higher pushing force on a body with higher mass compared to a body with a lower mass?
Is this a trick question? I believe you answered yourself below...
QuoteOf course we know that the bodies are that of a ceramic (15 gram) and Neo (50 gram) magnets which have differing magnetic strengths.
Hi poynt99,
Well, it was not intended a trick question. I gave a hint only by mentioning the differing magnetic strength of the magnets used in the video test.
If you agree, we could examine what really happens in the repel interaction between the electro and the permanent magnet. It looks like as if
either the magnetic flux from the coil (while receives the same input energy) would exert more repel force against a stronger permanent magnet than against a weaker one
or the stronger permanent magnet field would react with a stronger reaction force it received.
A coil (an air cored multilayer solenoid in this test) should always produce the same magnetic field strength at its poles whenever it receives the same input current which is the case in the tests. Yet the stronger permanent magnet he used, the higher the repel force became as a result of the interaction.
Can we consider this test as an example for Newton 3rd Law? If yes, why is it that while in the tests the action force is always the same, the resulting force from the interaction gets higher as if the resulting reaction force would get also higher?
This is what we can observe in the tests, right?
A mechanical spring is often used as a comparison when permanent magnets are discussed, in this test case we would have two springs with differing mechanical strengths. Then giving a certain press force to the weak spring from outside, and then releasing it, it would exert quasi the same pushing force (like the press force was) to the strong spring, right? And the strong spring would 'absorb' the given amount of push and would react with an equal counter force, correct? However it looks like the strong spring would react with a stronger force than it received if we continue the comparison to the tests with the magnets.
I would read your thoughts on these with interest. Maybe I have not considered something important in my 'reasonings'.
Gyula
PS this is the link to the video with the tests for those who have not yet seen it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kCkROMSGG0
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kCkROMSGG0)
what you are touching on is a unique field of study.
Not many people choose to go down that road, thus the mathematics are sometimes more difficult to find.
What you are seeing here is governed by Solenoid Mechanics.
to see the true effects on an "energy based analysis", you will need a much smaller capacitor.
That large cap holds well beyond the energy required to create the maximum force between
that coil - magnet pair. The mass or weight of the magnet plays a very tiny role.
It's mostly about the physical dimensions of the magnet compared to its' strength.
If you have a smaller capacitor, one that can just barely throw the smaller magnet to the max (15cm?)
Then you can use that as a baseline energy for your tests.
The stronger magnet is capable of a much larger force when opposed by another field as a factor Teslas (or Gauss)
Quote from: picowatt on December 22, 2015, 09:24:13 AM
Hence my "not practical at this time" and "thought experiment" comments. However, the results would be similar.
I am not arguing against the increase in efficiency by using PM's, just the idea that heat is somehow being converted by the PM's. You can choose to produce the same HP out for less input or more HP out for the same input. But again, there is no mechanism converting heat into something.,
There you go with the "useful work" phrase again... Do you mean to say non-conservative or perhaps just work?
In any event, measurements accepted, the spinning rotor test had a 40% or so efficiency without the rotor, and something better with it. What was seen was a decrease of the system's inefficiency (or increase of efficiency if you prefer).
Other modifications could also improve the efficiency, possibly more so than the PM's, but the constraints you placed on your definition of "useful work" does not allow those improvements to be considered useful work.
PW
QuoteIf your core is ferromagnetic, very likely attraction will overcome the repulsion produced by the eddy currents. Try spinning your rotor near a sheet of copper and see what the induced eddy currents do for you. I believe the eddy current thing is a non-starter and only produces losses.
Thats a totally different situation PW,and not really related to what we are talking about here. The sheet of copper for 1,is non magnetic(magnets are not attracted to it),and 2,it is nothing more than a shorted turn.
QuoteI believe my analogy was just fine as it was. If the road is the "motor housing" as you put it, is not the stator firmly attached to that housing?
As well, if I am a swimmer pushing off against the wall of a pool, is the pool wall doing work to accelerate me?
If we have equal and opposite forces,then yes,the pool wall is pushing against you as much as you are pushing against the pool wall. What happens if we move the frame of reference from the pool wall to you--what is now moving when you are the reference point when you push against the pool wall?.
QuoteI understand what you are saying, but again, although you are "eliminating" a source of heat, no heat is being "converted".
And yet in my test with the spinning rotor,when we stopped that rotor.the P/in went up,and the P/out went down. So the external alternating magnetic field was converting something while spinning past the coil,as we changed nothing else in the system. Regardless of what it was,a conversion was taking place because of the magnets.
QuoteIf I swap out my incandescent bulbs for LED's, are my LED's converting heat into something? I say no. Depending on whether I choose to increase or decrease the input, I can achieve the same light output for less input, or more light output for the same input. The use of LED's has increased the input/output efficiency but nowhere in the LED is heat being converted into something else (ignoring the heat generated by the LED of course).
Why do you say no,when it is obvious that by replacing one with the other,you have indeed reduced waste heat,reduce P/in,and obtained the same light output. Your LED is doing useful work-is it not?.
QuoteIf the core of your inductor was replaced with ferrite to eliminate all eddy currents in the core, would that not qualify as "useful work" per your definition? All losses by that particular mechanism would be eliminated, not just reduced...
Here is something interesting to think about.
I have been building pulse motors for many years now,and have tried many things to increase the efficiency of pulse motors. A side by side comparison shows that using a ferrite core in a pulse motor is less efficient that using a laminated steel or soft iron core-as far as electrical P/in ,and electrical,mechanical P/out go's. Ferrite cores seem only to become more efficient when used in high frequency pulsed systems--without rotating external magnetic fields.
Looking at your answer regarding the stator windings doing useful work,and my point about frame of reference. If we hold the shaft of the motor still,and let the motor housing spin instead(like an out runner motor),are the stator coils doing useful work now?,and if the rotor is no longer spinning,dose that mean that it is no longer doing useful work?. So if motion is what you think needs to be the decider on what part of the device is doing the useful work,then what happens when we swap out the stotor coils that are now spinning in stead of the rotor,and we replace them with the PM's. So now the PM's are spinning,and the rotor has no motion--are the PM's doing the work now?. You can see now why your reference to the pools wall,and the road to that of the wheels dose not fit in here.
Brad
Quote from: sm0ky2 on December 22, 2015, 03:04:32 PM
what you are touching on is a unique field of study.
Not many people choose to go down that road, thus the mathematics are sometimes more difficult to find.
What you are seeing here is governed by Solenoid Mechanics.
to see the true effects on an "energy based analysis", you will need a much smaller capacitor.
That large cap holds well beyond the energy required to create the maximum force between
that coil - magnet pair. The mass or weight of the magnet plays a very tiny role.
It's mostly about the physical dimensions of the magnet compared to its' strength.
If you have a smaller capacitor, one that can just barely throw the smaller magnet to the max (15cm?)
Then you can use that as a baseline energy for your tests.
The stronger magnet is capable of a much larger force when opposed by another field as a factor Teslas (or Gauss)
You don't really need to have a smaller capacitor. Anybody with a DSO, a large capacitor, a MOSFET switch and a one-shot 555 timer circuit, a current sensing resistor, a diode, and a collecting cap for the back spike should be able to make a simple conclusive test showing exactly what's happening and do a complete energy analysis.
Brad:
The fundamental problem issue is that you are trying to define "useful work" as the "the conversion of heat power into mechanical power" when that never actually happens. The only two examples that I am aware of for that, excluding the thermal component that is seen in conventional power generation, are for a carnot engine and for a thermoelectric generator. In both examples we are talking about a single device, a single case examined on its own merits.
You, on the other hand, are comparing two separate and different and distinct cases, and making a claim that magnets are producing "useful work." In both cases, it's the input electrical energy that ultimately does the useful work and the magnets contribute zero. Many examples of two separate cases have been given to you that do exactly the same thing, poor bearings vs. good bearings, resistive wire vs. lower resistance wire, and you reject them and want to single out magnets as doing something special and in fact the magnets are no different from the other examples. That's the fundamental issue.
It all goes back to a fundamental problem that you see around here all the time: I change a parameter in my setup and see reduced input power and claim victory when all that you really have done is change the overall impedance of the system resulting in a change in the power drawn by the system. Reducing the power draw by increasing the overall impedance but still measuring the same output does not mean "free energy" - all that it means is that you have reduced the production of waste heat.
Hacking a universal motor by adding magnets will simply reduce the production of waste heat - nothing more. In the unmodified universal motor, and in the modified motor, if you could make precise measurements of the waste heat power in both cases and factor it out, then you would find that in both cases the electrical power in is greater than or equal to the mechanical power out. The magnets will have changed nothing and do not contribute any "useful work" or hypothetical "magnetic power."
In other words, a magnet is not a magic bottomless cup of coffee that spouts a fountain of watts fed by the Clockwork of Nature that in theory can produce an infinite amount of energy. A magnet is as dead as a doornail and produces nothing at all. It's just pushed around by the input electrical power like a rag doll. It can sometimes change the impedance of a setup and result in less waste heat power being produced, which is not really different than swapping out a rusty bearing for a new bearing.
Forget about a universal motor - there is no way that you can do a simple controlled experiment that demonstrates a magnet producing energy. Just like there is no way that anybody can do a simple controlled experiment that demonstrates a coil producing energy. But the reality is that there are many people on this forum that do believe that magnets and coils produce energy - hence you have the cottage industry of criminals trying to scam people.
MileHigh
Quote from: tinman on December 22, 2015, 06:10:32 PM
Thats a totally different situation PW,and not really related to what we are talking about here. The sheet of copper for 1,is non magnetic(magnets are not attracted to it),and 2,it is nothing more than a shorted turn.
No, its not a "different situation". Perhaps you are confusing eddy currents with something else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu1uRvErM80
(there is/was a better video demonstrating this, perhaps someone can post a link)
Quote
If we have equal and opposite forces,then yes,the pool wall is pushing against you as much as you are pushing against the pool wall. What happens if we move the frame of reference from the pool wall to you--what is now moving when you are the reference point when you push against the pool wall?.
I sad I was having a conundrum over the stator question.
I also considered the rotor being rotating PM's as in a BLDC motor. Indeed where is the "work" actually being performed. From which perspective (frame of reference) or element do we consider the question? My original analogy of the accelerating vehicle is a good one to ponder. I wish others would chime in on this.
Quote
And yet in my test with the spinning rotor,when we stopped that rotor.the P/in went up,and the P/out went down. So the external alternating magnetic field was converting something while spinning past the coil,as we changed nothing else in the system. Regardless of what it was,a conversion was taking place because of the magnets.
We can speculate why it is that what is observed is taking place, but any further understanding will require additional experiments.
There is plenty of waste going around in your test device as demonstrated by its 40% efficiency when operated as a boost converter without the rotor. As I mentioned earlier, perhaps the rotor is capturing a portion of that 60% that is being wasted and returning it to the system during the off period.
I believe a high resolution measurement/observation of the rotor's acceleration, deceleration. and timing would shed additional light on what is happening.
Quote
Why do you say no,when it is obvious that by replacing one with the other,you have indeed reduced waste heat,reduce P/in,and obtained the same light output. Your LED is doing useful work-is it not?.
Because I see no apparatus or mechanism acting in some manner as a heat engine doing a "conversion" of heat into something else.
As you say, waste heat has been reduced or eliminated, which increases efficiency, but that is not being done by installing a mechanism that converts heat.
Quote
Here is something interesting to think about.
I have been building pulse motors for many years now,and have tried many things to increase the efficiency of pulse motors. A side by side comparison shows that using a ferrite core in a pulse motor is less efficient that using a laminated steel or soft iron core-as far as electrical P/in ,and electrical,mechanical P/out go's. Ferrite cores seem only to become more efficient when used in high frequency pulsed systems--without rotating external magnetic fields.
Be that as it may, it was a thought experiment regarding your "useful work" definition. it would have been nice if you would have answered the question, in further clarification of your term "useful work", instead of going off on ferrites.
Quote
Looking at your answer regarding the stator windings doing useful work,and my point about frame of reference. If we hold the shaft of the motor still,and let the motor housing spin instead(like an out runner motor),are the stator coils doing useful work now?,and if the rotor is no longer spinning,dose that mean that it is no longer doing useful work?. So if motion is what you think needs to be the decider on what part of the device is doing the useful work,then what happens when we swap out the stotor coils that are now spinning in stead of the rotor,and we replace them with the PM's. So now the PM's are spinning,and the rotor has no motion--are the PM's doing the work now?. You can see now why your reference to the pools wall,and the road to that of the wheels dose not fit in here.
I think both of my analogies work here, but I prefer my original accelerating auto analogy. Just as you describe above, one can speculate the possibility that if the auto is held stationary, the road itself must accelerate (consider a toy car and a globe of the Earth if necessary).
To me, the question as to whether the stator actually does work is not all that clear cut.
I wish others would comment on this...
PW
When a car's wheels push on the surface of the road, the surface of the road pushes back. When a swimmer pushes against the wall of the pool with his feet, the wall pushes back. There is no doubt about this.
However, the surface of the road does not move, and the wall of the pool does not move. So even though they are exerting force there is no displacement. Therefore the road surface and the swimming pool wall do no work. The car moves forward and the work is done by the turning wheels moving on the road surface. That tangible work becomes increased kinetic energy in the moving car. Same thing for the swimmer.
For the motor, ultimately it does not matter if the rotor moves and the stator is fixed or if the "rotor" is fixed and the "stator" moves. The output of the motor is torque times angular displacement no matter how you look at it, and that is equal to work. The output work occurred because of the input electrical work supplied to the motor.
Quote from: gyulasun on December 22, 2015, 02:23:02 PM
I would read your thoughts on these with interest.
Gyula,
Assuming equal dimensions and area of each magnet, it comes down to the difference in the magnetization/mass ratio of each magnet. An identical cylinder of balsa wood is most likely not going to move at all, even though its mass is far less than either of the other two magnets.
Since everyone seems to be in analogy mode, here's one that I hope applies:
You and I are anchored side by side out at sea (I'm not a sailor) in different boats. You are the proud captain of a grande Spanish galleon ;D , and I'm bobbing about in a 3m Zodiac :-[ . We each have a single large mast and sail, both identical in size and area (never mind how my tiny boat can support such a large mast and sail :P ). However, there is a big difference in the sail material; yours has only 5% porosity to the wind, while mine is 99.9% porous. Assuming equal wind conditions when the anchors go up, which boat is going to experience more thrust and resulting propulsion?
In this analogy, the sail porosity is inversely equivalent to the magnet's flux density, and magnetization. So again, the porosity/mass ratio is what determines the thrust each boat experiences. Even though the galleon has a much greater mass than the zodiac, it experiences a large thrust when the wind hits the sails, while the wind on my sail goes right through producing little to no thrust.
What makes the difference even more pronounced with the two different magnet materials, is that the force experienced between two magnets (permanent or electro) is a function of the magnetization squared. So not only is the heavier neo magnet going to be propelled farther than the ceramic due to it having a much higher magnetization, but it is a square function. I'm sure that someone smart (not me) could take the differing magnet masses and magnetizations and compute the theoretical distance each would be propelled by the stator electromagnet.
Does that make sense, or have I missed something?
Quote from: MileHigh on December 22, 2015, 07:16:24 PM
Brad:
The fundamental problem issue is that you are trying to define "useful work" as the "the conversion of heat power into mechanical power" when that never actually happens. The only two examples that I am aware of for that, excluding the thermal component that is seen in conventional power generation, are for a carnot engine and for a thermoelectric generator. In both examples we are talking about a single device, a single case examined on its own merits.
You, on the other hand, are comparing two separate and different and distinct cases, and making a claim that magnets are producing "useful work." In both cases, it's the input electrical energy that ultimately does the useful work and the magnets contribute zero. Many examples of two separate cases have been given to you that do exactly the same thing, poor bearings vs. good bearings, resistive wire vs. lower resistance wire, and you reject them and want to single out magnets as doing something special and in fact the magnets are no different from the other examples. That's the fundamental issue.
It all goes back to a fundamental problem that you see around here all the time: I change a parameter in my setup and see reduced input power and claim victory when all that you really have done is change the overall impedance of the system resulting in a change in the power drawn by the system. Reducing the power draw by increasing the overall impedance but still measuring the same output does not mean "free energy" - all that it means is that you have reduced the production of waste heat.
Hacking a universal motor by adding magnets will simply reduce the production of waste heat - nothing more. In the unmodified universal motor, and in the modified motor, if you could make precise measurements of the waste heat power in both cases and factor it out, then you would find that in both cases the electrical power in is greater than or equal to the mechanical power out. The magnets will have changed nothing and do not contribute any "useful work" or hypothetical "magnetic power."
In other words, a magnet is not a magic bottomless cup of coffee that spouts a fountain of watts fed by the Clockwork of Nature that in theory can produce an infinite amount of energy. A magnet is as dead as a doornail and produces nothing at all. It's just pushed around by the input electrical power like a rag doll. It can sometimes change the impedance of a setup and result in less waste heat power being produced, which is not really different than swapping out a rusty bearing for a new bearing.
Forget about a universal motor - there is no way that you can do a simple controlled experiment that demonstrates a magnet producing energy. Just like there is no way that anybody can do a simple controlled experiment that demonstrates a coil producing energy. But the reality is that there are many people on this forum that do believe that magnets and coils produce energy - hence you have the cottage industry of criminals trying to scam people.
MileHigh
Perhaps you should go and argue this point with verpies in regards to Itsu's test results.
Brad
Quote from: poynt99 on December 22, 2015, 10:22:00 PM
Gyula,
Assuming equal dimensions and area of each magnet, it comes down to the difference in the magnetization/mass ratio of each magnet. An identical cylinder of balsa wood is most likely not going to move at all, even though its mass is far less than either of the other two magnets.
Since everyone seems to be in analogy mode, here's one that I hope applies:
You and I are anchored side by side out at sea (I'm not a sailor) in different boats. You are the proud captain of a grande Spanish galleon ;D , and I'm bobbing about in a 3m Zodiac :-[ . We each have a single large mast and sail, both identical in size and area (never mind how my tiny boat can support such a large mast and sail :P ). However, there is a big difference in the sail material; yours has only 5% porosity to the wind, while mine is 99.9% porous. Assuming equal wind conditions when the anchors go up, which boat is going to experience more thrust and resulting propulsion?
In this analogy, the sail porosity is inversely equivalent to the magnet's flux density, and magnetization. So again, the porosity/mass ratio is what determines the thrust each boat experiences. Even though the galleon has a much greater mass than the zodiac, it experiences a large thrust when the wind hits the sails, while the wind on my sail goes right through producing little to no thrust.
What makes the difference even more pronounced with the two different magnet materials, is that the force experienced between two magnets (permanent or electro) is a function of the magnetization squared. So not only is the heavier neo magnet going to be propelled farther than the ceramic due to it having a much higher magnetization, but it is a square function. I'm sure that someone smart (not me) could take the differing magnet masses and magnetizations and compute the theoretical distance each would be propelled by the stator electromagnet.
Does that make sense, or have I missed something?
.99,
'Tis the Holiday season, a good time for warm drinks, colorful lights, and thought provoking analogies...
Why did you use two different sized boats in the analogy? Would not the difference in sail porosity have been sufficient to make the point? (i.e., identical boats, same size sails with different porosity)
As always, good to hear from you,
PW
Quote from: picowatt on December 22, 2015, 08:40:50 PM
To me, the question as to whether the stator actually does work is not all that clear cut.
I wish others would comment on this...
PW
In the case of motors, I'd say the stator coils do seem to stand up to the definition of work. A "force" (field) is applied (by the stator) and the object (rotor) moves in the direction of the force. But in this case, the force is electromagnetic in nature, and there is "work" done on charges as well by an electric field.
Quote from: picowatt on December 22, 2015, 10:55:18 PM
.99,
'Tis the Holiday season, a good time for warm drinks, colorful lights, and thought provoking analogies...
Why did you use two different sized boats in the analogy? Would not the difference in sail porosity have been sufficient to make the point? (i.e., identical boats, same size sails with different porosity)
As always, good to hear from you,
PW
PW, ;D .
In Guyla's example, the two magnets not only have different magnetizations, but different masses as well. The heavier magnet (galleon)) is stronger (lower porosity sail), and the lighter magnet (Zodiac) is weaker (high porosity sail).
Now, where did I hide that Baileys? ;D
Quote from: poynt99 on December 22, 2015, 11:14:04 PM
PW, ;D .
In Guyla's example, the two magnets not only have different magnetizations, but different masses as well. The heavier magnet (galleon)) is stronger (lower porosity sail), and the lighter magnet (Zodiac) is weaker (high porosity sail).
Now, where did I hide that Baileys? ;D
.99,
Thanks, now I get it.
Enjoy the Bailey's...
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on December 22, 2015, 11:07:43 PM
In the case of motors, I'd say the stator coils do seem to stand up to the definition of work. A "force" is applied (by the stator) and the object (rotor) moves in the direction of the force. But in this case, the force is electromagnetic in nature, and there is "work" done on charges as well by an electric field.
.99,
I was considering that if the field of the stator was considered as being stationary (i.e., not dynamic) that it was the dynamic forces that were actually doing work, hence my analogies.
I do realize it is all relative, but this was specifically with regard to the question Tinman posed, "does the stator do useful work?".
PW
Quote from: tinman on December 22, 2015, 10:52:27 PM
Perhaps you should go and argue this point with verpies in regards to Itsu's test results.
Brad
No, actually for now, I am going to ignore Verpies' and Itsu's results and stick by everything I said in my posting. There's no special case for magnets. They are devices that can change the overall electrical impedance and related efficiency of electrical devices, no one doubts that. But what they can't do is "useful work" or output "magnetic energy" on their own. For example, if PW is correct and the spinning rotor is absorbing electrical energy during the energizing cycle and speeding up, and then kicking back that energy at the end of the energizing cycle and/or after the energizing cycle is OFF and as a result slowing slowing down, then the spinning rotor is simply acting like an invisible spring storing and releasing energy. The energy goes from electrical to rotational (i.e.; mechanical) back to electrical.
Quote from: poynt99 on December 22, 2015, 10:22:00 PM
In this analogy, the sail porosity is inversely equivalent to the magnet's flux density, ...
Just a reminder that the force of magnetic attraction is proportional to the gradient of the flux density, not to the flux density itself.
Quote from: MileHigh on December 22, 2015, 11:47:24 PM
No, actually for now, I am going to ignore Verpies' and Itsu's results and stick by everything I said in my posting. There's no special case for magnets. They are devices that can change the overall electrical impedance and related efficiency of electrical devices, no one doubts that. But what they can't do is "useful work" or output "magnetic energy" on their own. For example, if PW is correct and the spinning rotor is absorbing electrical energy during the energizing cycle and speeding up, and then kicking back that energy at the end of the energizing cycle and/or after the energizing cycle is OFF and as a result slowing slowing down, then the spinning rotor is simply acting like an invisible spring storing and releasing energy. The energy goes from electrical to rotational (i.e.; mechanical) back to electrical.
So how dose the rotor store more energy than it receives?--how dose it give back more than it is given. What about the friction losses in the bearings,and windage losses. Even though small,they are still there. So how is it we get more back than we put into spinning the rotor?. If losses are taken into account,and more work is being done to spin the rotor than what is given back due to losses,then why dose the P/in drop when the rotor is in position and part of the opperation of the system?. You can say what you like,and stick to what your books say,but it was indeed the external alternating magnetic fields that converted losses(like waste heat) into electrical energy.
I did the test you wanted me to,to standards above what you requested. The results are known from this test,and are very accurate. But now because those results do not conform to your !! laws !! you start putting forward more test,and more test. Im happy to do these test,and post the result's,but they will show the same thing every time--the system is always more efficient with the rotor and magnets in play.
Now we have Itsu working on the same thing-although in a different thread,and along side him we have Verpies doing all the calculations for those test's--sound familiar MH ?. I seem to remember carrying out some tests some time ago as per 2 EE's request(one of them now sadly not with us).
Now,if my test showed an under unity result,every one would have been happy-as they would be if Itsu's results were also under unity. But as the results that were calculated (by others) with my test,all sorts of bullshit started to flow--and so i pulled the plug on that. Now we see the same thing starting to happen in regards to the results that have so far been calculated from Itsu's test.
I have said all along MH,you have no room for change,and what i have seen here(and other forums) is that !!most!! of the well educated EE guys are much the same. Verpies and smudge are probably the only two EE guys i know that have an open mind,and not ruled by the book. It is guys like Verpies and Smudge that will go the whole nine yards,and not just dismiss findings as errors just because they are not in line with outdated !!laws!!.
Like you said MH--we shall see. And if Itsu's result's are correct,then we shall see if he can put all this together,and come up with some like--well,i dont know-->maybe a rotating device that can deliver more power to a load than it consumes,i mean that is what he appears to have ATM,only on a smaller scale-->now wouldnt that be a hoot :D
Brad
Brad:
>>> So how dose the rotor store more energy than it receives?--how dose it give back more than it is given.
I am not sure what you mean by that. Your evidence is showing that the motor gets more efficient when the rotor is spinning. What do you mean and where does it show that it "is giving back more than it is given?" I only see it giving back less than it is given with the rotor and without the rotor. If you are going to say the input power went down then we are talking in circles. The only thing you have is a bird's eye view of what is taking place - you motor loses less input power to heat when the rotor spins. We don't know exactly where or exactly why that is happening.
>>> You can say what you like,and stick to what your books say,but it was indeed the external alternating magnetic fields that converted losses(like waste heat) into electrical energy.
You are still looking at it the wrong way. You have two separate cases and they are both under unity. No waste heat losses were converted into electrical energy. If you put in a better bearing will waste heat losses be converted into electrical energy?
>>> I did the test you wanted me to,to standards above what you requested. The results are known from this test,and are very accurate. But now because those results do not conform to your !! laws !! you start putting forward more test,and more test. Im happy to do these test,and post the result's,but they will show the same thing every time--the system is always more efficient with the rotor and magnets in play.
You need to embrace testing and when you get anomalous results your mind should be crackling and you should be inventing more tests for yourself to confirm or deny your results. Who said the results don't conform to the laws of physics? Not me, not PW, only you are claiming that. Your measurements are 100% mundane and normal. You have a very poorly performing coil that shows slightly better performance with a spinning rotor in place. You need to think about that and realize it. All that you did was change the overall electro-mechanical impedance of the device when you added the rotor. That's it - no laws were broken. It's very important for you to realize this.
>>> I have said all along MH,you have no room for change,and what i have seen here(and other forums) is that !!most!! of the well educated EE guys are much the same.
Yeah but the truth on the forums is we have all been down this road before and then an honest researcher finds an error. In the "pro" world that Sterling Allen follows, everything he writes up with enthusiasm eventually gets busted or fizzles out. Think of the German chain-drive bubbler. It would be wonderful if one day somebody breaks out.
So I figure it's either a break out or renewables become more and more of our energy pie. There is so much sun and so much land that perhaps in 100 years the millions of square kilometers of desert in Australia will be powering a good chunk of East Asia. You never know.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on December 23, 2015, 06:28:33 AM
Brad:
>>> So how dose the rotor store more energy than it receives?--how dose it give back more than it is given.
I am not sure what you mean by that. Your evidence is showing that the motor gets more efficient when the rotor is spinning. What do you mean and where does it show that it "is giving back more than it is given?" I only see it giving back less than it is given with the rotor and without the rotor. If you are going to say the input power went down then we are talking in circles. The only thing you have is a bird's eye view of what is taking place - you motor loses less input power to heat when the rotor spins. We don't know exactly where or exactly why that is happening.
>>> You can say what you like,and stick to what your books say,but it was indeed the external alternating magnetic fields that converted losses(like waste heat) into electrical energy.
You are still looking at it the wrong way. You have two separate cases and they are both under unity. No waste heat losses were converted into electrical energy. If you put in a better bearing will waste heat losses be converted into electrical energy?
>>> I did the test you wanted me to,to standards above what you requested. The results are known from this test,and are very accurate. But now because those results do not conform to your !! laws !! you start putting forward more test,and more test. Im happy to do these test,and post the result's,but they will show the same thing every time--the system is always more efficient with the rotor and magnets in play.
and when you get anomalous results your mind should be crackling and you should be inventing more tests for yourself to confirm or deny your results. Who said the results don't conform to the laws of physics? Not me, not PW, only you are claiming that. Your measurements are 100% mundane and normal. You have a very poorly performing coil that shows slightly better performance with a spinning rotor in place. You need to think about that and realize it. All that you did was change the overall electro-mechanical impedance of the device when you added the rotor. That's it - no laws were broken. It's very important for you to realize this.
>>> I have said all along MH,you have no room for change,and what i have seen here(and other forums) is that !!most!! of the well educated EE guys are much the same.
Yeah but the truth on the forums is we have all been down this road before and then an honest researcher finds an error. In the "pro" world that Sterling Allen follows, everything he writes up with enthusiasm eventually gets busted or fizzles out. Think of the German chain-drive bubbler. It would be wonderful if one day somebody breaks out.
So I figure it's either a break out or renewables become more and more of our energy pie. There is so much sun and so much land that perhaps in 100 years the millions of square kilometers of desert in Australia will be powering a good chunk of East Asia. You never know.
MileHigh
MH
Here is where we see that your understanding,or your belief sways reality.
First you say
Quoteyou motor loses less input power to heat when the rotor spins. We don't know exactly where or exactly why that is happening.
Then you say
QuoteNo waste heat losses were converted into electrical energy.
So how can you say the second,when in the first you say we dont know what or why that is happening?.
QuoteYou need to embrace testing
I do MH,but i see a pattern forming here. When one test dose not show results that you think should be seen,you come up with another test--first,lower the voltage !which i did!-->same result , then raise the voltage,but lower the duty cycle !which i also did!-->same results. It has come apparent that each and every test i do that dose not abide by your laws of physics,you just make up another test,and i have a feeling that these different tests would keep coming until such time as you get the results that suit your law's.
Anyway,i will continue on,and see how we go.
Brad
@ Verpies
if you have enough time to follow this thread as well,below is a pic of a coil i already had lying around that i will try first.
It has a hollow ferrite core that i have filled with plastic coated soft iron wire,as i have a mig welder,so do not have any of the welding rod Itsu used. But being plastic covered,we know that they will be electrically isolated from each other. The inductance is 11.55mH,and resistance is 3 ohm's. I have left the extra rod length hanging out the back of the coil as Itsu has in his setup. If the results are not the same as he is seeing,then i will make up a coil like his,and see if we can get the same results then.
I only have 2 x 1uF poly caps,but can pick up some tomorrow during my lunch break. I also have now my non inductive .1 ohm CVR that i raided from an old DMM--should do the job ?. I have the IRF954 mosfets,and they are good for 23 amps continuous,or 76 amps pulsed.
If you get the time,could you throw up a sketch of the best suited circuit for the equipment i have--keeping in mind that my FG and scope share common grounds.
Cheers
Brad
Quote from: poynt99 on December 22, 2015, 10:22:00 PM
....
Does that make sense, or have I missed something?
Hi poynt99,
Well, your explanation makes sense, thank you. (For completeness I mention I also read verpies' additional reminder to this question in his Reply #195.)
In my previous post I mentioned Newton's Third law, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" and this law may not seem to be 100% correct in this case, once the reaction force from a strong magnet becomes higher than the action force coming from a weak magnet. I am pleased... 8)
Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on December 23, 2015, 09:43:34 AM
Hi poynt99,
Well, your explanation makes sense, thank you. (For completeness I mention I also read verpies' additional reminder to this question in his Reply #195.)
Yes, I must thank verpies for always pointing out the details I purposely leave out of my posts. :P
Quote
In my previous post I mentioned Newton's Third law, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" and this law may not seem to be 100% correct in this case, once the reaction force from a strong magnet becomes higher than the action force coming from a weak magnet. I am pleased... 8)
Gyula
Could you elaborate? I don't think I understand your point.
I mean the coil always made equal repel forces for both the ceramic and the Neo magnets I suppose, (these were the action forces), yet the reaction forces from the ceramic and the Neo magnets were different to the same action force.
Quote from: gyulasun on December 23, 2015, 10:44:45 AM
I mean the coil always made equal repel forces for both the ceramic and the Neo magnets I suppose, (these were the action forces), yet the reaction forces from the ceramic and the Neo magnets were different to the same action force.
The coil always made an equal "field". The resulting "force" is partly dependent on the magnetization of the magnet.
Are you saying Newton's 3rd does not hold?
Brad:
Me: "No waste heat losses were converted into electrical energy."
Me: "your motor loses less input power to heat when the rotor spins. We don't know exactly where or exactly why that is happening."
There is no contradiction here. I will repeat to you what I have already said: You can't look at two separate and independent cases and draw an inference from the differences between them. In each case we don't know exactly where or exactly why the waste heat is being produced. We have a good idea what his happening, but we don't know the exact specifics.
You can not say that Case B is more efficient than Case A therefore in Case B waste heat power is being converted into electrical power. That does not make any sense. In both cases we don't know the exact specifics. So how can we possibly arrive at a conclusion about the differences between them?
I will repeat again: If you change the bearing for a better bearing you would never say the bearing is converting waste heat power into electrical power. The same thing applies to changing the magnet configuration.
You simply can not arrive at the conclusion that you are suggesting.
MileHigh
Quote from: webby1 on December 23, 2015, 01:00:40 PM
I am most likely wrong,, but I take what Tinman is saying when referencing "heat" is that it takes energy to make it, energy from the system,, so electrical energy is being converted into heat, so a penny saved. I do not take it that he is saying that some "heat" is being converted back into electricity by the PM's, but they are replacing a process that consumes electrical energy and dissipates part of that as heat.
"so
less electrical energy is being converted into heat, so a penny saved."
Then what Brad is saying is just an awkward and roundabout way of saying in Case A you have efficiency A and in Case B you have efficiency B. The use of the word "converted" is inappropriate, awkward, and misleading. Just keep it simple.
Quote from: poynt99 on December 23, 2015, 10:54:23 AM
The coil always made an equal "field". The resulting "force" is partly dependent on the magnetization of the magnet.
Are you saying Newton's 3rd does not hold?
Yes, this is what the tests seem to suggest. The higher the magnetization of the magnet, the stronger the resulting reaction force becomes, and this is not what the 3rd law states.
Quote from: tinman on December 23, 2015, 07:16:00 AM
I also have now my non inductive 0.1 ohm CVR that i raided from an old DMM--should do the job ?
Yes it should do the job.
I can see that you have discovered my pet peeve - inductive CSRs ;)
Quote from: tinman on December 23, 2015, 07:16:00 AM
If you get the time,could you throw up a sketch of the best suited circuit for the equipment i have--keeping in mind that my FG and scope share common grounds.
I just looked into this tread.
Do you still want to do this after Itsu's discovery that the 10ÎĽF cap was in fact a 1ÎĽF cap ?
Quote from: gyulasun on December 23, 2015, 01:39:57 PM
Yes, this is what the tests seem to suggest.
I would disagree.
Quote
The higher the magnetization of the magnet, the stronger the resulting reaction force becomes, and this is not what the 3rd law states.
Where does the 3rd law state anything about the magnetization of a magnet?
Of course there is going to be different reaction forces, because there are also different action forces in the two cases of the two different magnets. But for the case of one particular magnet, the action and reaction forces will be equal. Therefore Newton's 3rd holds.
Quote from: poynt99 on December 23, 2015, 03:33:38 PM
...
Of course there is going to be different reaction forces, because there are also different action forces in the two cases of the two different magnets. But for the case of one particular magnet, the action and reaction forces will be equal. Therefore Newton's 3rd holds.
Well, it sounds possible. Thanks for the answers.
Quote from: tinman on December 23, 2015, 03:21:50 AM
So how dose the rotor store more energy than it receives?--how dose it give back more than it is given. What about the friction losses in the bearings,and windage losses. Even though small,they are still there. So how is it we get more back than we put into spinning the rotor?. If losses are taken into account,and more work is being done to spin the rotor than what is given back due to losses,then why dose the P/in drop when the rotor is in position and part of the opperation of the system?. You can say what you like,and stick to what your books say,but it was indeed the external alternating magnetic fields that converted losses(like waste heat) into electrical energy.
I did the test you wanted me to,to standards above what you requested. The results are known from this test,and are very accurate. But now because those results do not conform to your !! laws !! you start putting forward more test,and more test. Im happy to do these test,and post the result's,but they will show the same thing every time--the system is always more efficient with the rotor and magnets in play.
Now we have Itsu working on the same thing-although in a different thread,and along side him we have Verpies doing all the calculations for those test's--sound familiar MH ?. I seem to remember carrying out some tests some time ago as per 2 EE's request(one of them now sadly not with us).
Now,if my test showed an under unity result,every one would have been happy-as they would be if Itsu's results were also under unity. But as the results that were calculated (by others) with my test,all sorts of bullshit started to flow--and so i pulled the plug on that. Now we see the same thing starting to happen in regards to the results that have so far been calculated from Itsu's test.
I have said all along MH,you have no room for change,and what i have seen here(and other forums) is that !!most!! of the well educated EE guys are much the same. Verpies and smudge are probably the only two EE guys i know that have an open mind,and not ruled by the book. It is guys like Verpies and Smudge that will go the whole nine yards,and not just dismiss findings as errors just because they are not in line with outdated !!laws!!.
Like you said MH--we shall see. And if Itsu's result's are correct,then we shall see if he can put all this together,and come up with some like--well,i dont know-->maybe a rotating device that can deliver more power to a load than it consumes,i mean that is what he appears to have ATM,only on a smaller scale-->now wouldnt that be a hoot :D
Brad
@Tinman,
dose
[dohs]
Spell Syllables
Examples
Word Origin
noun
1. a quantity of medicine prescribed to be taken at one time.
Quote from: tinman on December 23, 2015, 03:21:50 AM
I seem to remember carrying out some tests some time ago as per 2 EE's request(one of them now sadly not with us).
Now,if my test showed an under unity result,every one would have been happy-as they would be if Itsu's results were also under unity. But as the results that were calculated (by others) with my test,all sorts of bullshit started to flow--and so i pulled the plug on that.
Tinman,
Are you referring to your RT experiments? Maybe you had disparaging comments made over in the private threads that I am not aware of, but I only recall one comment in passing from .99 that did not seem at all unreasonable to me, which, to paraphrase, was something like as long as there was no hanky-panky going on at your end (which never even occurred to me), your results were at the least very interesting. If your decisions were based on that one comment by .99, I think you over reacted a bit. In fact, it seemed as if you protested a bit too much.
You state that you "pulled the plug". I thought that plug was pulled by the MIB/WIB/PTB or whoever. That whole event and its outcome cast more of a cloud of doubt than any measurements ever did. In fact, I have assumed that if you were not allowed to continue your pursuit of the RT because it was indeed OU and the PTB stopped you, it logically follows that everything else you have made public regarding other paths taken since then must not lead to OU because surely the PTB are still watching you and they have not stopped you from pursuing those directions.
I for one was very interested and quite intrigued by your RT results. I wish you would have continued those investigations. Even MarkE was beginning to accept that your measurements, at the very least, were looking quite interesting.
Quote
I have said all along MH,you have no room for change,and what i have seen here(and other forums) is that !!most!! of the well educated EE guys are much the same. Verpies and smudge are probably the only two EE guys i know that have an open mind,and not ruled by the book. It is guys like Verpies and Smudge that will go the whole nine yards,and not just dismiss findings as errors just because they are not in line with outdated !!laws!!.
I think this is a bit harsh...
Your "spinning rotor tests" are interesting, maybe not so much so as the RT results, but it does make one wonder why the results are as they appear to be. You have proposed a few possibilities, as have I and MH. I do not know how much more time you want to invest toward looking into this further, but there is much that could be done if you wished to do so. As I said before, any further pursuit of answers is most likely going to require a high resolution study of any small accelerations and decelerations of the rotor and precisely when theses occur over time. I have offered to post some suggestions regarding methods that will allow you to perform these types of tests if you are interested in doing so. In fact, at the very least, it would likely make an interesting topic of discussion and there are many brilliant people here that could likely offer additional solutions and refinements related to such tests.
PW
Quote from: verpies on December 23, 2015, 02:21:56 PM
Yes it should do the job.
I can see that you have discovered my pet peeve - inductive CSRs ;)
I just looked into this tread.
Do you still want to do this after Itsu's discovery that the 10ÎĽF cap was in fact a 1ÎĽF cap ?
Indeed Verpies,i do.
But what i need is a circuit that suits the measuring equipment i have that will show !if any! that the rotor is the source of the energy saved in P/in,or the energy gained in P/out.
I have attached the circuit i was using.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 23, 2015, 03:21:50 AM
I have said all along MH,you have no room for change,and what i have seen here(and other forums) is that !!most!! of the well educated EE guys are much the same. Verpies and smudge are probably the only two EE guys i know that have an open mind,and not ruled by the book. It is guys like Verpies and Smudge that will go the whole nine yards,and not just dismiss findings as errors just because they are not in line with outdated !!laws!!.
There are others here with "open minds", and along with that comes common sense, experience, the education, patience (not jumping to unfounded conclusions), and the presence of mind to analyze and ask the right questions when something doesn't add up.
Quote from: picowatt on December 23, 2015, 05:14:49 PM
Tinman,
I think this is a bit harsh...
PW
QuoteAre you referring to your RT experiments? Maybe you had disparaging comments made over in the private threads that I am not aware of, but I only recall one comment in passing from .99 that did not seem at all unreasonable to me, which, to paraphrase, was something like as long as there was no hanky-panky going on at your end (which never even occurred to me), your results were at the least very interesting. If your decisions were based on that one comment by .99, I think you over reacted a bit. In fact, it seemed as if you protested a bit too much.
While poynt's comment was-well-upsetting,the worst was yet to come,and from those i considered friends-->and yes,in a private forum.
Quote1-You state that you "pulled the plug". I thought that plug was pulled by the MIB/WIB/PTB or whoever. 2- That whole event and its outcome cast more of a cloud of doubt than any measurements ever did.
1 was because of 2. The big cloud of doubt(and acusations) came before the plug was pulled.
As i said-there were no gun wielding MIB,they were just normal people that had the ability to make think's -well- interesting you could say. But a loop hole was found,and a way around these !undocumented! restrictions,but that came to an unexpected end,and now i still do not know where things went,or what happened there--i do have some one looking into it for me,but as of yet,have not heard back from them.
QuoteIn fact, I have assumed that if you were not allowed to continue your pursuit of the RT because it was indeed OU and the PTB stopped you, it logically follows that everything else you have made public regarding other paths taken since then must not lead to OU because surely the PTB are still watching you and they have not stopped you from pursuing those directions.
And nothing i have done has shown any signs of OU--i have been simply showing different !effects!--but no one is paying much attention to them anyway--dismissal seems to be the go around here by most,so were all good. ;)
QuoteI for one was very interested and quite intrigued by your RT results. I wish you would have continued those investigations. Even MarkE was beginning to accept that your measurements, at the very least, were looking quite interesting.
And some.
QuoteYour "spinning rotor tests" are interesting, maybe not so much so as the RT results, but it does make one wonder why the results are as they appear to be. You have proposed a few possibilities, as have I and MH. I do not know how much more time you want to invest toward looking into this further, but there is much that could be done if you wished to do so. As I said before, any further pursuit of answers is most likely going to require a high resolution study of any small accelerations and decelerations of the rotor and precisely when theses occur over time. I have offered to post some suggestions regarding methods that will allow you to perform these types of tests if you are interested in doing so. In fact, at the very least, it would likely make an interesting topic of discussion and there are many brilliant people here that could likely offer additional solutions and refinements related to such tests.
I will be doing just this. I will be getting the rest of the parts i need today,and im hoping Verpies is going to throw together a quick schematic that best suits the equipment i have,and one that we can take accurate measurements from.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 23, 2015, 06:43:26 PM
While poynt's comment was-well-upsetting,the worst was yet to come,and from those i considered friends-->and yes,in a private forum.
Sorry to hear that...
Quote
I will be doing just this. I will be getting the rest of the parts i need today,and im hoping Verpies is going to throw together a quick schematic that best suits the equipment i have,and one that we can take accurate measurements from.
Brad
Can your FG do N-cycle or 1/2 cycle bursts triggered from an external input or Fin divided by N?
If you don't know for certain, what's the model number of the FG?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on December 23, 2015, 07:26:12 PM
Sorry to hear that...
Can your FG do N-cycle or 1/2 cycle bursts triggered from an external input or Fin divided by N?
If you don't know for certain, what's the model number of the FG?
PW
Im sure my FG can do all sorts of thing's,as im still learning what they all are.
See pic below. The model number is the ATF20B.
OK,just tried the new coil for the testing,and this one is going in the bin.
It is not so good,and i have to drop the frequency to 20 Hz to get the rotor to sink.
And can some one please tell me what the difference between the average and mean value's when we only have a wave form that is above the 0 volt line--a pulsed DC voltage-that being across the CVR. I seem to remember asking Poynt once,and from what he could read,they are suppose to mean the same value when reading a pulsed DC value--as far as i remember. So that being the case,why dose the average go up,while the mean value remains the same?.
This test is inconclusive,as there is just no way i can make any sort of comparison in this case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeDXKxLaD-4
Brad
Quote Magnaprop from Luc's thread
QuoteFrom the image resolution accuracy, I could tell no difference in the graph. each blip in the graph looks the same and the space between blips is the same. I would need much larger images or closer views to do a more accurate match up.
Below is a scope shot of the wave form across the emitter/collector junction from the new !!not so good !! coil. I now seem to have two wave forms being generated,in stead of the 1 1/2 i had with the other coil. Hope that is a little clearer Magnaprop--thats about as best we can do.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 24, 2015, 02:08:16 AM
And can some one please tell me what the difference between the average and mean value's when we only have a wave form that is above the 0 volt line--a pulsed DC voltage-that being across the CVR. I seem to remember asking Poynt once,and from what he could read,they are suppose to mean the same value when reading a pulsed DC value--as far as i remember. So that being the case,why dose the average go up,while the mean value remains the same?.
I dug this out of your manual before. Here it is once more...
Most scopes use the terms "Mean" and "Cycle Mean". Yours uses "Mean" and "Vavg" respectively.
When using "Mean", either you have an exact whole number of cycles on the display, or a great number of cycles, say 10 or more. If you do not use a whole number of cycles or a large number of cycles, then the mean value displayed may not be accurate.
Quote from: gyulasun on December 23, 2015, 10:44:45 AM
I mean the coil always made equal repel forces for both the ceramic and the Neo magnets I suppose, (these were the action forces), yet the reaction forces from the ceramic and the Neo magnets were different to the same action force.
@gyulasun
In that video with the ceramic and neo magnet, there are a few things to consider.
1) The coil has a diameter and a depth of the winding.
2) Since the magnet is placed right next to one side of the coil diameter, one would presume that each magnet is receiving the same impulse from the coil but that should not be the case.
3) One would consider that the capacitor discharge creates an equal magnetic influence along the whole depth of the coil but that again may not be the case, but let's say it is. Let's say if the coil is 10 turns per layer and 20 layers that each of the 10 turns and above each of those turns you are producing the exact same magnetic influence.
4) Now, consider the ceramic magnetic influence itself can reach the 3rd turn of coil depth before it decreases to nill. When the cap is discharged, only 3 turns of the coil depth will cause the repelling reaction so the magnet does not go that far.
5) Now consider the neo magnetic influence itself can reach all the way across the 10 turns of coil depth and even further out before it reaches the same strength as the ceramic magnet. When the cap is discharged, every active layer and turn in the coil is now taking full part in repelling the neo hence it moves out further away.
6) So in part, this experiment is biased by the depth of the coil which disadvantages the ceramic magnet under the same cap discharge. At first look one would say both magnets are receiving the same impulse but they are not because the coil depth really favors only the neo magnet.
To do this experiment, you do not need a coil. All you need is some stout wire turned in a one layer spiral and mounted on a solid backing where either magnet can sit against the one layer coil hence the coil depth factor would not be of concern.
wattsup
author=wattsup link=topic=16261.msg469486#msg469486 date=1450995712]
@gyulasun
wattsup
Quote
4) Now, consider the ceramic magnetic influence itself can reach the 3rd turn of coil depth before it decreases to nill. When the cap is discharged, only 3 turns of the coil depth will cause the repelling reaction so the magnet does not go that far.
5) Now consider the neo magnetic influence itself can reach all the way across the 10 turns of coil depth and even further out before it reaches the same strength as the ceramic magnet. When the cap is discharged, every active layer and turn in the coil is now taking full part in repelling the neo hence it moves out further away.
There is a problem with that analogy wattsup--can you work out what it is ?.
QuoteTo do this experiment, you do not need a coil. All you need is some stout wire turned in a one layer spiral and mounted on a solid backing where either magnet can sit against the one layer coil hence the coil depth factor would not be of concern.
The results would be the same.
Brad
Quote from: poynt99 on December 24, 2015, 09:30:51 AM
I dug this out of your manual before. Here it is once more...
Most scopes use the terms "Mean" and "Cycle Mean". Yours uses "Mean" and "Vavg" respectively.
When using "Mean", either you have an exact whole number of cycles on the display, or a great number of cycles, say 10 or more. If you do not use a whole number of cycles or a large number of cycles, then the mean value displayed may not be accurate.
Ah ,ok
Thanks Poynt for clearing that up.
So it would seem that the input current-once again,did rise when the rotor was removed,as the average value over the 1 ohm CVR went up,which is also what my DMM showed when i tried it again with the DMM across the CVR.
Brad.
Quote from: tinman on December 24, 2015, 06:35:32 PM
wattsup
There is a problem with that analogy wattsup--can you work out what it is ?.
The results would be the same. Brad
@tinman
Besides the pulsed coil suffering from the infernal HCS which I did not want to get into here, no, I think it is pretty close to the effect seen. Don't know for sure if the results would be the same or not, but my guess with a pulse to a stout spiral coil would be that the ceramic will go further out but the neo will always win.
But, I would have liked to see that demo doing eight trials, one from each pole of the two magnets then reverse the pulse polarities going to the coil and repeat. With those eight results we would have possibly seen proof of something even more extraordinary. OK so would the effect be the same when using either pole of those magnets? What would that show? That's the main problem, experiments that do not go deep enough where a few more tests could expand the effect questioning base by many.
Psst. I got my new longer cores and have made 3 new coils for a next HCS vid after I start playing with it to get to know and repeat the effects seen.
About the "useful work ethic of magnets" thing is the question is loaded. Does copper wire do useful work? Does the core do useful work? Does the battery do useful work? Can electricity do useful work? Is it the electricity doing the work or is it the generator producing the electricity that is doing all of the real work or is it the motive energy going to the generator that is the real star of the show?
All of them would answer no "when used alone" but when combined, their inter-effects produce useful work so anyone stating that magnets cannot do useful work is right only when the magnet is alone, which it never is in all our devices, so by consequence the answer has to be "YES, when combined with other useless objects to form one functional system". But may I recommend disembarking from this line of thinking since the main discussion will always be a hen or egg first dilemma. The Earth core is a magnet (which is basically a gravity source) all alone in the Universe so does it do useful work. Hope so for all of our sakes.
If those test magnets did the same fly off effect from either sides of the magnet while the pulse polarity stayed the same or was reversed, then the magnet is doing some useful work since the capacitor discharge into the coil is not producing a specific polarized impulse but non-polarized atomic spin that usually starts from a latent non energized position. But with the magnet placed beside the coil, the magnet will rebias the copper atoms to a new orientation thus forcing the atoms to spin in a greater momentum when the cap discharges. So the magnet has to be doing work just by being there as the atomic rebias does not have any polarization preferences and that experiment would have shown this with eight trials instead of only two. Of course for those espousing the field/electron concept will beg to differ because for them, the atom is just another stupid piece of junk that cannot do anything without a field impress magically inciting electron movement. I'll stop here and sorry for interjecting into your thread.
Ah, three more days off, so more days on the bench. Life is good.
Merriness to all. hohoho
wattsup
PS: When you answered my question about how AC works, do you realize that your answer, which is the typical EE stance is not possible. hahaha Actually with the invention of AC, Tesla single handedly proves that current and electron flow is impossible but no one ever made that link, or, they choose to ignore it and keep that dream alive. Maybe Tesla knew this from the beginning but did not want to bring any undue attention to this since he was far too beholding to his money barons during his inventive haydays.
Wattsup:
I am not going to challenge or debate you about your theory, but since you brought it up I will just give you my take on what you are seeing: When you excite your coil with AC it effectively becomes a form of voltage divider with maximum AC voltage at one end and no AC voltage at the ground end. The tape head is very sensitive and the AC voltage at a given point on the coil projects an AC electric field in the immediate vicinity of the coil and elsewhere. There is a corresponding tiny AC magnetic field associated with the AC voltage field and the tape head picks that up.
Brad:
I can summarize what's going on with your pulse motor experiment: If you pulse a coil with a fixed pulse length and a constant DC voltage and the coil does mechanical work, then the energy required to pulse the coil will be less than if the coil does no mechanical work. I explained exactly why that is here:
http://overunity.com/16167/sharing-ideas-on-how-to-make-a-more-efficent-motor-using-flyback-moderated/msg469401/#msg469401 (http://overunity.com/16167/sharing-ideas-on-how-to-make-a-more-efficent-motor-using-flyback-moderated/msg469401/#msg469401)
Here is the supporting graphic compliments of Verpies:
http://overunity.com/16167/sharing-ideas-on-how-to-make-a-more-efficent-motor-using-flyback-moderated/msg469405/#msg469405 (http://overunity.com/16167/sharing-ideas-on-how-to-make-a-more-efficent-motor-using-flyback-moderated/msg469405/#msg469405)
So, let's look at the case with the "coil pulses the magnet" test: The coil will draw the highest energy per pulse when there is no magnet. The coil will draw less energy when it pulses the light ceramic magnet that moves a short distance. The coil will draw even less energy when it pulses the heavy neo magnet that moves a long distance.
Again, the way it works is that for a fixed length pulse of a fixed voltage, less energy is drawn by the coil when it exports energy to the outside world.
How that relates to your pulse motor is that when there is no rotor and you feed it a pulse train of fixed length and voltage, it draws a certain amount of average power. When you put the rotor in place, the coil is now exporting power to the outside world and therefore it draws less average power.
There is no "useful work" being done by the magnets, there is no "conversion of heat into useful work or electrical power" or "manifestation of 'magnetic energy.'"
The only thing that is really happening when you add the rotor is that the average electro-mechanical impedance of the system goes up and therefore the system draws less power.
MileHigh
author=MileHigh link=topic=16261.msg469526#msg469526 date=1451084638]
Wattsup:
Quote
Brad:
I can summarize what's going on with your pulse motor experiment: If you pulse a coil with a fixed pulse length and a constant DC voltage and the coil does mechanical work, then the energy required to pulse the coil will be less than if the coil does no mechanical work. I explained exactly why that is here:
http://overunity.com/16167/sharing-ideas-on-how-to-make-a-more-efficent-motor-using-flyback-moderated/msg469401/#msg469401 (http://overunity.com/16167/sharing-ideas-on-how-to-make-a-more-efficent-motor-using-flyback-moderated/msg469401/#msg469401)
Here is the supporting graphic compliments of Verpies:
http://overunity.com/16167/sharing-ideas-on-how-to-make-a-more-efficent-motor-using-flyback-moderated/msg469405/#msg469405 (http://overunity.com/16167/sharing-ideas-on-how-to-make-a-more-efficent-motor-using-flyback-moderated/msg469405/#msg469405)
So, let's look at the case with the "coil pulses the magnet" test: The coil will draw the highest energy per pulse when there is no magnet. The coil will draw less energy when it pulses the light ceramic magnet that moves a short distance. The coil will draw even less energy when it pulses the heavy neo magnet that moves a long distance.
Again, the way it works is that for a fixed length pulse of a fixed voltage, less energy is drawn by the coil when it exports energy to the outside world.
How that relates to your pulse motor is that when there is no rotor and you feed it a pulse train of fixed length and voltage, it draws a certain amount of average power. When you put the rotor in place, the coil is now exporting power to the outside world and therefore it draws less average power.
There is no "useful work" being done by the magnets, there is no "conversion of heat into useful work or electrical power" or "manifestation of 'magnetic energy.'"
The only thing that is really happening when you add the rotor is that the average electro-mechanical impedance of the system goes up and therefore the system draws less power.
MileHigh
MH
I do not believe that is what is happening.
If i change out the magnets for say laminated core pieces,would that have the same effect?.
And why is the effect not the same when the magnets are just stationary in front of the coil if the magnets are only changing the electro-mechanical impedance of the system?. Also-how dose this work that is being done by the coil on the rotor avoid detection of the measuring equipment-->in fact,the measuring equipment says less work is being done,and yet on the output side,our equipment says more work is being done.. What if i measure the voltage across the coil with and without the rotor,and the voltage remains the same?. The thing is MH,the voltage would be higher across the coil when the rotor is in place,because the current is lower. The measurements show that less work is being done when the rotor is in place,but the measurements also show that more work has been done as far as the output go's.
What if i were to place a temp probe into the core,and i take temperature readings with and without the rotor in play. What situation would produce more heat in the core of the coil-with or without the rotor?. You may think that the temperature would rise without the rotor in play,as there would be more current flowing through the coil. But we have to remember that the magnets would create heat in the core due to eddy currents,so i would think that the heat produced by the coil would remain the same--if not more heat would be produced with the rotor in play--then what?.
Today,i will carry out some more tests at a higher frequency,and these tests will be as follows.
First i get a pulse motor up and running.
I let it settle at it's !!happy!! speed,so as the system is stable. I then get an accurate frequency,pulse width, and amplitude on the base of the transistor(this will not be hard,as i can get a perfect square wave on the base of the transistor)--along with a stable supply voltage. I then stop the pulse motor,and remove the rotor.
I set my FG to the exact frequency,pulse width(duty cycle),and amplitude to that of what we had on the pulse motor. So in reality,the only thing we will be changing is the fact that one will have the external alternating magnetic field's,and one will not-as before in the other tests. I will even go to the trouble of making a new core out of laminated transformer steel(seems to be better than the steel rods),and putting a temp probe in the core,and we can have a look at core temperature as well.
I should get this done today,but first i will have to head into town,and get some more supplies.
Brad.
Brad:
At this point you are going to have to figure things out for yourself or others will have to chime in and have the debate with you. You are asking some questions that you should already know the answers to.
>>> in fact,the measuring equipment says less work is being done,and yet on the output side,our equipment says more work is being done.
You seem to be completely ignoring the resistive losses - waste heat. This has been discussed over and over and I didn't include it in my summary because it should be obvious and implicit.
Anybody is welcome to challenge what I am stating if they disagree, or join the debate and challenge the challengers if they agree. For myself personally, I think that I am done here.
If you are an avid pulse motor builder and following this thread, you owe it to yourself to understand the electrical and mechanical energy dynamics of your pulse motor builds. Sometimes things seem to be the opposite of what you think they should be and you should understand the whys and the hows when this happens instead of just making observations and reporting what you observed.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on December 25, 2015, 07:45:39 PM
Brad:
At this point you are going to have to figure things out for yourself or others will have to chime in and have the debate with you. You are asking some questions that you should already know the answers to.
>>> in fact,the measuring equipment says less work is being done,and yet on the output side,our equipment says more work is being done.
Anybody is welcome to challenge what I am stating if they disagree, or join the debate and challenge the challengers if they agree. For myself personally, I think that I am done here.
If you are an avid pulse motor builder and following this thread, you owe it to yourself to understand the electrical and mechanical energy dynamics of your pulse motor builds. Sometimes things seem to be the opposite of what you think they should be and you should understand the whys and the hows when this happens instead of just making observations and reporting what you observed.
MileHigh
QuoteYou seem to be completely ignoring the resistive losses - waste heat. This has been discussed over and over and I didn't include it in my summary because it should be obvious and implicit.
I often wonder MH,if you actually read the whole of my posts ::)
Quote from second paragraph in last reply
Quote: What if i were to place a temp probe into the core,and i take temperature readings with and without the rotor in play. What situation would produce more heat in the core of the coil-with or without the rotor?.
Quote from last paragraph from last post
Quote: I will even go to the trouble of making a new core out of laminated transformer steel(seems to be better than the steel rods),and putting a temp probe in the core,and we can have a look at core temperature as well.
Brad
I wonder too Brad. Did I say anything about the temperature of the cores at any time in this discussion? Who says that I was making any kind of reference to the heating of the cores when I talked about waste heat, because I wasn't. You don't need to develop a method to measure the waste heat when you know it is there and you can use your DSO. Do you think that you can just shift gears and manufacture a connection of convenience to make it look like I am missing something?
Instead of being dismissive of what I said in the other thread you should have asked questions and made an attempt to understand it first. Have the debate with somebody else because I am done.
Quote from: MileHigh on December 25, 2015, 08:03:34 PM
I wonder too Brad. Did I say anything about the temperature of the cores at any time in this discussion? Who says that I was making any kind of reference to the heating of the cores when I talked about waste heat, because I wasn't. You don't need to develop a method to measure the waste heat when you know it is there and you can use your DSO. Do you think that you can just shift gears and manufacture a connection of convenience to make it look like I am missing something?
Instead of being dismissive of what I said in the other thread you should have asked questions and made an attempt to understand it first. Have the debate with somebody else because I am done.
MH
I am making every attempt to see what is happening here,and what i am doing about temperature measurements is what i should be doing. If the power consumption go's down,and the power output remains the same.or go's up,and the heat also remains the same or go's up,then we know it is not resistive losses-waste heat that is the reason for the increase in P/in when the rotor is not in play. If the waste heat(coil temperature) amount rises when the rotor is removed,then we know that it was the magnets that were the cause of waste heat being reduced,and thus P/in being reduced.
So what then MH-->what if the temperature of the coil drop's without the rotor,but the P/in increases at the same time?.
Well,lets see how we go,and there is no need to have a dummy spit,and take your bat and ball,and run off just because i will not take your word for what is happening here-->that is not the scientific method-as some one has told you before.
Brad
The results of the heat dissipation test-with and without rotor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0d6tb67oLM
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2015, 09:30:30 AM
The results of the heat dissipation test-with and without rotor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0d6tb67oLM
Looks pretty scientific to me Brad. Nice work.
On the power supply common ground...
I had always thought the same thing as you, but I did some testing on my BK PSU and discovered the black terminal isn't hard connected to the green terminal which is actually linked to the frame ground through the third prong on the mains plug. Digging around in the original box for the power supply, I happened onto a little metal clip that is designed to link the black and green terminals together for when one truly wants the ground to be reference to earth. You may want to confirm your PSU is the same, but I think it is fairly safe to say your PSU and scope are probably not tied together via a common earth ground. It would be nice if typical oscilloscopes had the same little metal clip, but I haven't run into one yet that does.
Another comment about grounding...
Most of our closed-circuit testing completely ignores earth grounding as in electrostatic potential. When I see devices that supposedly require a solid earth ground to operate, I always become a little suspicious of the huge electrostatic potential & capacitance connected to the circuit. If you happen to dig into some of the old documents describing electrostatics, you will notice charge accumulates only on the outside of the metallic object; never on the inside. This is basically the Faraday Cage principal. Personally I'm not able to throw-out these effects on what would otherwise be considered a closed-circuit, UNLESS the entire closed-circuit including test equipment and power sources are all INSIDE a Faraday Cage. What I'm getting at is we have a coil that is being continuously energized and dissipated--is it not possible this action is pulling/pushing electrostatic charge from the environment asymmetrically. If it is, could this charge somehow be doing work within the circuit? What I need to experiment with is electrostatics in concert with magnetic fields--which may help to explain what the rotor brings to the table with this experiment.
Anyway, I have no gripes about your testing Brad--all really looks good and thorough to me. Just wanted to pop a few ideas into your thinking and consideration.
Tinman,
Consider building a strobe to observe the rotor.
Use the second channel of your FG to drive an NPN (or MOSFET) to turn on and off a bright white LED via a current limit resistor and additional battery or supply. Connect the emitter (or source) and LED supply to the FG/common ground point.
For a quick test, you could just connect an LED across the coil using a current limit resistor and reverse polarity protection diode. However, using the second FG channel will allow you to adjust the strobe's duty cycle and phase to optimize viewing brightness/clarity and allow you to observe the rotor position at various portions of the coil drive waveform.
Keep in mind that LED's can handle peak currents well in excess of their continuous rating. At low duty cycles, you can hit them pretty hard. If you can switch the LED fast enough and with enough current, using a very narrow pulse width will allow you to resolve more position related details while maintaining apparent brightness. I do not know what the persistence is with regard to the LED phosphors, or what effect it might have on visual clarity (motion blur), but if that becomes problematic, consider a monochrome LED (blue, etc) with rotor labeling/marks appropriate for the color used.
I'd probably try a bright white LED first. To be bright enough to video the results, you might consider something like a star mounted 3-5 watt LED or just cobble up a cheap flashlight so you can use the reflector (and possibly the battery) as well. Pick one without a boost converter/electronic drive or bypass that circuitry if it does. For the ultimate cool, use a flashlight with a tail switch and replace it with a BNC connector. Use the internal battery and mount the switching components inside the tail cap.
Thought it might be interesting, at the least it should be fun...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on December 26, 2015, 01:40:38 PM
Tinman,
Consider building a strobe to observe the rotor.
Use the second channel of your FG to drive an NPN (or MOSFET) to turn on and off a bright white LED via a current limit resistor and additional battery or supply. Connect the emitter (or source) and LED supply to the FG/common ground point.
For a quick test, you could just connect an LED across the coil using a current limit resistor and reverse polarity protection diode. However, using the second FG channel will allow you to adjust the strobe's duty cycle and phase to optimize viewing brightness/clarity and allow you to observe the rotor position at various portions of the coil drive waveform.
Keep in mind that LED's can handle peak currents well in excess of their continuous rating. At low duty cycles, you can hit them pretty hard. If you can switch the LED fast enough and with enough current, using a very narrow pulse width will allow you to resolve more position related details while maintaining apparent brightness. I do not know what the persistence is with regard to the LED phosphors, or what effect it might have on visual clarity (motion blur), but if that becomes problematic, consider a monochrome LED (blue, etc) with rotor labeling/marks appropriate for the color used.
I'd probably try a bright white LED first. To be bright enough to video the results, you might consider something like a star mounted 3-5 watt LED or just cobble up a cheap flashlight so you can use the reflector (and possibly the battery) as well. Pick one without a boost converter/electronic drive or bypass that circuitry if it does. For the ultimate cool, use a flashlight with a tail switch and replace it with a BNC connector. Use the internal battery and mount the switching components inside the tail cap.
Thought it might be interesting, at the least it should be fun...
PW
Hi PW
No problem with the strobe,as i have done it many times before to see where the magnet is in relation to the coil when the transistor closes/coil is switched on.
What is the purpose of this exercise ?
P.S
The FG will drive an LED by it self, no problem at all.
As you are talking about using the FG to drive a strobe LED,then i am guessing you are referring to the test where the pulsed inductor driven by the FG is spinning the rotor,and not the test i just posted,where the rotor is being spun in pulse motor mode--no FG ?.
Brad
post removed
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2015, 05:16:12 PM
Hi PW
No problem with the strobe,as i have done it many times before to see where the magnet is in relation to the coil when the transistor closes/coil is switched on.
What is the purpose of this exercise ?
P.S
The FG will drive an LED by it self, no problem at all.
As you are talking about using the FG to drive a strobe LED,then i am guessing you are referring to the test where the pulsed inductor driven by the FG is spinning the rotor,and not the test i just posted,where the rotor is being spun in pulse motor mode--no FG ?.
Brad
Tinman,
Yes, I was referring to the FG driven tests. Do you know for certain to which polarity you are synch'ed (i.e., which polarity and position at turn on)?
Having looked at your waveforms a bit more, the rotor inertia/magnet interaction with the drive coil appears to increase the effective inductance of the coil. Coil current rises more slowly due to the effective inductance increase, hence less input current.
I am somewhat reminded of an Orbo...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on December 26, 2015, 05:48:46 PM
Tinman,
Yes, I was referring to the FG driven tests. Do you know for certain to which polarity you are synch'ed (i.e., which polarity and position at turn on)?
Having looked at your waveforms a bit more, the rotor inertia/magnet interaction with the drive coil appears to increase the effective inductance of the coil. Coil current rises more slowly due to the effective inductance increase, hence less input current.
I am somewhat reminded of an Orbo...
PW
If the magnets were increasing the effective inductance of the coil,why dose this increase not happen when the magnet(either pole) on the rotor is stationary in front of the coil?.
I think the rotor magnets are inducing an EMF across the coil,and it is this EMF that is the cause of the reduce P/in,as the battery now dose not have to supply that bit of energy to create that EMF that already exist. If we look at the scope shot,we can see that induced EMF from the rotor magnets has the correct polarity to that of what the battery will supply during switch on.
I will have to see if i can get this new coil to sink with the pulsed inductor,and i think i have a way to make the job easy ;)
I am guessing that i am synch'ed with the center of the two magnets,as they are alternating fields-N S N S N S N S
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2015, 06:29:07 PM
If the magnets were increasing the effective inductance of the coil,why dose this increase not happen when the magnet(either pole) on the rotor is stationary in front of the coil?.
I think the rotor magnets are inducing an EMF across the coil,and it is this EMF that is the cause of the reduce P/in,as the battery now dose not have to supply that bit of energy to create that EMF that already exist. If we look at the scope shot,we can see that induced EMF from the rotor magnets has the correct polarity to that of what the battery will supply during switch on.
I will have to see if i can get this new coil to sink with the pulsed inductor,and i think i have a way to make the job easy ;)
I am guessing that i am synch'ed with the center of the two magnets,as they are alternating fields-N S N S N S N S
Brad
Thinking about that some more--that will not work out,as the field from the coil will want to pull on the rotor magnets in the opposite direction 50% of the time.
UMmm-will have to do this strobe setup,so as i can see what is going on here.
Im now thinking that in order for the rotor to spin at all,it must be synch'ed to every second set of magnets :o
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2015, 06:29:07 PM
If the magnets were increasing the effective inductance of the coil,why dose this increase not happen when the magnet(either pole) on the rotor is stationary in front of the coil?.
My guess would be rotor inertia...
In a rather mechanical analog of an inductor, energy is being stored and recovered via rotor inertia. Work is being done to accelerate the rotor, with a portion of that recovered. There does, however, have to be a net gain of rotor energy or the system would come to a stop, so only a portion of what is stored is being recovered. A better understanding might be had if you were to produce an accurate timing diagram detailing rotor accel and decel and rotor/magnet position versus coil on time. A degree wheel, a couple optocouplers, a divide by 90 and a 4046 PLL come to mind...
Quote
I think the rotor magnets are inducing an EMF across the coil,and it is this EMF that is the cause of the reduce P/in,as the battery now dose not have to supply that bit of energy to create that EMF that already exist. If we look at the scope shot,we can see that induced EMF from the rotor magnets has the correct polarity to that of what the battery will supply during switch on.
I considered this, as you mentioned it before. But when is the work being done to accelerate the rotor? I assume you sync up with the help of mister hand, but unless the rotor slows over time, it must be accelerated by the coil.
Although the portion of the cycle where the sine wave is visible is unloaded and only producing a voltage in the coil, it seems logical to assume that the rotor must be slowing during that time due to the loading of circuit leakage, eddy current production, bearing friction and windage.
So, either the rotor accelerates during the coil on time with some energy recovered during flyback, or, some energy is recovered during the coil on time and the rotor is being accelerated during flyback.
Quote
I will have to see if i can get this new coil to sink with the pulsed inductor,and i think i have a way to make the job easy ;)
I am guessing that i am synch'ed with the center of the two magnets,as they are alternating fields-N S N S N S N S
Brad
I'd rather see some stroboscopic evidence of the rotor position and magnet polarity at turn on using the original setup.
(Added: And, of course, what polarity your coil produces when turned on...)
PW
(edited second to last sentence...)
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2015, 06:45:06 PM
Thinking about that some more--that will not work out,as the field from the coil will want to pull on the rotor magnets in the opposite direction 50% of the time.
UMmm-will have to do this strobe setup,so as i can see what is going on here.
Im now thinking that in order for the rotor to spin at all,it must be synch'ed to every second set of magnets :o
Brad
I have been assuming that the coil is turned on every 90 degrees of rotation (every other magnet). Do you know what the RPM versus trigger frequency is?
PW
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2015, 06:29:07 PM
I think the rotor magnets are inducing an EMF across the coil,and it is this EMF that is the cause of the reduce P/in,as the battery now dose not have to supply that bit of energy to create that EMF that already exist. If we look at the scope shot,we can see that induced EMF from the rotor magnets has the correct polarity to that of what the battery will supply during switch on.
Tinman,
This may be true. It could be that deceleration and energy recovery happens at/during coil turn on, with acceleration occurring during the flyback. Either way, the rotor's inertia acts like a mechanical "inductor" magnetically coupled to the coil.
If you would strobe the rotor and check your coil's polarity, we should be able to come up with a few more answers.
PW
OK,Strobe test done.
In the below diagram-
Coils magnetic polarity as marked-north at the rotor end.
Sync timing as marked.
So rotor is synced to coil every south magnet,where it switches on before south magnet gets to coil,and switches off just as south magnet has left the coil core.
So it is skipping every north magnet,and thus the RPM of the rotor is 1/4 that of the coils pulses per minute. 35Hz X 60 / 4 = 525rpm.
The on and off time include the current flow of the inductive kickback. This was achieved by putting a FWBR across the trigger coil of the bifilar wound coil to drive the strobe LED,with a 100 ohm resistor in series with the LED and FWBR-,as we only use the run coil to drive the rotor.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2015, 08:51:21 PM
OK,Strobe test done.
In the below diagram-
Coils magnetic polarity as marked-north at the rotor end.
Sync timing as marked.
So rotor is synced to coil every south magnet,where it switches on before south magnet gets to coil,and switches off just as south magnet has left the coil core.
So it is skipping every north magnet,and thus the RPM of the rotor is 1/4 that of the coils pulses per minute. 35Hz X 60 / 4 = 525rpm.
The on and off time include the current flow of the inductive kickback. This was achieved by putting a FWBR across the trigger coil of the bifilar wound coil to drive the strobe LED,with a 100 ohm resistor in series with the LED and FWBR-,as we only use the run coil to drive the rotor.
Brad
Tinman,
Would you agree that the rotor is likely being accelerated at and/or during the coil on time?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on December 26, 2015, 09:09:53 PM
Tinman,
Would you agree that the rotor is likely being accelerated at and/or during the coil on time?
PW
Yes i would,but also during the kickback cycle,as current still flows through the coil in the same direction during the kickback cycle.<-- something to think about.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2015, 10:13:56 PM
Yes i would,but also during the kickback cycle,as current still flows through the coil in the same direction during the kickback cycle.<-- something to think about.
Brad
Curious...
Are you saying you believe the coil is accelerated during both the coil on time and flyback periods?
I would think that once past TDC, it would be tugging the wrong way and decelerate the rotor...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on December 26, 2015, 10:47:56 PM
Curious...
Are you saying you believe the coil is accelerated during both the coil on time and flyback periods?
I would think that once past TDC, it would be tugging the wrong way and decelerate the rotor...
PW
Thinking about what you said,i went and had a look at my rotor again. So here is what i did-->i have marked the N and S to the left side of the magnets-not on top as the timing diagram looks--my mistake. I did this so as i could see the N or S in case the magnet lined up with the core when the transistor switches off--which it dose. So in actual fact,the transistor is switching of just before the magnet reaches the center of the core,and i would think the kickback current flowing through the coil would pull it to the center of the core. I will have to remove the marks i have on the rotor,and mark the center of the magnet in stead to confirm this.
But look at the two scope shots below--what do you notice about the kickback with and without the rotor?. Also lets think about what is happening here.
The coil is providing the energy to spin the rotor. The rotor in turn changes the (yet to be determined)coil in some way,and this change reduces the P/in to the coil. We know the external magnetic field has to be changing with time,as a static external field dose not alter the P/in--this we seen in the second video. So we take some of the energy out of the coil to drive the rotor-the rotor in turn reduces the P/in-all while the P/out remains the same.
In the last video,we could clearly see that without the external alternating magnetic fields of the rotor,the coil !although receiving the very same P/in at the same frequency!,dissipated much more heat than it did when the rotor was in play. We could also see that the output was less without the rotor,and this is a clear sign that the missing P/out without the rotor in play,was being dissipated as heat from the coil. So what is it that the external alternating magnetic fields do to the coil to reduce the dissipated heat from the coil,and raise the P/out from that coil. PW-this is what i mean by the magnets are converting the heat into electrical power. If the magnetic fields of the magnets on the rotor are changing the operation of the coil,so as waste heat is reduced,and electrical P/in go's down,or electrical P/out go's up,then those magnets are doing work. You cannot change anything without work being done. Even when you change your mind,work is being done by way of electrochemical signals racing around in your mind. As funny as you may think that sound's,it is true.
Brad
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2015, 11:36:02 PM
Thinking about what you said,i went and had a look at my rotor again. So here is what i did-->i have marked the N and S to the left side of the magnets-not on top as the timing diagram looks--my mistake. I did this so as i could see the N or S in case the magnet lined up with the core when the transistor switches off--which it dose. So in actual fact,the transistor is switching of just before the magnet reaches the center of the core,and i would think the kickback current flowing through the coil would pull it to the center of the core. I will have to remove the marks i have on the rotor,and mark the center of the magnet in stead to confirm this.
But look at the two scope shots below--what do you notice about the kickback with and without the rotor?. Also lets think about what is happening here.
What scope shots?
Quote
The coil is providing the energy to spin the rotor. The rotor in turn changes the (yet to be determined)coil in some way,and this change reduces the P/in to the coil
Based on the original coil and test setup, and the two scope shots associated with that setup, with the rotor installed the rate of rise of the current is slowed, and as the on time is fixed, a lower peak current is achieved. This reduces Pin.
Quote
We know the external magnetic field has to be changing with time,as a static external field dose not alter the P/in--this we seen in the second video. So we take some of the energy out of the coil to drive the rotor-the rotor in turn reduces the P/in-all while the P/out remains the same.
In the last video,we could clearly see that without the external alternating magnetic fields of the rotor,the coil !although receiving the very same P/in at the same frequency!,dissipated much more heat than it did when the rotor was in play. We could also see that the output was less without the rotor,and this is a clear sign that the missing P/out without the rotor in play,was being dissipated as heat from the coil. So what is it that the external alternating magnetic fields do to the coil to reduce the dissipated heat from the coil,and raise the P/out from that coil.
If you had performed that test with the original coil (which I wish you would stick to), I would have predicted the additional Trise in the coil without the rotor merely based on the fact that the coil achieves a higher peak current without the rotor, as seen in the scope shots, hence more heat.
Quote
PW-this is what i mean by the magnets are converting the heat into electrical power. If the magnetic fields of the magnets on the rotor are changing the operation of the coil,so as waste heat is reduced,and electrical P/in go's down,or electrical P/out go's up,then those magnets are doing work. You cannot change anything without work being done. Even when you change your mind,work is being done by way of electrochemical signals racing around in your mind. As funny as you may think that sound's,it is true.
Brad
There is less heat due to the lower peak current achieved with the rotor installed because of the slowed rise time. That seems fairly straightforward.
Back to the timing/strobe tests, I am not sure what you are saying. Do you know for certain what is happening when? Try using the original coil and test setup and use the second channel of the FG to drive the strobe. You will then be able to shorten the strobe pulse and adjust its phase so you can see more timing detail. For example, set the strobe to come on just as the coil turns off, etc.
I would think any portion of the on time or flyback period that occurs after the rotor magnet reaches TDC would decelerate the rotor and allow recovery of some of the energy that was stored in the rotor's inertia during acceleration.
See if you can determine exactly where TDC is in relation to the coil drive/current waveforms.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on December 27, 2015, 12:58:27 AM
Based on the original coil and test setup, and the two scope shots associated with that setup, with the rotor installed the rate of rise of the current is slowed, and as the on time is fixed, a lower peak current is achieved. This reduces Pin.
If you had performed that test with the original coil (which I wish you would stick to), I would have predicted the additional Trise in the coil without the rotor merely based on the fact that the coil achieves a higher peak current without the rotor, as seen in the scope shots, hence more heat.
There is less heat due to the lower peak current achieved with the rotor installed because of the slowed rise time. That seems fairly straightforward.
Back to the timing/strobe tests, I am not sure what you are saying. Do you know for certain what is happening when? Try using the original coil and test setup and use the second channel of the FG to drive the strobe. You will then be able to shorten the strobe pulse and adjust its phase so you can see more timing detail. For example, set the strobe to come on just as the coil turns off, etc.
I would think any portion of the on time or flyback period that occurs after the rotor magnet reaches TDC would decelerate the rotor and allow recovery of some of the energy that was stored in the rotor's inertia during acceleration.
See if you can determine exactly where TDC is in relation to the coil drive/current waveforms.
PW
QuoteWhat scope shots?
Oops-forgot to add the scope shots--see below.
This is from test two video,with the original coil.
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2015, 11:36:02 PM
But look at the two scope shots below--what do you notice about the kickback with and without the rotor?. Also lets think about what is happening here.
Tinman,
Ah, those two scope shots. Those are the two I was referring to.
What I see happening during the "kickback" is that the kickback voltage is clamped at approx 25V (Vbat1+Vbat2+Vdiode drop) in both scope shots for a fairly similar length of time. Any current flow into the charge battery during the kickback portion of the waveform can only occur during the time the kickback voltage is at or above that approx 25 volts. A CVR waveform of the charge battery current would provide more details regarding this, as we cannot readily determine the charge current from the voltage waveform.
The edge of the sine wave visible on the falling edge of the kickback provides a clue as to the position of the rotor magnet during the time current is flowing into the charge battery. However, by the time the sine wave becomes visible, all current flow has ceased (except for leakage, etc).
I believe it most likely that energy is stored in the rotor via acceleration of the rotor during the coil on time and a small amount of that energy is recovered during kickback when the rotor is very briefly decelerated.
It would be a bit more informative if you could determine the precise location of the rotor magnet with regard to the various portions of the waveform. In particular, precisely where in the waveform does TDC occur?
PW
Tinman,
If you do further investigation of the rotor timing, see if you can determine exactly where both TDC and BDC occurs relative to the observed waveforms (with BDC being center point between magnets).
PW
An observation from the two scope shots:
It appears that the reduced current during the ON time is a result of the negative-induced voltage in series with the battery voltage. I presume Pin goes down with the rotor installed.
So is there a problem or something that apparently hasn't been explained?
Quote from: picowatt on December 26, 2015, 07:25:58 PM
A degree wheel, a couple optocouplers, a divide by 90 and a 4046 PLL come to mind...
I did that once but my strobe light was not precise/fast enough.
I eventually settled for an optical shaft encoder with 3600 counts/rev.
Quote from: tinman on December 25, 2015, 07:00:38 PM
If i change out the magnets for say laminated core pieces,would that have the same effect?.
In my opinion the effect of a soft ferromagnetic rotor on a stator coil is very different from a hard ferromagnetic rotor (a permanent magnet).
This is because domains in the soft one can freely rotate and in the absence of any external magnetic field, they can randomize their magnetic polarization down to almost zero net flux, while in a permanent magnet - they cannot because they are pinned.
Yes, it takes energy to polarize these soft domains, but when these domains return to their randomized state, that energy can be recovered.
There are 20 different interactions in magnetic motors:
1) A permanent magnet is approaching an attracting coil
2) A permanent magnet is departing a repulsing coil
3) A permanent magnet is departing an attracting coil
4) A permanent magnet is approaching a repulsing coil
5) A shorted coil is approaching an attracting permanent magnet
6) A shorted coil is departing a repulsing permanent magnet
7) A shorted coil is departing an attracting permanent magnet
8) A shorted coil is approaching a repulsing permanent magnet
9) A shorted coil is approaching an attracting coil
10) A shorted coil is departing a repulsing coil
11) A shorted coil is departing an attracting coil
12) A shorted coil is approaching a repulsing coil
13) A soft ferromagnetic is approaching an attracting coil
14) A soft ferromagnetic is departing an attracting coil
15) A soft ferromagnetic is approaching an attracting permanent magnet
16) A soft ferromagnetic is departing an attracting permanent magnet
17) A permanent magnet is approaching an attracting permanent magnet
18) A permanent magnet is departing a repulsing permanent magnet
19) A permanent magnet is approaching a repulsing permanent magnet
20) A permanent magnet is departing an attracting permanent magnet
Note: Coils connected to constant voltage power supplies react like shorted coils.
I don't even consider unloaded coils (non-shorted) because such coils do not interact in motors.
So it is really easy to become confused among all these interactions.
For example: the current in the coil decreases only in cases 1,2,5,6,9,10,13.
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2015, 06:29:07 PM
If the magnets were increasing the effective inductance of the coil,why dose this increase not happen when the magnet(either pole) on the rotor is stationary in front of the coil?.
Because the permeability of permanent magnets is close to the permeability of air. Strange but true...
By comparison, the permeability of soft-steel or ferrite is much much greater than air.
I think Picowatt was referring to the effective inductance which is the ratio of flux and current.
If the magnets are supplying part of the total flux then there is more flux for the same current ...or the same flux for less current, which increases the ratio and hence the effective inductance.
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2015, 06:29:07 PM
I think the rotor magnets are inducing an EMF across the coil,and it is this EMF that is the cause of the reduce P/in,as the battery now dose not have to supply that bit of energy to create that EMF that already exist.
If we look at the scope shot,we can see that induced EMF from the rotor magnets has the correct polarity to that of what the battery will supply during switch on.
That is also a correct way to look at it.
The EMF of the battery and the induced EMF superimpose on each other.
I prefer a third way of looking at it, namely the superposition of currents ...because coils are current devices (they store energy proportionally to the square of current)
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2015, 06:45:06 PM
Thinking about that some more--that will not work out,as the field from the coil will want to pull on the rotor magnets in the opposite direction 50% of the time.
Yes, you have to energize these coils in such way that they interact with the rotor as described in case #1 or case #2 ...or both.
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2015, 06:45:06 PM
Im now thinking that in order for the rotor to spin at all,it must be synch'ed to every second set of magnets :o
If you are limited to unipolar pulses then yes, but if you can do bipolar pulses then you can alternate the polarity of your pulses in synch with the polarity of your magnets.
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2015, 06:45:06 PM
UMmm-will have to do this strobe setup,so as i can see what is going on here.
The strobe is a really good idea, because it lets you see the mechanics and the scope lets you see electronics only.
The magnetics can be deduced.
P.S.
I was once using an xenon automotive strobelight but it was too slow :( ...are these phosphorised LEDs any faster?
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2015, 10:13:56 PM
Yes i would, but [the rotor accelerates] also during the kickback cycle,as current still flows through the coil in the same direction during the kickback cycle.
I agree
Quote from: picowatt on December 26, 2015, 10:47:56 PM
Are you saying you believe the coil is accelerated during both the coil on time and flyback periods?
I would think that once past TDC, it would be tugging the wrong way and decelerate the rotor...
Unless the "flyback period" ends before the TDC.
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2015, 11:36:02 PM
So what is it that the external alternating magnetic fields do to the coil to reduce the dissipated heat from the coil,
The magnets of the rotor provide some of the magnetic flux, so the coil needs less current to maintain constant flux that penetrates it. Less current means less input energy and less heating.
You can come to the same conclusion by considering the superposition of the battery EMF and the induced EMF, but I prefer my method of analysis because the maintenance of the constant flux through a shorted coil is its most fundamental behavior...all the currents and induced EMFs stem from it.
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2015, 11:36:02 PM
...and raise the P/out from that coil.
...electric or mechanical output power ? Where are your measurements of it?
Anyway, if the recovery period is timed to occur immediately after the TDC then we have Case #3 and the recovery current during this period increases as more current is needed to maintain the flux level that was at TDC.
Quote from: verpies on December 27, 2015, 05:34:37 PM
.
Anyway, if the recovery period is timed to occur immediately after the TDC then we have Case #3 and the recovery current during this period increases as more current is needed to maintain the flux level that was at TDC.
QuoteThe magnets of the rotor provide some of the magnetic flux, so the coil needs less current to maintain constant flux that penetrates it. Less current means less input energy and less heating.
This is exactly what i said some pages back,so lets run with this for a bit,and think about what is happening during each cycle. We do know which comes first(the chicken or the egg) in this case,and that is the induced flux into the core from the PM's. We know this because we have alternating fields on the rotor. The coils produced field at the rotor end is north,so the other end of the coil will be of course a south field(we will stick to N&S as it makes it easy). We know that the magnetic domains within the core will align opposite to those in the PM,and so will be aligned the same when the coil has a current flowing through it. So the induced flux in the core from the PM's is now present before the coil switches on. This in turn lowers the P/in needed to raise the flux volume in that core and it's surroundings to the level we had without the rotor-->this we know,as the P/out dose not change,which tells us the field in and around the inductor was the same in both cases. The extra waste heat dissipated by the coil when the rotor is not in play,is due of course to more current flowing through the coil. The extra current flow is due to the fact that it now has to induce the flux into the core as well,where as with the rotor,the flux is already induced !mostly!,and the domains are !mostly! already aligned within the core material. So from this we know work is needed to induce the flux into the core,and align the magnetic domains within that core-->and we also know that this work being done came from the magnets when the rotor is in play. So lets use some example numbers here-that being the power required to spin the rotor,and the reduced power that the magnets on the rotor cause. Lets say it takes 10mW to spin the rotor,but the P/in is reduced by say 50mW's due to the magnets on the rotor inducing the flux into the core--if this was not the case,then the P/in would rise by that 10mW's,and not be reduced by the 50mW's. But it has to be,as we know the magnets are inducing the flux into the core before current starts to flow through the windings.
Now-is useful work being done when the magnets induce this flux into the core?.
Quote.electric or mechanical output power ? Where are your measurements of it?
As stated many times in this thread,we are looking only at the electrical output,and mechanical is not yet taken into account. The measurements are in the video's.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 27, 2015, 08:07:01 PM
This is exactly what i said some pages back,so lets run with this for a bit,...
I think that what you wrote is mostly correct.
I would use the superposition of EMFs method, too, but only outside the ON-period.
During the ON-period, when the coil is connected, I would use its flux freezing principle and superposition of currents.
This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyOtIsnG71U) illustrates the flux freezing principle by a coil without resistive losses (a superconducting disc) ...regardless whether gravity pulls or pushes on the coil. Resistive coils do all that, too, ...just for a short time.
Quote from: tinman on December 27, 2015, 08:07:01 PM
...we know the magnets are inducing the flux into the core before current starts to flow through the windings.
Now-is useful work being done when the magnets induce this flux into the core?
Yes, although i would not use the word "inducing" in reference to magnetic flux, since flux is generated or routed.
When the permanent magnet is approaching a soft magnetic core, while current is not allowed to flow in the coil, we have the Case #15 and useful mechanical work is being done during this period and the rotor gains mechanical energy then.
Hi Tinman and Verpies
Greatest thankyou for that page 18 (should be sticky somewhere) and probably the next ones.
Now we are touching right inside the heart of the thing.
Very helpfull.
Thank's for sharing
Laurent
Quote from: poynt99 on December 27, 2015, 02:02:18 PM
An observation from the two scope shots:
It appears that the reduced current during the ON time is a result of the negative-induced voltage in series with the battery voltage. I presume Pin goes down with the rotor installed.
So is there a problem or something that apparently hasn't been explained?
Just quoting myself as it seems to have gone unnoticed.
Anyone?
Quote from: poynt99 on December 28, 2015, 09:55:57 AM
Just quoting myself as it seems to have gone unnoticed.
Anyone?
It seems to have gone unnoticed because you are preaching to the proverbial choir.
I call it EMF superposition and like to use it for open coils.
I may have missed it but I haven't seen anyone mention it.
Seems that the claims being made here are in regards to higher efficiency when the rotor is installed, and an explanation was requested. Again, I've not seen one.
So I offered an explanation and asked for feedback. Apologies if the entire choir already has everything figured out, but it doesn't appear so to me.
Quote from: webby1 on December 28, 2015, 04:20:05 PM
You have me confused.
What explanation did you offer?
Maybe I am the one confused. My understanding is that Brad claims the circuit is more efficient when the rotor is used, because Pin goes down, and Pout remains constant. I am not certain if or how Pout was measured though.
My explanation was regarding how or why Pin decreases when the rotor is used.
Quote
If it is what you quoted then that is not an explanation but rather a statement, an observation of what it is that is being looked into.
It is an explanation if you put a little thought into it. I'm done spoon feeding.
Quote
If it is what you quoted then you should of also included that the cost to run the rotor is less than the increase in efficiency gained.
Then that would leave it at the methodology of that operation. This part I have seen a few conjectures for, but no explanation that has been tested for yet.
This makes no sense to me, so :-X .
Quote from: poynt99 on December 28, 2015, 10:59:43 AM
Seems that the claims being made here are in regards to higher efficiency when the rotor is installed, and an explanation was requested. Again, I've not seen one.
Quote
I may have missed it but I haven't seen anyone mention it.
Yes,you must have missed it.
Also,what why would a negative induced voltage across an open coil reduce P/in ?.
QuoteSo I offered an explanation and asked for feedback. Apologies if the entire choir already has everything figured out, but it doesn't appear so to me.
The reduced P/in with the rotor is more to do with the induced flux into the inductors core,and not the induced negative voltage.
Not sure how you missed what my self and Verpies have been looking at.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 28, 2015, 05:59:33 PM
Yes,you must have missed it.
Also,what why would a negative induced voltage across an open coil reduce P/in ?.
I didn't mention "open coil". It would be an opposing induced voltage to the battery during the ON pulse. I know it appears as though there is a positive induced voltage during the ON pulse, but it
may actually be opposing the battery.
Quote
The reduced P/in with the rotor is more to do with the induced flux into the inductors core,and not the induced negative voltage.
That does not make sense. In fact it is opposite to what happens. Are you thinking that the inductance, and hence impedance of the coil increases when the magnet is flying by? No, it would decrease.
What are your thoughts Brad on trying a solid state version to achieve the same effect?
Have you thought about how you would go about doing it?
Quote from: poynt99 on December 28, 2015, 07:55:56 PM
QuoteI didn't mention "open coil". It would be an opposing induced voltage to the battery during the ON pulse. I know it appears as though there is a positive induced voltage during the ON pulse, but it may actually be opposing the battery.
The scope across the coil says the induced EMF from the magnets has no effect on the peak voltage across the coil when the transistor switches on.
QuoteThat does not make sense. In fact it is opposite to what happens. Are you thinking that the inductance, and hence impedance of the coil increases when the magnet is flying by? No, it would decrease.
That is actually incorrect.
The inductance rises when there is a changing flux value in the core of the inductor/ over time. Only when the flux value is constant,is there a reduction in the inductance value. As the magnetic flux is never a constant value in the core of the inductor when the rotor is in play,then the inductance value of the inductor is indeed higher than it would be without the rotor.
Brad
Quote from: poynt99 on December 29, 2015, 12:56:45 AM
What are your thoughts Brad on trying a solid state version to achieve the same effect?
Have you thought about how you would go about doing it?
I would need another inductor that has a rising and falling magnetic field to mimic the magnetic field or the rotor,and that is of the opposite field to that of the main inductor. The timing would also have to be in advance to that of the main inductor,so as the electromagnet(second inductor) induces a changing magnetic flux into the core of the main inductor before the main inductor switches on.
If this showed the same effect as the rotor,then what would the outcome be?-in that the electromagnet would consume power,where as the permanent magnets on the rotor do not.\\
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 29, 2015, 01:17:50 AM
The scope across the coil says the induced EMF from the magnets has no effect on the peak voltage across the coil when the transistor switches on.
That may be so. However with coils it's often better to analyze current, and you can see that the current wave forms are different in each case. You can also see that the rotor would be inducing a positive voltage in the coil during the ON pulse. This manifests as a current that is in opposition to the battery's current and is why the battery current is reduced when the rotor is in place.
Quote
That is actually incorrect.
The inductance rises when there is a changing flux value in the core of the inductor/ over time. Only when the flux value is constant,is there a reduction in the inductance value. As the magnetic flux is never a constant value in the core of the inductor when the rotor is in play,then the inductance value of the inductor is indeed higher than it would be without the rotor.
Do you have data or a technical reference to back that up? It goes against the physics of how cores work. If the core's magnetic domains are anywhere other than their neutral position (i.e. non-polarized) at the instant the coil fires, then the coil's inductance will be reduced, regardless if the domains were in rotation or were static at the time. The core is partially or fully polarized in either case.
Thought experiment: Let's say that the magnets in the rotor are strong enough and the core's reluctance low enough that the core is fully saturated just at magnet/core alignment. If you were to fire the coil just before its core is saturated, and when the rate and degree of core polarization is at maximum, is the coil inductance going to be higher or lower than it is when far from saturation?
Quote from: tinman on December 29, 2015, 01:26:13 AM
I would need another inductor that has a rising and falling magnetic field to mimic the magnetic field or the rotor,and that is of the opposite field to that of the main inductor. The timing would also have to be in advance to that of the main inductor,so as the electromagnet(second inductor) induces a changing magnetic flux into the core of the main inductor before the main inductor switches on.
If this showed the same effect as the rotor,then what would the outcome be?-in that the electromagnet would consume power,where as the permanent magnets on the rotor do not.\\
Brad
I have one SS version to offer here, and you are close. Mine uses another coil yes, but it doesn't require another power source.
Your ssg rotor is an electro-mechanical energy transfer (bi-directional) and storage device. My offering does without the mechanical bit which is replaced by a resonant LC tank circuit. The bi-directional transfer bit is accomplished via transformer coupling to/from the pulse coil.
Schematic: As I don't know the specifics of your circuit and setup, I made educated guesses on values that I thought would work. With some tweaking it seems to come close. I have two of these running at the same time, one with R5=12 Ohms (with rotor), and one with R5= 12Giga-Ohms (without rotor). This way I can compare the two scenarios simultaneously as you will see.
First two scope shots: Collector voltage with and without rotor.
3rd scope shot: Pulse coil current with and without rotor. Current with rotor clearly shown to be less (Red). The purple trace is the rotor current shown in phase with pulse coil current during ON time. The rotor returns some stored energy back to the pulse coil reducing the current required of the battery.
4th scope shot: If you could scope across the coil voltage (which you can not but I can because the inductance and coil resistance are separate in my circuit), you would see the increased voltage with the rotor.
The Pin difference between the two scenarios is only about 10% less with the rotor. I'm sure with tweaking and non-linear cores (these are ideal air core), someone could make the effect more pronounced. That someone won't be myself. The effect has been verified AFAIAC, and confirms my explanation offered earlier. My Conclusion? Nothing extraordinary going on here.
So Brad, grab a MOT and have a stab at making this SS version if you are so inclined.
Quote from: poynt99 on December 29, 2015, 10:44:20 AM
That may be so. However with coils it's often better to analyze current, and you can see that the current wave forms are different in each case. You can also see that the rotor would be inducing a positive voltage in the coil during the ON pulse. This manifests as a current that is in opposition to the battery's current and is why the battery current is reduced when the rotor is in place.
I am replying to this post,but here is a quote from your next post that needs to be looked at.
Quote3rd scope shot: Pulse coil current with and without rotor. Current with rotor clearly shown to be less (Red). The purple trace is the rotor current shown in phase with pulse coil current during ON time. The rotor returns some stored energy back to the pulse coil reducing the current required of the battery.
So where did this stored energy come from?
If we are to assume that there should be losses due to windage and friction associated with the rotor,then the rotor should return less than it takes to drive it,and yet we see a decrease in P/in while P/out remains the same. Your own scope shot's and experiments show that the rotor(permanent magnets) are reducing the P/in because they are returning !! stored energy !! back to the system. In order for the rotor to do that,it first must have the same(probably higher due to losses mentioned above) amount of energy put into it in order for it to have energy to return--so where is this input energy to the rotor that is being returned to lower the electrical input energy of the system?. Keep in mind that the output(electrical) energy remains very constant at all times.
QuoteDo you have data or a technical reference to back that up? It goes against the physics of how cores work. If the core's magnetic domains are anywhere other than their neutral position (i.e. non-polarized) at the instant the coil fires, then the coil's inductance will be reduced, regardless if the domains were in rotation or were static at the time. The core is partially or fully polarized in either case.
In order for the magnetic domains to be aligned,then work must be done. If these domains have been aligned before the coil switches on,then less work is required from our input power to align these domains,as the PM on the rotor has already done this.
The tests i have done are as follows;
1- simply to use my inductance meter to measure inductance,and find that as i slowly bring a magnet toward the inductor,the inductance rises. Then while the magnet is stationary at the center of the core,the inductance go's back to it's original value-or very slightly lower. Then when the magnet is slowly moved away from the core,the inductance once again rises.
2- Set the coil into self oscillation (as it is bifilar,and so easy to do),then slowly bring a magnet toward the core of the coil. As the magnet is approaching the core,the frequency rises. As the magnet becomes stationary at the center of the core,then the frequency returns back to it's starting frequency,and then as i move the magnet slowly away from the core,the frequency once again rises until the magnet is far enough away from the core that no field from the magnet can induce the core-at which point the frequency has once again returned back to it's steady state.
QuoteThought experiment: Let's say that the magnets in the rotor are strong enough and the core's reluctance low enough that the core is fully saturated just at magnet/core alignment. If you were to fire the coil just before its core is saturated, and when the rate and degree of core polarization is at maximum, is the coil inductance going to be higher or lower than it is when far from saturation?
My experiments so far show the inductance is higher.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 29, 2015, 06:04:43 PM
So where did this stored energy come from?
Surely you jest?
Quote
If we are to assume that there should be losses due to windage and friction associated with the rotor,then the rotor should return less than it takes to drive it,and yet we see a decrease in P/in while P/out remains the same.
Yes, of course.
Quote
Your own scope shot's and experiments show that the rotor(permanent magnets) are reducing the P/in because they are returning !! stored energy !! back to the system. In order for the rotor to do that,it first must have the same(probably higher due to losses mentioned above) amount of energy put into it in order for it to have energy to return--so where is this input energy to the rotor that is being returned to lower the electrical input energy of the system?. Keep in mind that the output(electrical) energy remains very constant at all times.
Yep.
What you need to remember is that your system is very inefficient to begin with. What is the DC resistance of your coil, 2 Ohms or so? Guess where a good portion of your input power is being burned up? In my circuit, Pin is about 3.5W, and 2W of that is being burned up in the coil's 4 Ohm resistance. Any reduction of current is going to reduced the I
2R loss in that resistor. btw, your rotor is a very efficient storage device. Yeah there are friction losses, but they are relatively low.
Your rotor is making the system more efficient, or less lossy. My LC tank does the same thing. Take it as it is, there is no miracle action at hand here, just good old fashioned electrical theory. We all went down a similar road years back with Luc's Capacitor energy transfer experiments, which I also did a big paper on.
You seem so hell bent on proving that magnets do work. Well in this case the process is completely conservative, some energy in, some energy back out. There is no free lunch provided by magnets here!
Quote
In order for the magnetic domains to be aligned,then work must be done. If these domains have been aligned before the coil switches on,then less work is required from our input power to align these domains,as the PM on the rotor has already done this.
It takes a lot more work to burn that 4 Ohm resistance than it does to polarize the domains in the core. It pales in comparison. Most of your loss is in the coil resistance.
Quote
The tests i have done are as follows;
1- simply to use my inductance meter to measure inductance,and find that as i slowly bring a magnet toward the inductor,the inductance rises. Then while the magnet is stationary at the center of the core,the inductance go's back to it's original value-or very slightly lower. Then when the magnet is slowly moved away from the core,the inductance once again rises.
2- Set the coil into self oscillation (as it is bifilar,and so easy to do),then slowly bring a magnet toward the core of the coil. As the magnet is approaching the core,the frequency rises. As the magnet becomes stationary at the center of the core,then the frequency returns back to it's starting frequency,and then as i move the magnet slowly away from the core,the frequency once again rises until the magnet is far enough away from the core that no field from the magnet can induce the core-at which point the frequency has once again returned back to it's steady state.
What happens to the frequency as you are moving the magnet toward the core, then you stop before getting to it?
Quote from: poynt99 on December 29, 2015, 08:28:51 PM
Surely you jest?
Yes, of course.
Yep.
What you need to remember is that your system is very inefficient to begin with. What is the DC resistance of your coil, 2 Ohms or so? Guess where a good portion of your input power is being burned up? In my circuit, Pin is about 3.5W, and 2W of that is being burned up in the coil's 4 Ohm resistance. Any reduction of current is going to reduced the I2R loss in that resistor. btw, your rotor is a very efficient storage device. Yeah there are friction losses, but they are relatively low.
or less lossy. My LC tank does the same thing. Take it as it is, there is no miracle action at hand here, just good old fashioned electrical theory. We all went down a similar road years back with Luc's Capacitor energy transfer experiments, which I also did a big paper on.
You seem so hell bent on proving that magnets do work. Well in this case the process is completely conservative, some energy in, some energy back out. There is no free lunch provided by magnets here!
It takes a lot more work to burn that 4 Ohm resistance than it does to polarize the domains in the core. It pales in comparison. Most of your loss is in the coil resistance.
QuoteWhat happens to the frequency as you are moving the magnet toward the core, then you stop before getting to it?
The frequency returns to that as if there were no PM's near it.
QuoteYour rotor is making the system more efficient,
Thank you.
Here is my very first paragraph in this thread
Quote: I posted a quick video showing how having a rotor with alternating magnetic field passing a pulsed inductor can improve the efficiency of that inductor as far as the inductive kickback output go's.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 30, 2015, 03:37:48 AM
The frequency returns to that as if there were no PM's near it.
Quote from: tinman on December 29, 2015, 06:04:43 PM
The tests i have done are as follows;
1- simply to use my inductance meter to measure inductance,and find that as i slowly bring a magnet toward the inductor,the inductance rises. Then while the magnet is stationary at the center of the core,the inductance go's back to it's original value-or very slightly lower. Then when the magnet is slowly moved away from the core,the inductance once again rises.
Your results are indeed strange. In fact opposite to would you should see.
Do you have a coil with a ferrite core you can test? I tested a 35mH ferrite cored coil with a magnet and here are my results:
While measuring inductance, as I bring a strong magnet nearer the coil the inductance
decreases until finally it touches the coil and goes to a minimum, and remains there. Similar results whether magnet is brought to the middle or end of the coil. Moving the magnet away from the coil, the inductance
increases until it finally reaches its original value of 35mH.
If I stop part way to the coil, the inductance
remains at the lower value it was before I stopped, it does not return to its original value.
You may want to check your meter or method, or something else, because your results are odd.
Quote from: poynt99 on December 30, 2015, 11:37:50 AM
Your results are indeed strange. In fact opposite to would you should see.
Do you have a coil with a ferrite core you can test? I tested a 35mH ferrite cored coil with a magnet and here are my results:
While measuring inductance, as I bring a strong magnet nearer the coil the inductance decreases until finally it touches the coil and goes to a minimum, and remains there. Similar results whether magnet is brought to the middle or end of the coil. Moving the magnet away from the coil, the inductance increases until it finally reaches its original value of 35mH.
If I stop part way to the coil, the inductance remains at the lower value it was before I stopped, it does not return to its original value.
You may want to check your meter or method, or something else, because your results are odd.
I do have a coil with a ferrite core-i will try it.
The only inductance meter i have is the one on my DMM.
Using the self oscillation mode-should the frequency rise or fall when the inductance rises?- i assumed it would rise.
Brad
Hi Brad,
Here is a link to a formula to calculate frequency when you know the inductance and capacitance. It can also be used to calculate for either inductance or capacitance if you want to calculate for a given frequency. According to the calculations, frequency will go down with an increase in inductance. I thought I remembered it being that way but wanted to check so found this site;
http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm
Carroll
Quote from: tinman on December 30, 2015, 04:11:16 PM
I do have a coil with a ferrite core-i will try it.
Excellent.
Quote
The only inductance meter i have is the one on my DMM.
Probably not so good.
There are other ways you can measure the inductance, or even the change in inductance, that don't require an inductance meter.
Quote
Using the self oscillation mode-should the frequency rise or fall when the inductance rises?- i assumed it would rise.
Brad
Brad, "assuming" will get you into trouble more often than not. Folks seem to assume too much too often when working in what is unfamiliar territory for them.
I honestly am beginning to think that one reason folks seem to learn too little around here, is because they are being spoon fed the answers all the time; yes by guys like me, verpies, MH, TK et al. Check out citfta's link, or google "inductance" and "frequency" together. Here is another link (https://www.midnightscience.com/formulas-calculators.html). Perhaps you'll learn more by digging some answers up yourself. :)
Quote from: tinman on December 30, 2015, 03:37:48 AM
Here is my very first paragraph in this thread
Quote: I posted a quick video showing how having a rotor with alternating magnetic field passing a pulsed inductor can improve the efficiency of that inductor as far as the inductive kickback output go's.
Brad
I can sense that this is most likely the end of this thread so we can end it properly.
Your initial statement is generic - it suggests what you are claiming applies to a generic inductor coupled with a rotor in a pulse motor can improve the average inductive kickback power-out to average power-in ratio.
That statement is dead wrong. It's just as bad as "acceleration under load" or the "delayed Lenz effect" which are two nonsensical and incorrect statements that took on a life of their own and misled and hoodwinked tons of amateur experimenters for years.
The only thing you found out was that with your particular very lossy coil when you added the rotor you got better performance because the addition of the rotor ultimately helped reduce the excessive losses.
If we assume a generic coil with an expectation of reasonably decent efficiency is used in a similar setup then your statement will be false. It will be false because common sense is telling you three things, 1) magnets cannot in any way, shape, or form produce power themselves, and 2), when you add the spinning rotor it will require additional input power, and 3), never, ever ignore the waste heat generated by the system in all of your measurements and calculations.
There is going to be no bait and switch for this one - your initial statement is false.
I don't know how many times I've posted a link to that same webpage with the inductance calculator on it.
Some inductance meters are very sensitive to applied voltage. When you are moving a magnet near a coil, even if slowly, you are inducing a voltage in the coil.
See my video demonstration here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5mvryt2kYg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5mvryt2kYg)
This is an illustration of Faraday's Law of Induction. A moving magnet creates a time-rate-of-change in the magnetic flux linking the coil, and so induces a voltage. A stationary magnet does not cause a rate of change of flux so does not induce a voltage.
This induced voltage will affect those inductance meters that are very sensitive to voltage. (It may even damage them permanently).
Perhaps this induced voltage is what explains TinMan's results with his meter.
The "normal" result is what Poynt99 reports. As an unsaturated core is subjected to a magnetic field from an external magnet, it is brought nearer and nearer to saturation (changing permeability). This means its inductance goes down. A fully saturated core is essentially equivalent to an air core as far as influencing the inductance of a coil wrapped around it. This effect does not depend on motion (change in flux) but is only related to the "quantity" or magnitude of magnetic flux in the core. So the inductance will change while the magnet is being moved but when the magnet stops moving the inductance will remain at that value it had at the instant of stopping.
As inductance goes down, the resonant frequency of the coil (or tank circuit with the coil and capacitor) will go up. As associated capacitance goes down, the frequency goes up. Frequency is inversely related to both capacitance and inductance. So if you bring a magnet close to a resonating ferrite-cored coil, its frequency should go up, since the inductance goes down. Inserting a high-permeability core material into an air-core coil makes its inductance go up, so its resonant frequency goes down. This is the basis of operation of the "loopstick" style tunable inductors which I have demonstrated several times.
The amount of change in frequency for a given applied magnetic field is a function of the core's permeability. So with an air core coil, you get no change in inductance from an external magnet since the applied magnetic field doesn't change the permeability of the air core.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 02, 2016, 12:53:20 AM
I don't know how many times I've posted a link to that same webpage with the inductance calculator on it.
Some inductance meters are very sensitive to applied voltage. When you are moving a magnet near a coil, even if slowly, you are inducing a voltage in the coil.
See my video demonstration here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5mvryt2kYg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5mvryt2kYg)
This is an illustration of Faraday's Law of Induction. A moving magnet creates a time-rate-of-change in the magnetic flux linking the coil, and so induces a voltage. A stationary magnet does not cause a rate of change of flux so does not induce a voltage.
This induced voltage will affect those inductance meters that are very sensitive to voltage. (It may even damage them permanently).
Perhaps this induced voltage is what explains TinMan's results with his meter.
The "normal" result is what Poynt99 reports. As an unsaturated core is subjected to a magnetic field from an external magnet, it is brought nearer and nearer to saturation (changing permeability). This means its inductance goes down. A fully saturated core is essentially equivalent to an air core as far as influencing the inductance of a coil wrapped around it. This effect does not depend on motion (change in flux) but is only related to the "quantity" or magnitude of magnetic flux in the core. So the inductance will change while the magnet is being moved but when the magnet stops moving the inductance will remain at that value it had at the instant of stopping.
As inductance goes down, the resonant frequency of the coil (or tank circuit with the coil and capacitor) will go up. As associated capacitance goes down, the frequency goes up. Frequency is inversely related to both capacitance and inductance. So if you bring a magnet close to a resonating ferrite-cored coil, its frequency should go up, since the inductance goes down. Inserting a high-permeability core material into an air-core coil makes its inductance go up, so its resonant frequency goes down. This is the basis of operation of the "loopstick" style tunable inductors which I have demonstrated several times.
The amount of change in frequency for a given applied magnetic field is a function of the core's permeability. So with an air core coil, you get no change in inductance from an external magnet since the applied magnetic field doesn't change the permeability of the air core.
Hey Tk
If the magnet is just passing tdc and then the coil pulses to push the magnet, isnt the coils field countering the magnets field thus lessening the possibly near saturation point of the core while the coil is on?
Mags
No Webby, I stand by my statement. The statement by Brad taken at face value is wrong. It goes back to the title of the original YouTube clip, "Proof that Magnetic Fields Increase Efficiency in Pulse Motors." That's another generic statement and it's wrong and not true. Even the title of the clip is too vague. It should be something like "Proof that Magnetic Fields from the Action of a Spinning Rotor Increase the Efficiency of the Coil of a Pulse Motor."
The qualified statement with special conditions is true. But there is no going backwards and saying, "But I really meant...."
People should not be almost petrified about respectfully disagreeing with each other or challenging each other's statements. That's what a forum is supposed to be all about.
Quote from: Magluvin on January 02, 2016, 01:00:24 AM
Hey Tk
If the magnet is just passing tdc and then the coil pulses to push the magnet, isnt the coils field countering the magnets field thus lessening the possibly near saturation point of the core while the coil is on?
Mags
I was just about to address this issue, so I'm glad you brought it up.
Consider a rotor with magnets, turning inside a ring of cored stator coils. First, just spin the rotor but don't provide any power to the coils. Consider what happens to the inductances of the coils, and the induced voltages in the coils. The inductance goes down as a magnet approaches the coil and goes back up as the magnet recedes from the coil. This effect does not depend on polarity of the magnet. But also, as the magnet approaches the coil it induces a voltage in the coil, that increases up to the nearest approach, then flips sign and decreases as the magnet goes away again. (Faraday's Law in action again.) This effect _does_ depend on the polarity of the magnet facing the coil. That is, whether the voltage goes from + to -, or from - to + as the magnet passes, depends on which pole of the magnet is facing the coil as it moves past.
So you have a very complicated situation. In some configurations the induced voltage from the magnet's motion will aid the voltage applied to pulse the coil, and in other configurations it will oppose it. So depending on which pole of the magnet is facing the coil, and what polarity of voltage is applied to the coil to pulse it, you can have enhanced "pulling in" or reduced "pulling in" in an attraction-type pulse motor, and enhanced or reduced "pushing out" in a repulsion-type PM. If you have alternating rotor magnet polarities it gets really _really_ complicated. Then there is the effect of changing inductance/permeability from the approaching and receding magnets. These effects can aid or reduce the effects due to induced voltage!
The most interesting type of pulse motor that I know about is the Steorn Orbo core-effect motor. As you know, a carefully wound toroidal coil on a high-permeability core will not have much leakage of magnetic field when it is energized. So you wouldn't think it would be useful for attraction or repulsion type pulse motors, and it's not. BUT.... the magnetic field caused by energizing the coil does change the core's permeability... and this affects how strongly a magnet is attracted to the _core_. It isn't attracted to the magnetic field from energizing the core, but to the core material itself. So the Steorn Orbo core-effect motor works by having the rotor magnets attracted to the toroidal cores while the power is _off_ during the approach, and just at dead-center the power is turned _on_ and this _reduces_ the permeability of the core material, making it less attractive to the rotor magnet. So the magnet is pulled in more strongly as it approaches, than when it has passed and is receding. So the rotor speeds up. This core effect does not depend on polarity of either the voltage applied to the coil, or the polarity of the rotor magnet passing it! So you can have alternating rotor magnet faces, or same faces, to the toroidal coils and it will work the same.
Quote from: webby1 on January 02, 2016, 01:24:26 AM
Whatever MH,, I guess that adding those moving magnets did not improve the efficiency at all then,, right ???
No going backwards,,
Besides,, I am right and everyone else is wrong :)
Now for the question that I am getting myself turned around over,,
When the coil fires off,, is it trying to slow down the rotor by pushing it backwards or pulling it backwards or is it trying to speed it up,, I am referring to the start of the on pulse.
Come on, there is nothing wrong with being precise, this is the science of electronics. If I said to you that when I add a drag to your electric bike in the form of an old-fashioned dynamo on the tire rubber to light an extra head lamp, and that action makes the electric bike more efficient in terms of distance per battery charge, you would look at me like I was nuts. If you are old enough you might remember how it was noticeably harder to pedal your bike when the dynamo was engaged to power your headlamp.
To answer your question, the exact timing of the motor was never really established. I stated that the eight poles effectively blended together into what looked like a four pole pulse motor and I am pretty sure that was the case. All that Brad really had to do was make a small sensor coil the diameter of his rotor magnets placed 180 degrees away from the drive coil and positioned very close to the rotor. He would then pick up the double pulse heartbeat, inverse heartbeat, heartbeat, etc, of the alternating poles passing the sensor coil. Then with some basic scope work using that unambiguous timing reference the actual timing for the coil-rotor interaction could have been established.
Here's what the induced voltage looks like when a rotor magnet passes a coil.
As the pole of the magnet approaches the coil, it induces a voltage whose polarity depends on the polarity of the magnet facing the coil. As the magnet gets closer and closer the flux changes faster and faster so the amplitude of the voltage increases. As the magnet passes "TDC" or closest approach, the polarity flips (because now the flux is decreasing instead of increasing) and the amplitude starts high (fast change in flux) and decreases as the magnet moves further away.
If the rotor magnet is flipped so that the other pole is facing the coil, the induced voltage pattern is flipped: first positive, then negative.
Webby:
TK posted a "down-up" double pulse. So let's say that was for a north-out rotor magnet. The zero-cross of the double-pulse is the exact TDC of the rotor magnet. So when the south-out rotor magnet passes the sensor coil you would get an "up-down" pulse. That gives you all the information you need to know where the rotor angle is after you correlate it with the EMF induced in the drive coil.
The interesting thing here is that the coil + rotor is slaving to an external signal generator pulse train. That's in contrast to what we normally see were the rotor magnets themselves or optical markings on the rotor generate the timing. So knowing the precise sync mechanism would be interesting because it's a thing that you don't see every day.
The real way to do it would be to use your DSO and then roll up your shirtsleeves, get some graph paper and a pencil, and construct a real timing diagram, or do the computer equivalent with some kind of graphical program and load in DSO captures, etc.
MileHigh
There is no reason you can't put the actual torque waveform on your timing diagram. Once you have the basic timing understood then you can do anything you want. For example, you can hold the static rotor at a certain angle, energize the coil, feel the torque with your hand, and then put that rough sample datum point on the timing diagram. Then advance the rotor by 10 degrees and repeat the process and record another rough datum point and so on. You could easily make a basic torque waveform on your timing diagram using just your wits and your hands as "torque sensors." That would give you a very good idea of when the rotor was undergoing a gentle acceleration. Apply yourself and keep on analyzing the setup thinking about how to tackle various problems and you should also be able to make a very decent estimate for the deceleration of the rotor.
There is almost no limit to this stuff. Once you understand the basic timing, just the EMF waveform in the drive coil is telling you which (presumably) virtual pole is approaching the drive coil. As a bonus, now you know exactly what angle the rotor is at when you look at the EMF waveform. You also know exactly what the current waveform looks like and the timing for the energizing of the drive coil. So you don't even have to measure the torque like I state above. You have all the information on the timing diagram to deduce what the torque is just like that. Therefore you can also do a decent job of deducing the acceleration and deceleration of the rotor. Then, if you are thorough, you make sure that your deduced torque is the same as your measured torque as stated in the above paragraph. If they are in accord great, if not, then you still have to do more thinking and investigating.
Note how this can be done without printing out a fine-pitched black and white strip of encoder bars to glue to the rotor and then using an optical encoder and presumably some turn-key software to spit out the acceleration and deceleration for you. It's arguably more fun to "build it yourself."
After six years on the forums, I don't expect to see this level of measurement and analysis for the operation of a pulse motor. Even the "pros" never dare enter this territory. And I am just making it up as I go along.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 02, 2016, 01:19:51 AM
I was just about to address this issue, so I'm glad you brought it up.
Consider a rotor with magnets, turning inside a ring of cored stator coils. First, just spin the rotor but don't provide any power to the coils. Consider what happens to the inductances of the coils, and the induced voltages in the coils. The inductance goes down as a magnet approaches the coil and goes back up as the magnet recedes from the coil. This effect does not depend on polarity of the magnet. (Faraday's Law in action again.) This effect _does_ depend on the polarity of the magnet facing the coil. That is, whether the voltage goes from + to -, or from - to + as the magnet passes, depends on which pole of the magnet is facing the coil as it moves past.
So you have a very complicated situation. In some configurations the induced voltage from the magnet's motion will aid the voltage applied to pulse the coil, and in other configurations it will oppose it. So depending on which pole of the magnet is facing the coil, and what polarity of voltage is applied to the coil to pulse it, you can have enhanced "pulling in" or reduced "pulling in" in an attraction-type pulse motor, and enhanced or reduced "pushing out" in a repulsion-type PM. If you have alternating rotor magnet polarities it gets really _really_ complicated. Then there is the effect of changing inductance/permeability from the approaching and receding magnets. These effects can aid or reduce the effects due to induced voltage!
The most interesting type of pulse motor that I know about is the Steorn Orbo core-effect motor. As you know, a carefully wound toroidal coil on a high-permeability core will not have much leakage of magnetic field when it is energized. So you wouldn't think it would be useful for attraction or repulsion type pulse motors, and it's not. BUT.... the magnetic field caused by energizing the coil does change the core's permeability... and this affects how strongly a magnet is attracted to the _core_. It isn't attracted to the magnetic field from energizing the core, but to the core material itself. So the Steorn Orbo core-effect motor works by having the rotor magnets attracted to the toroidal cores while the power is _off_ during the approach, and just at dead-center the power is turned _on_ and this _reduces_ the permeability of the core material, making it less attractive to the rotor magnet. So the magnet is pulled in more strongly as it approaches, than when it has passed and is receding. So the rotor speeds up. This core effect does not depend on polarity of either the voltage applied to the coil, or the polarity of the rotor magnet passing it! So you can have alternating rotor magnet faces, or same faces, to the toroidal coils and it will work the same.
QuoteBut also, as the magnet approaches the coil it induces a voltage in the coil, that increases up to the nearest approach, then flips sign and decreases as the magnet goes away again.
That is incorrect.
Quote from: tinman on January 02, 2016, 03:31:37 AM
That is incorrect.
Argue with an oscilloscope, why don't you.
Explain this trace, which I'm sure you have seen many times in your own work.
Quote from: MileHigh on January 02, 2016, 02:06:01 AM
Webby:
TK posted a "down-up" double pulse. So let's say that was for a north-out rotor magnet. The zero-cross of the double-pulse is the exact TDC of the rotor magnet. So when the south-out rotor magnet passes the sensor coil you would get an "up-down" pulse. That gives you all the information you need to know where the rotor angle is after you correlate it with the EMF induced in the drive coil.
That's right. The zero-crossing happens at the instant that the flux in the coil changes from increasing to decreasing, as the magnet moves past the "magnetic dead center" (which may not always be the exact mechanical dead center, due to asymmetries in the magnet's actual polarization wrt its physical geometry, but will usually be "close enough for govt. work" as they say.)
Quote
The interesting thing here is that the coil + rotor is slaving to an external signal generator pulse train. That's in contrast to what we normally see were the rotor magnets themselves or optical markings on the rotor generate the timing. So knowing the precise sync mechanism would be interesting because it's a thing that you don't see every day.
My trace was produced by a magnet moving past a -non-energized- coil, in fact the coil was not connected to anything except the scope probe. Everything you see in the trace is the result of induction according to Faraday's Law correlated with the motion of the magnet, first approaching, then receding from the coil. Examining what happens to the sign of the product (E) when the signs of the various components of the right side of the equation change, tells you what to expect from the scope trace, and experiment confirms the predictions from the formula. As you can see.
The video I posted earlier demonstrating the little circuit that detects changing magnetic flux also confirms this "double pulse" or rather, flipping of the sign of the induced voltage, since the circuit only responds to one polarity of the pulse. With one pole of the magnet facing, the circuit responds when the magnet is moving away, and with the other pole facing, the circuit responds when the magnet is approaching.
Quote
The real way to do it would be to use your DSO and then roll up your shirtsleeves, get some graph paper and a pencil, and construct a real timing diagram, or do the computer equivalent with some kind of graphical program and load in DSO captures, etc.
MileHigh
That's right.
Here's another scope trace of what happens when a magnet is swung past a non-energized coil. Would anyone care to guess what kind of magnet I used here?
Quote from: webby1 on January 02, 2016, 11:52:17 AM
A donut shaped one?
Bingo. Move to the head of the class !!
Would anyone care to guess what kind of magnet I used here?
Can anyone make a magnet like this?
Quote from: webby1 on January 02, 2016, 01:20:27 PM
Did you rotate the pole 90 degrees
You've been following my research but this one is not made from a magnet turned 90 degrees.
Care to try again or let others have a shot at it?
Luc
Hi webby,
If may 'whisper' a little... ;)
Consider the positioning of either the magnet with respect to the coil or vice versa, in one position you would receive the waveform Luc shows...
Gyula
The issue about the waveforms that is almost never discussed around here is the geometry of the magnet/rotor, the geometry of the coil, and the relative placement between the two. That overall geometry determines the EMF waveform of the coil.
With Brad's eight-pole alternating N-S rotor, you can assume that most of the flux produced by each magnet will opportunistically split off to the neighbouring magnets on each side. Therefore the effective radial range of the flux is probably quite short and hugs the surface of the rotor. Even with the ferrite core in the coil, you can still assume most of the flux will stay close to the rotor. Therefore most likely the half of the coil nearer the rotor sees changing flux, and the other half of the coil sees almost no changing flux and mostly acts like a dumb resistor. That is probably part of the explanation for the poor overall performance of his motor - the rotor's flux does not really pass through the coil from one end to the other end.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 02, 2016, 10:20:39 AM
Argue with an oscilloscope, why don't you.
Explain this trace, which I'm sure you have seen many times in your own work.
You stated-Quote: that increases up to the nearest approach, then flips sign and decreases as the magnet goes away again.
At(or very close to) the nearest approach,the voltage will be zero,so the voltage starts to decrease close to the nearest approach(TDC),not increase. Peak voltage is reached when total flux linkage has been achieved from magnet to core--Which i see you corrected in your next post-Quote: The zero-crossing happens at the instant that the flux in the coil changes from increasing to decreasing, as the magnet moves past the "magnetic dead center"
Quote from: tinman on January 02, 2016, 05:37:38 PM
You stated-Quote: that increases up to the nearest approach, then flips sign and decreases as the magnet goes away again.
At(or very close to) the nearest approach,the voltage will be zero,so the voltage starts to decrease close to the nearest approach(TDC),not increase. Peak voltage is reached when total flux linkage has been achieved from magnet to core--Which i see you corrected in your next post-Quote: The zero-crossing happens at the instant that the flux in the coil changes from increasing to decreasing, as the magnet moves past the "magnetic dead center"
No, the peak voltage happens when the _rate of change_ of the flux linked by the core is at maximum. As you can see from the scopeshots I've presented, and as you can see from examining the equation for Faraday's Law.
Since the "magnetic center" of the core of the coil isn't a point but is extended, there is a small portion of rotation where the magnitude of the linked flux is constant. This means that the positive peak and negative peak have some time in between them. The sign of the peak depends on whether the magnet is approaching or receding. Just where in that "dead spot" the voltage reverses is a moot point. The real point is that it does reverse.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 02, 2016, 07:43:42 PM
No, the peak voltage happens when the _rate of change_ of the flux linked by the core is at maximum. As you can see from the scopeshots I've presented, and as you can see from examining the equation for Faraday's Law.
Since the "magnetic center" of the core of the coil isn't a point but is extended, there is a small portion of rotation where the magnitude of the linked flux is constant. This means that the positive peak and negative peak have some time in between them. The sign of the peak depends on whether the magnet is approaching or receding. Just where in that "dead spot" the voltage reverses is a moot point. The real point is that it does reverse.
QuoteThe real point is that it does reverse
That is dependent on magnet orientation--see next post.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 02, 2016, 01:02:04 PM
Would anyone care to guess what kind of magnet I used here?
Can anyone make a magnet like this?
Since your trace has not started from, nor returned to, the channel's zero volt baseline, it seems that you aren't showing the entire pulse shape on your screenshot. So how are we to "guess" anything from this partial information?
Quote from: gotoluc on January 02, 2016, 01:02:04 PM
Would anyone care to guess what kind of magnet I used here?
Can anyone make a magnet like this?
That wave form can be achieved in many ways Luc-->see first scope shot below.
But can you arrange your magnetic field so as only an alternating DC voltage is produced by the coil without the use of rectifiers?-see second scope shot.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on January 02, 2016, 07:46:04 PM
That is dependent on magnet orientation--see next post.
Many things "depend on magnet orientation". I have been discussing and illustrating the simplest case, as I described and made explicit in my explanations. If you want to move the goalposts, that's your privilege I suppose, but it isn't helping people to understand Faraday's Law of Induction.
You can argue all you like, change the problem around to make it a different one, but what I've said in my descriptions is correct, and anyone can repeat the experiment at home and get the same results.
Webby got it right: the trace was made by a "donut" shaped magnet, polarized on the faces, with a hole in the center. He understands Faraday's Law and how the induced EMF in the coil changes in response to what part of the magnet is doing what.
What was your guess?
Quote from: tinman on January 02, 2016, 07:48:48 PM
That wave form can be achieved in many ways Luc-->see first scope shot below.
But can you arrange your magnetic field so as only an alternating DC voltage is produced by the coil without the use of rectifiers?-see second scope shot.
Brad
That can be done by biasing the coil with a little DC voltage before moving the magnet past it.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 02, 2016, 07:53:50 PM
You can argue all you like, change the problem around to make it a different one, but what I've said in my descriptions is correct, and anyone can repeat the experiment at home and get the same results.
Webby got it right: the trace was made by a "donut" shaped magnet, polarized on the faces, with a hole in the center. He understands Faraday's Law and how the induced EMF in the coil changes in response to what part of the magnet is doing what.
Quote
What was your guess?
My guess was the same,although i was just going to use the words speaker magnet--same thing.
QuoteMany things "depend on magnet orientation". I have been discussing and illustrating the simplest case, as I described and made explicit in my explanations. If you want to move the goalposts, that's your privilege I suppose, but it isn't helping people to understand Faraday's Law of Induction.
I dont dispute what you are saying TK,and as you posted some different wave forms produced by magnet's,and was asking what kind of magnet was being used--as did Luc--i thought we were having some sort of !guess the magnetic field used! kind of game.
So can you produce an alternating DC voltage across a coil without the use of diode's,but only PM's orientated in a certain way?. The wave form is not important,as long as the voltage across the coil always remains above 0 volts.
Brad
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 02, 2016, 07:56:03 PM
That can be done by biasing the coil with a little DC voltage before moving the magnet past it.
No-nothing other than magnets on a rotor, and a coil-->although you may use a biasing !magnet! if you wish.
Quote from: poynt99 on December 29, 2015, 03:05:13 PM
I have one SS version to offer here, and you are close. Mine uses another coil yes, but it doesn't require another power source.
Your ssg rotor is an electro-mechanical energy transfer (bi-directional) and storage device. My offering does without the mechanical bit which is replaced by a resonant LC tank circuit. The bi-directional transfer bit is accomplished via transformer coupling to/from the pulse coil.
Schematic: As I don't know the specifics of your circuit and setup, I made educated guesses on values that I thought would work. With some tweaking it seems to come close. I have two of these running at the same time, one with R5=12 Ohms (with rotor), and one with R5= 12Giga-Ohms (without rotor). This way I can compare the two scenarios simultaneously as you will see.
First two scope shots: Collector voltage with and without rotor.
3rd scope shot: Pulse coil current with and without rotor. Current with rotor clearly shown to be less (Red). The purple trace is the rotor current shown in phase with pulse coil current during ON time. The rotor returns some stored energy back to the pulse coil reducing the current required of the battery.
4th scope shot: If you could scope across the coil voltage (which you can not but I can because the inductance and coil resistance are separate in my circuit), you would see the increased voltage with the rotor.
The Pin difference between the two scenarios is only about 10% less with the rotor. I'm sure with tweaking and non-linear cores (these are ideal air core), someone could make the effect more pronounced. That someone won't be myself. The effect has been verified AFAIAC, and confirms my explanation offered earlier. My Conclusion? Nothing extraordinary going on here.
So Brad, grab a MOT and have a stab at making this SS version if you are so inclined.
Thanks for doing the test Poynt,but you have shown opposite to what i have shown,and your test dose not represent my results.
Below are your two scope shots from your test.
Scope shot one shows !with the rotor!,that it is clear that the P/out ,or dissipated power across the 200 ohm resistor is less that the dissipated power shown in scope shot two (without the rotor)across that same resistor. So all you achieved was to decrease the P/in,and at the same time,decrease the P/out.
So now look at my two scope shots below yours. Here it is very clear that when the rotor is in play,the P/in is decreased,but the P/out is increased--as can be seen by the width of the kickback spike. So you show a decrease in P/in !and! P/out with the rotor,and an increase in P/in !and! P/out without the rotor. I show a decrease in P/in ,and an increase in P/out with the rotor,and an increase in P/in and a decrease in P/out without the rotor. So you have shown the exact opposite to what i have.
Brad
As I said Brad, the simulation could use some fine tuning to not only increase the effect, but maintain or increase the flyback power as well. I just don't have the will nor desire to do so. But I am confident it can be done.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 02, 2016, 07:46:54 PM
Since your trace has not started from, nor returned to, the channel's zero volt baseline, it seems that you aren't showing the entire pulse shape on your screenshot. So how are we to "guess" anything from this partial information?
Nope, entire wave form shape is there.
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on January 02, 2016, 10:10:25 PM
Nope, entire wave form shape is there.
Luc
Yes,the entire wave form is there-one complete cycle.
Now all you have to do is get the entire wave form above the zero volt line without the use of rectifiers ;)
Luc
Most will not understand what you are showing here
What happened to the !! law !! of induction at the circled point?
While we are talking about weird magnet arrangements,below is a scope shot across a coil that has a rotor with two halbach arrays mounted on it--as depicted.
I am not sure as to why there is a large instant spike after the first part of the wave of each cycle.
May be the magnetic flux flipping from the next magnet on the array to the core ?.
Anyway--nothing more than a fun experiment .
Quote from: tinman on January 02, 2016, 10:19:56 PM
Now all you have to do is get the entire wave form above the zero volt line without the use of rectifiers ;)
Why and what will that do for me?
Thanks
Luc
Quote from: tinman on January 02, 2016, 11:17:20 PM
What happened to the !! law !! of induction at the circled point?
It fell flat on its face ;D
Quote from: tinman on January 03, 2016, 12:08:58 AM
While we are talking about weird magnet arrangements,below is a scope shot across a coil that has a rotor with two halbach arrays mounted on it--as depicted.
I am not sure as to why there is a large instant spike after the first part of the wave of each cycle.
May be the magnetic flux flipping from the next magnet on the array to the core ?.
Anyway--nothing more than a fun experiment .
Humm... never heard of a Halbach array.
I looked it up and they say it's as close to a monopole as you can get. You can even get an aluminum ring to hold the magnets in place: http://www.gyroscope.com/d.asp?product=CIRCULARHALBACH (http://www.gyroscope.com/d.asp?product=CIRCULARHALBACH)
Learned something new.
Thanks and let me know on the other question
Luc
ADDED: I also found a high efficiency motor made with a Halbach array:
http://www.launchpnt.com/portfolio/transportation/electric-vehicle-propulsion/ (http://www.launchpnt.com/portfolio/transportation/electric-vehicle-propulsion/)
http://www.launchpnt.com/portfolio/aerospace/electric-machines-for-propulsion/ (http://www.launchpnt.com/portfolio/aerospace/electric-machines-for-propulsion/)
Quote from: gotoluc on January 03, 2016, 12:15:37 AM
Why and what will that do for me?
Thanks
Luc
It will show that the !law! of induction is incomplete-although you,i and Erfinder have already shown this. I believe Erfinder had produced this wave form some years back.
We see an increase and decrease in magnetic flux in the core,but the voltage dose not go through the zero volt line as it should. At the point where the magnetic flux go's from increasing to decreasing,you should have 0 volts across the coil.
Brad
P.S -To be able to make a brushless DC generator without rectification is a great achievement ;)
Quote from: gotoluc on January 03, 2016, 12:28:32 AM
Humm... never heard of a Halbach array.
You can even get an aluminum ring to hold the magnets in place: http://www.gyroscope.com/d.asp?product=CIRCULARHALBACH (http://www.gyroscope.com/d.asp?product=CIRCULARHALBACH)
Learned something new.
Thanks and let me know on the other question
Luc
ADDED: I also found a high efficiency motor made with a Halbach array:
http://www.launchpnt.com/portfolio/transportation/electric-vehicle-propulsion/ (http://www.launchpnt.com/portfolio/transportation/electric-vehicle-propulsion/)
http://www.launchpnt.com/portfolio/aerospace/electric-machines-for-propulsion/ (http://www.launchpnt.com/portfolio/aerospace/electric-machines-for-propulsion/)
QuoteI looked it up and they say it's as close to a monopole as you can get.
That is correct,and it is achieved by confining one field within the array,and this in turn expands the other field outside the array.
Do you have a pool Luc-or a decent body of water for an experiment ?
If yes,then you can power a small boat using nothing but the earths magnetic field.
Im sure you will work out how this is done now lol.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on January 03, 2016, 01:12:58 AM
It will show that the !law! of induction is incomplete-although you,i and Erfinder have already shown this. I believe Erfinder had produced this wave form some years back.
Yes, it was around 10 years back or more (lost track) when I first started experimenting and learning but didn't understand what Erfinder was doing or had found.
Quote from: tinman on January 03, 2016, 01:12:58 AM
We see an increase and decrease in magnetic flux in the core,but the voltage dose not go through the zero volt line as it should. At the point where the magnetic flux go's from increasing to decreasing,you should have 0 volts across the coil.
I'll look into it a little more but still not sure what the reason or value of keeping the wave over the zero line.
Quote from: tinman on January 03, 2016, 01:12:58 AM
P.S -To be able to make a brushless DC generator without rectification is a great achievement ;)
I don't rectify DC motors when I use them as generators, so again not to sure what the value is here?
Thanks
Luc
Quote from: tinman on January 02, 2016, 10:19:56 PM
Yes,the entire wave form is there-one complete cycle.
Now all you have to do is get the entire wave form above the zero volt line without the use of rectifiers ;)
BTW, are you getting this wave from the rotor you've been using in the tests of this topic?
Luc
Quote from: tinman on January 03, 2016, 01:12:58 AM
It will show that the !law! of induction is incomplete-although you,i and Erfinder have already shown this. I believe Erfinder had produced this wave form some years back.
We see an increase and decrease in magnetic flux in the core,but the voltage dose not go through the zero volt line as it should. At the point where the magnetic flux go's from increasing to decreasing,you should have 0 volts across the coil.
Brad
Well, it would appear that you, Luc, and possibly Erfinder are back in whackadoo leading-myself-down-a-garden-path territory. You are circling part of a waveform that supposedly shows "the laws of induction are incomplete?" Like you have "discovered" something that "science doesn't understand" and so the law of induction must be incomplete? Just because of a double camel hump in a waveform??? You also talk about an induction waveform on a presumably unmodified coil setup always being above zero volts?
Enjoy your stay in La-La Land while the going is good. However, I will leave it up to you guys to figure your own way out of the garden because too many Coca leaves are not good for you!
Quote from: gotoluc on January 03, 2016, 02:00:26 AM
Yes, it was around 10 years back or more (lost track) when I first started experimenting and learning but didn't understand what Erfinder was doing or had found.
I'll look into it a little more but still not sure what the reason or value of keeping the wave over the zero line.
Thanks
Luc
QuoteI don't rectify DC motors when I use them as generators, so again not to sure what the value is here?
A DC motor has brushes.
Try getting the voltage to remain above the 0 volt line with a brushless DC motor/alternator.
Brad
Quote from: gotoluc on January 03, 2016, 02:06:35 AM
BTW, are you getting this wave from the rotor you've been using in the tests of this topic?
Luc
No,that is from an experimental rotor from some years back now,running past a single coil.
Very poor pulse motor rotor,but an interesting generating rotor-no counter force on the prime mover when power is drawn from the generating coil-->down side-not very much power available from the generating coil.
Brad
Quote from: MileHigh on January 03, 2016, 02:16:43 AM
Well, it would appear that you, Luc, and possibly Erfinder are back in whackadoo leading-myself-down-a-garden-path territory. You are circling part of a waveform that supposedly shows "the laws of induction are incomplete?" Like you have "discovered" something that "science doesn't understand" and so the law of induction must be incomplete? Just because of a double camel hump in a waveform??? You also talk about an induction waveform on a presumably unmodified coil setup always being above zero volts?
Enjoy your stay in La-La Land while the going is good. However, I will leave it up to you guys to figure your own way out of the garden because too many Coca leaves are not good for you!
Well that was predictable--right on que ::)
Added
Ok MH-and your laws you love so much-->explain as to how your law of induction allows for this to be done-->see scope shot below.
In order for a voltage to be produced across a coil,the flux passing through/cutting the coil has to be either increasing or decreasing. As it increases,a voltage of one polarity is produced across the coil,and as it decreases,a voltage of the opposite polarity is produced across the coil.
To obtain a voltage that is always of only one polarity across that coil,the flux would either 1-have to be forever increasing,or 2- forever decreasing. As we know this is not possible,how is it done?
How are your laws of induction looking now?.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on January 03, 2016, 03:05:45 AM
Well that was predictable--right on que ::)
What's probably more predictable is you seeing a double camel hump in an EMF waveform from a coil and all of a sudden deciding that there are problems with the law of induction. That is ridiculous and you seemingly want to arrive at a wrong conclusion without even trying to think things through. I will echo Poynt's comments about spoon feeding answers being a problem.
Your rational mind has to tell you that there must be an explanation for seeing a double-hump in a waveform when it's nothing more than some guy on a bench passing magnets past a coil. Nothing could be more mundane than that and yet you want to believe that when you see something unusual you are in uncharted territory that our current understanding can't explain.
Take a step back and work with your peers to figure out what is taking place.
QuotePeak voltage is reached when total flux linkage has been achieved from magnet to core
It's shocking to read stuff like that after all this time. When you say, "total flux linkage" I interpret that to mean the instant in time where a moving rotor magnet is directly lined up with the center axis of a coil. As TK stated, that's when the voltage is zero, it's not when you see a peak voltage output by the coil.
I think if you guys brainstorm you can figure things out. The catch is that you have to be able to disagree with each other and have differing opinions and have a real technical discussion.
Luc, why did you instantly agree with Brad when he said that the double camel hump waveform showed that there were allegedly problems with the law of induction? Why?
Did you agree with him for technical reasons or did you just feel compelled to agree for the sake of agreeing?
You guys are off on your own as far as at least I am concerned. You need to explain the double camel hump instead of the cop-out where you believe the double camel hump shows that there are "problems" with the law of induction. Spoon feeding you the answers is clearly not the right way to go.
Quote from: tinman on January 03, 2016, 03:05:45 AM
To obtain a voltage that is always of only one polarity across that coil,the flux would either 1-have to be forever increasing,or 2- forever decreasing. As we know this is not possible,how is it done?
How are your laws of induction looking now?.
That's a very very good start. The law of induction is rock solid, so something must be amiss.
Where is the problem associated with that induced EMF waveform in a coil that is allegedly always above zero volts or always below zero volts.
You know that is impossible, and you know the law of induction works. So between yourself and your peers I am sure you will be able to find the problem.
Incidentally, how is that offset setting on your scope doing? Could it be as simple as that?
Quote from: MileHigh on January 03, 2016, 03:49:43 AM
That's a very very good start. The law of induction is rock solid, so something must be amiss.
Where is the problem associated with that induced EMF waveform in a coil that is allegedly always above zero volts or always below zero volts.
So between yourself and your peers I am sure you will be able to find the problem.
QuoteIncidentally, how is that offset setting on your scope doing? Could it be as simple as that?
What offset setting?
QuoteYou know that is impossible, and you know the law of induction works.
Ah yes--i forgot about those laws there for a moment.
Must stick to those laws :D
Quote from: MileHigh on January 03, 2016, 03:41:44 AM
Luc, why did you instantly agree with Brad when he said that the double camel hump waveform showed that there were allegedly problems with the law of induction? Why?
Did you agree with him for technical reasons or did you just feel compelled to agree for the sake of agreeing?
QuoteIt's shocking to read stuff like that after all this time. When you say, "total flux linkage" I interpret that to mean the instant in time where a moving rotor magnet is directly lined up with the center axis of a coil. As TK stated, that's when the voltage is zero, it's not when you see a peak voltage output by the coil.
No-it's me that stated that when the magnet is lined up directly with the center of the core ,is when there is a zero voltage.
TK's quote post 294--as the magnet approaches the coil it induces a voltage in the coil, that increases up to the nearest approach,
My reply to this was-post 317-->At(or very close to) the nearest approach,the voltage will be zero,
To me,the nearest approach is when the magnets is nearest to the core of the coil(TDC),so what i said is true,and you are once again trying to discredit me with posting false bullshit MH. Total flux linkage will occur before the nearest approach (TDC) is reached,and so the voltage has reached it's maximum value before the magnets reaches it's nearest approach point,and will not increase up to the nearest approach point as TK said--in fact,the voltage starts to decrease as the magnet gets close to the nearest approach point,and when total flux linkage has happened between the magnet and core(normally very close to TDC/Nearest approach),the voltage will be at the 0 volt value.
QuoteWhat's probably more predictable is you seeing a double camel hump in an EMF waveform from a coil and all of a sudden deciding that there are problems with the law of induction. That is ridiculous and you seemingly want to arrive at a wrong conclusion without even trying to think things through. I will echo Poynt's comments about spoon feeding answers being a problem.
Your rational mind has to tell you that there must be an explanation for seeing a double-hump in a waveform when it's nothing more than some guy on a bench passing magnets past a coil. Nothing could be more mundane than that and yet you want to believe that when you see something unusual you are in uncharted territory that our current understanding can't explain.
I have been down this road MH,and i do know why the double hump occurs--do you?.
The double hump occurs when the flux within the core continues to either rise or fall(depending on how the coil is wound,and what magnetic field is approaching it,or leaving it),but during that rise or fall,the speed at which that flux is changing alters over time.
QuoteI think if you guys brainstorm you can figure things out. The catch is that you have to be able to disagree with each other and have differing opinions and have a real technical discussion.
!!US guys!! do not have to discus anything MH,as we know what is happening in the double hump wave,and we know how to create it with ease.
QuoteYou guys are off on your own as far as at least I am concerned. You need to explain the double camel hump instead of the cop-out where you believe the double camel hump shows that there are "problems" with the law of induction. Spoon feeding you the answers is clearly not the right way to go.
We need no spoon feeding MH,and i have given you the reason for the double hump. But you seem to have missed the importance of this,so it is clear that you yourself did not know why the double hump was produced--The W wave.
Also,while we are on the subject of spoon feeding,did you see my reply to Poynts test he carried out in regards to my with and without rotor tests?-->post 327.
Once again,we see a test done that was suppose to show nothing out of the ordinary with my tests i carried out. But once again the test done to disprove my theory was wrong,and showed the exact opposite to what i showed in my test. This can be clearly seen in Poynts own scope shot's and results he posted. So the test carried out by Poynt did not in any way show what i showed using the rotor with the PM's-->his sim did not show real world result's.
What i see here,is book worms that !!must!! make there laws stick.
I am yet to see any EE (or self proclaimed EE)here show the results i have shown without the use of PM's,and the one single attempt by Poynt showed results that were opposite to mine.
Brad
Brad:
Okay, so we agree that there is zero volts across the coil when the magnet is lined up with the center of the coil. I just have difficulty when you say this, "Peak voltage is reached when total flux linkage has been achieved from magnet to core."
What is that supposed to mean? For me, "total (or maximum) flux linkage happens when a magnet is directly lined up with the ferrite core of a coil such that the maximum amount of magnetic flux will flow from the magnet through the core of the coil. That's when you get zero voltage and in the above quote you state that you get peak voltage. I think that the vast majority of people would share my interpretation of what your sentence means as well as agree with my description of the process. But you seem to have a different definition. Call it bait and switch or moving the goal posts or unexplained meanings and terms that only you use or whatever, but it makes it hard to effectively argue points or get information across.
You seem to be implying "total flux linkage" is when the maximum rate of change of flux is occurring between the magnet and the coil. Why, prey tell, should that be called "total flux linkage" which implies an
amount of flux and not a
rate of change of flux? If feels like you are just inventing terms and definitions and changing them on the fly when you need to do that. In this case I put it to you that your terminology does not make sense and I have never heard it being used in the context that you are stating.
QuoteI have been down this road MH,and i do know why the double hump occurs--do you?.
When I saw the double hump I didn't even give it a second thought. Then when you said, "What happened to the !! law !! of induction at the circled point?" I was shocked because here we are again saying that there is a "fail" in the law of induction when there is no issue at all. Then later on you say this, "The double hump occurs when the flux within the core continues to either rise or fall(depending on how the coil is wound,and what magnetic field is approaching it,or leaving it),but during that rise or fall,the speed at which that flux is changing alters over time." So you just pulled off another bait and switch or moving the goal posts, or "Bradism." How is anybody supposed to debate with you if you completely change your tune mid stream where at fist you state that something is amiss with the law of induction and then a few hours later you do a very decent job of explaining the waveform using the law of induction like all is normal?
Quotei have given you the reason for the double hump. But you seem to have missed the importance of this,so it is clear that you yourself did not know why the double hump was produced--The W wave.
You must be a mind reader having an off day because I really saw no significance or importance to the double hump at all, and explaining it would have been trivial if I indeed wanted to explain it.
QuoteI am yet to see any EE (or self proclaimed EE)here show the results i have shown without the use of PM's,and the one single attempt by Poynt showed results that were opposite to mine.
I think it's fair to say what you observed was somewhat interesting but not noteworthy. So in that sense there is no "challenge" to reproduce your results, plus I think that they have been satisfactorily explained.
What you missed is the real challenge. That challenge would have been to do an experiment demonstrating what "should" have happened. In other words, get a better performing coil with less losses, and then show that just pulsing the coil without the load of the spinning rotor would give you better efficiency numbers compared to pulsing the coil with the spinning rotor. Demonstrate the relationship between the length of the pulse relative to the tau of the coil system and how that affects efficiency. Show how if the coil discharges into a 48-volt battery array you get better discharge efficiency as compared to if the coil discharges into 24-volt battery array because the discharge time decreases. That was the _real_ experiment that you should have recognized and challenged yourself to do for your own satisfaction. You would have proven that everything made sense.
Instead, you studied an apparent anomaly and we tried to explain it. That's all fair and well, but the real experiment that you can imagine doing in some physics or electronics lab is the one I describe in the above paragraph.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on January 03, 2016, 09:18:18 AM
Brad:
MileHigh
QuoteOkay, so we agree that there is zero volts across the coil when the magnet is lined up with the center of the coil. I just have difficulty when you say this, "Peak voltage is reached when total flux linkage has been achieved from magnet to core."
What is that supposed to mean? For me, "total (or maximum) flux linkage happens when a magnet is directly lined up with the ferrite core of a coil such that the maximum amount of magnetic flux will flow from the magnet through the core of the coil. That's when you get zero voltage and in the above quote you state that you get peak voltage.
When dealing with pulse motors,and my DUT,then 9 times out of 10 the magnets are smaller than the core of the coil. Lets say(like as with my DUT)that the magnets are 1/2 the diameter of the coil. This would mean that the maximum flux is reached within the core before the magnet reaches the TDC position. In this case,you would see a very sharp rise and fall in the voltage wave form. If the magnet is the same size as the core,then maximum flux in the core would be reached very close to TDC,and the wave form would not show as sharp as rise and fall as the smaller magnet did-if the magnet is traveling past the core at the same speed as the smaller one did. So it depends not only on the maximum flux value being reached(which i call maximum flux linkage),but also the rate of change of that flux within the core. The rate of change starts to decrease just before the magnet reaches TDC,and continues to decrease until there is no change in flux (TDC=0 volts). Some where i have a setup that i built a couple of years ago that has a TDC sensor that can be displayed as a wave form on a scope,and the other channel of the scope can be used to view the wave form acros the coil. From this setup you can see just how far the maximum voltage is reached across the coil before TDC,and this allows you to map exactly where the magnet is in relation to both the core of the coil,and the voltage trace across it.
QuoteI think that the vast majority of people would share my interpretation of what your sentence means as well as agree with my description of the process. But you seem to have a different definition. Call it bait and switch or moving the goal posts or unexplained meanings and terms that only you use or whatever, but it makes it hard to effectively argue points or get information across.
Maximum flux linkage is the maximum induced flux into the core of the coil at the highest rate of change over time-->this is the peak voltage reached across the coil,and as i explained above,dose not mean at TDC,as at TDC there will be zero volts across the coil
QuoteYou seem to be implying "total flux linkage" is when the maximum rate of change of flux is occurring between the magnet and the coil.
No--total flux linkage would show zero volts across the coil.
QuoteWhy, prey tell, should that be called "total flux linkage" which implies an amount of flux and not a rate of change of flux? If feels like you are just inventing terms and definitions and changing them on the fly when you need to do that. In this case I put it to you that your terminology does not make sense and I have never heard it being used in the context that you are stating.
Yes-it dosnt make sense when you go and mix the two up,and call them one in the same.
QuoteWhen I saw the double hump I didn't even give it a second thought. Then when you said, "What happened to the !! law !! of induction at the circled point?" I was shocked because here we are again saying that there is a "fail" in the law of induction when there is no issue at all. Then later on you say this, "The double hump occurs when the flux within the core continues to either rise or fall(depending on how the coil is wound,and what magnetic field is approaching it,or leaving it),but during that rise or fall,the speed at which that flux is changing alters over time." So you just pulled off another bait and switch or moving the goal posts, or "Bradism." How is anybody supposed to debate with you if you completely change your tune mid stream where at fist you state that something is amiss with the law of induction and then a few hours later you do a very decent job of explaining the waveform using the law of induction like all is normal?
Like i said MH,i have been experimenting with pulse motors,magnets and rotors for many years-as have many others. I have known for a long time how to produce the W wave,and that part in itself has no real magic to it. But what you dont see,or have failed to see is the fact that that wave,and how it was produced leads to the wave form i showed a few post back. Im not sure what you mean by DC offset on the scope shot,but nothing was altered on the scope-if that is what you mean. You say that that wave form is impossible to produce due to the laws of induction,and im saying that it is not impossible at all. All you need is a long coil,and a double pole rotor with the correctly timed magnets and fields.
QuoteYou must be a mind reader having an off day because I really saw no significance or importance to the double hump at all, and explaining it would have been trivial if I indeed wanted to explain it.
This much is apparent.
QuoteI think it's fair to say what you observed was somewhat interesting but not noteworthy. So in that sense there is no "challenge" to reproduce your results, plus I think that they have been satisfactorily explained.
They have not been explained at all. Even Poynts experiment failed to show the same results as i(and others)have shown.
QuoteWhat you missed is the real challenge. That challenge would have been to do an experiment demonstrating what "should" have happened. In other words, get a better performing coil with less losses, and then show that just pulsing the coil without the load of the spinning rotor would give you better efficiency numbers. Then add a spinning rotor and show that the efficiency numbers went down. That was the _real_ experiment that you should have recognized and challenged yourself to do for your own satisfaction. You would have proven that everything made sense.
I plan on doing just that tomorrow,as i now have a much more efficient/better performing coil with less losses.
QuoteInstead, you studied an apparent anomaly and we tried to explain it. That's all fair and well, but the real experiment that you can imagine doing in some physics or electronics lab is the one I describe in the above paragraph.
There have been no satisfactory explanations given or shown so far.
I will get to the next test with the more efficient coil MH,but it was just xmas and new years you know,and much time has been spent with the family-as it should be.
Brad
Quote from: poynt99 on January 02, 2016, 09:44:15 PM
As I said Brad, the simulation could use some fine tuning to not only increase the effect, but maintain or increase the flyback power as well. I just don't have the will nor desire to do so. But I am confident it can be done.
Well Poynt-like i have been told many times before-->having confidence that something can be done is not the scientific method. It is odd that you would have to fine tune your setup to try and achieve the same results,when i can just throw together any bits and pieces,and achieve the results.
It is also odd that all those that seem to think there is nothing out of the ordinary happening here,are also the very same people that cannot show the same effect using other means.
If it is so straight forward and ordinary,then why is it so hard to show the same results i show?.
I would like to see the same results achieved without the use of PM's. I mean if PM's do no useful work,then the results should be achievable without the use of PM's.
Brad.
Quote from: tinman on January 03, 2016, 01:22:41 AM
Do you have a pool Luc-or a decent body of water for an experiment ?
If yes,then you can power a small boat using nothing but the earths magnetic field.
Im sure you will work out how this is done now lol.
Brad
I actually have access to a large private pool which also has a private lake 100 feet away.
You should know I'm into boating and would love to make a boat (even if it's a toy) go forward without batteries or fuel.
Please do let me know how the experiment works as at this point I can't work out how it's done.
Thanks for sharing
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on January 03, 2016, 11:23:57 AM
I actually have access to a large private pool which also has a private lake 100 feet away.
You should know I'm into boating and would love to make a boat (even if it's a toy) go forward without batteries or fuel.
Please do let me know how the experiment works as at this point I can't work out how it's done.
Thanks for sharing
Luc
You simply make a halbach array,so as one field is radiated out from the array,and the other is concentrated within the array. The field that is radiated out from the array will push against the earths like field,and be pulled toward the earths unlike field. The only problem being of course,is you can only go in a north or south direction-well maybe slightly off if you take a little.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on January 03, 2016, 11:41:19 AM
You simply make a halbach array,so as one field is radiated out from the array,and the other is concentrated within the array. The field that is radiated out from the array will push against the earths like field,and be pulled toward the earths unlike field. The only problem being of course,is you can only go in a north or south direction-well maybe slightly off if you take a little.
Brad
Interesting, I never thought a physical magnet could have interaction with the earths magnetic field to do work.
Have you built such a device and seen it work?
Thanks for sharing
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on January 03, 2016, 11:54:26 AM
Interesting, I never thought a physical magnet could have interaction with the earths magnetic field to do work.
Thanks for sharing
Luc
You would be surprised as to how strong the earths magnetic field actually is. Mags has a video some where that shows the earths field spinning a disc magnet around to align with it's field.
QuoteHave you built such a device and seen it work?
Yes-a small boat shape cut out from foam.
I think i still have the video on my old computer. This was not my idea or design,it was something a member on IAEC showed a couple of years back. He also had a steel ball that he covered with small magnets,so as all one field was glued to the steel ball,and the other field radiated out from the steel ball. Even though he kept the magnets very tight together,there was still a small amount of flux leakage from the inner field near the corners of each magnet. But still,he could sit that ball on a piece of white surfboard foam,and it would float over to the north end of his pool every time.
Nothing of real use-not much different than facing the sails into the wind,but fun none the less.
Brad
Here is that video of Mags i was talking about.
Get your self a large disc magnet and a glass table,and try it. You will be surprised at how strongly it pulls to align to the earths fields.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gOO7OHHeMM
Interesting, I've never seen such a demo. So if you can find yours I would like to see it.
The other interesting thing is to use a body of water to demonstrate this, since to move an object over water you usually needs more force then to move the same object using wheels and bearings on a flat surface.
Luc
ADDED
Just saw your post and mags demo. It would be more convincing to see it move over a large distance like a pool.
@all
Maybe I can chime in here for a moment on Faradays Law.
Is there a document available that has all the empirical data Faraday accumulated and used to make his "Laws". If not then how can we be sure it is a Law? The word Law is a misnomer. It should not be Faradays Law of Induction, it should be Faradays Observations of Inductive Deficiency. The former is a grand limitation that Cabalist would use to control your exuberant mind to not wander away from their energy plan and is now the only accepted model for energy, while the later is an open door to fight against a deficiency. So which side should an OUer be on?
I suggest we not start 2016 on any confrontational note. We need everyone on the same page and gripping will not cut it.
Otherwise take one Faraday Law. Define an acceptable experiment and measurement method to put it to the test and see for yourself if the "Law" is a Law or a deficiency and how accurate it is or were they using widely rounded figures. Were are the notes that justify his premise?
I gave you guys a big observation which I call Half Coil Syndrome and showed that the pulse across a coil dissipates close to 75% of the impulse within the first half of a coil. Does anyone care to refute this. None so far and thanks to @tinman for working it as well. My next video will show even more. I also showed a way to increase the impulse across the total length of a primary coil (or working primary) but again seems no one has payed any attention so I guess optimized primary pulsing is not important to OUers.
But, what does this say about Faraday? What is says is very simple. When Faraday was measuring across a cored or air coil he was seeing the same thing but he did not realize the second half of the coil was not giving those results but it was the core (or wind) of the second half that reacted to the 75% impulse on the first half of the core (or coil) which was then reflected to the second half of the core (or coil) and not any direct impulse attributions to the second half of the coil. The game can only be won if you know who the real players are. Faraday could not see HCS so his Laws are somewhat skewed, like it or not. Because of Faraday, you guys see a sinewave pulse on a coil and think the pulse is equal across the complete length of the coil, but it is not.
In order to obtain Overunity, we need to look beyond the Laws which are not Laws but more indicators of deficiency in how we make our toys. So let's explore this a little...
Technically, all the output of every device ever made ended up with two output wires that "carried" that power to a load. So in essence, those last two lengths of wire can convey the produced power to the anticipated load so those final lengths of wire encompass all the required atoms and spin directionality of the total system. Sooooooooooooo..... technically those two lengths of wire, or even only one length of wire should be enough to receive the total "induction" and then be connected to the same load with the same outputing effort.
The use of wound coils is the most inefficient method to produce energy, because in every case, be it primary pulsed or rotating magnet, only a small percentage of the core, of the wire and of a cohesive power directional effort is realized, hence our coulping coefficients stink to the umpteenth degree.
If electrons were a true fact of life moving at such fast speeds through a coil, then HCS should be impossible because as soon as the impulse is at the start of the coil, it should have reached the end of the coil at the same instance it should not have time to produce resistance or inductance alone. So resistance and inductance has to be a physical phenomenon hence the construct itself is deficient and it is flat out in our faces every day. Electron flow is impossible and the simple invention of Teslas AC should have sent ripples down the spine of the EE construct decades ago, but it did not. It was just ignored and at the time Tesla either did not see it or did not want to spite the hand that was feeding him or he saw that the electron construct has entangled itself so well into the scientific consciousness that it would have been impossible for one man to fight it in those days. But in all cases, AC proves electron flow is impossible. Try and refute that with your best shot and we will have more fun. hahaha
But let's just advance instead........
If you take a #18 copper wire, one atom of copper inside that wire is like a drop of water in a river. When you wind that wire on a core or leave it air core that has a set magnet passage vector line, you have just multiplied the complexity of how those copper atoms are going to produce a winning percentage of cooperating atoms in one direction is like a world war at each pulse. It''s like producing a winding river on flat land with wind blowing on one side. How will the river flow?
We have no idea the level of conflict that arises because we only see the surface effects. We need to stop seeing the surface effects and realize that we are working with wire that itself has a three dimensional matrix then the winding itself as having a second three dimensional varying levels of exposure and angularity that is given by a passing magnet. The internal forces are huge at the atomic level even though the nucleic movements are minuscule, they all add up, subtract or simply stay static to the effect simply because NOT ALL ATOMS ARE PERFECT and/or are perfectly positioned in the two 3D matrixes to take part in the............ Hmmmmmmm.... I'll say "foreplay" because it is very intense.
See this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbLvy-ayi4A
or search google for the "sound of an atom". That sound is the nucleus of the atom being tracked by a probe and pulling the complete atom from one point to another. There are no electron responsible for this. Listen to the strength of the scratching sounds. hehehe
What we need is to no longer do business as usual. No more wound coils. Impulses or magnet passage across straight wire but better still around straight wire. Magnet passage across a bundle of straight protruding wires is another. See the diagram I have prepared below. Straight magnet to copper, no laminations, no turns of wire to provide any room for internal cancellation events or at least to minimize this to the lowest level possible. What is required are designs that eliminate what @tinman was talking about and that the effects before and after TDC. We want the output to leave the device as fast as possible, with the least turns or changes in vectors possible in order to minimize the cancellation events we live with in our standard coils.
If you are an OUer and you wake up every morning reciting the Energy Conservation Prayer, you should really think of changing hobbies.
These guys are unknowing deploying direct output. Look at the outputs versus rpm. With very little drag.
http://www.qm-magnet.com/about3.html
wattsup
PS: To the moderator, if this post is not welcome, please delete it. I will understand. It's just that no one is hanging around at OUR these days and I am wondering if it was because of me. Always paranoid of being off topic or out of your mind set. hehehe
Wattsup:
I made a few short comments a week or so ago about your proposition.
I am attaching a drawing showing two auto-transformers for you to contemplate. I am assuming that you would agree that a coil in an auto-transformer setup is almost acting like a potentiometer in the sense that it acts like an AC voltage divider?
MileHigh
Quote from: gotoluc on January 03, 2016, 12:21:04 PM
Interesting, I've never seen such a demo. So if you can find yours I would like to see it.
The other interesting thing is to use a body of water to demonstrate this, since to move an object over water you usually needs more force then to move the same object using wheels and bearings on a flat surface.
Luc
ADDED
Just saw your post and mags demo. It would be more convincing to see it move over a large distance like a pool.
Well it convinced me where ever I tried it. I had never experienced it in all my years of having magnets around.
Of course, a magnet is in a compass. But I never knew how strong the earths field was till I had that experience. I was running around for a week showing people as i had thought there was something wrong or a change in the earths field. Because I have had magnets rolling on tables many times before and had never seen this. Still bugs me how strong it is.
Mags
Quote from: gotoluc on January 03, 2016, 12:21:04 PM
Interesting, I've never seen such a demo. So if you can find yours I would like to see it.
The other interesting thing is to use a body of water to demonstrate this, since to move an object over water you usually needs more force then to move the same object using wheels and bearings on a flat surface.
Luc
ADDED
Just saw your post and mags demo. It would be more convincing to see it move over a large distance like a pool.
Dear Luc.
Not quite a pond but at least there's no breeze to upset things !! ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YCAFvvbxuk
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: tinman on January 03, 2016, 10:28:05 AM
Well Poynt-like i have been told many times before-->having confidence that something can be done is not the scientific method. It is odd that you would have to fine tune your setup to try and achieve the same results,when i can just throw together any bits and pieces,and achieve the results.
It is also odd that all those that seem to think there is nothing out of the ordinary happening here,are also the very same people that cannot show the same effect using other means.
If it is so straight forward and ordinary,then why is it so hard to show the same results i show?.
I would like to see the same results achieved without the use of PM's. I mean if PM's do no useful work,then the results should be achievable without the use of PM's.
Brad.
I gave you one method to achieve the same effect without using magnets. If you are interested in seeing it done without them, why don't you build it?
Quote from: Grumage on January 03, 2016, 03:06:14 PM
Dear Luc.
Not quite a pond but at least there's no breeze to upset things !! ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YCAFvvbxuk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YCAFvvbxuk)
Cheers Grum.
Looks more close to a compass moving when the movement is slowed down by the water tension. Have you tried it on edge on your table? It is hard sometimes to keep the magnet from falling over when the poles are 90 deg of earth field.
Seems strong enough that if you make a large square coil and spin it, like on axis of a window motor coil, that it will generate electricity, using the earth field.
Mags
Quote from: Grumage on January 03, 2016, 03:06:14 PM
Dear Luc.
Not quite a pond but at least there's no breeze to upset things !! ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YCAFvvbxuk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YCAFvvbxuk)
Cheers Grum.
Are you sure your plate of water was leveled correctly?... just kidding ;D
Thanks for making the test and taking the time to upload the video demo.
Needs to be studied a little more I think ???
Luc
Brad:
QuoteLike i said MH,i have been experimenting with pulse motors,magnets and rotors for many years-as have many others. I have known for a long time how to produce the W wave,and that part in itself has no real magic to it. But what you dont see,or have failed to see is the fact that that wave,and how it was produced leads to the wave form i showed a few post back. Im not sure what you mean by DC offset on the scope shot,but nothing was altered on the scope-if that is what you mean. You say that that wave form is impossible to produce due to the laws of induction,and im saying that it is not impossible at all. All you need is a long coil,and a double pole rotor with the correctly timed magnets and fields.
I am assuming the "W" wave and the allegation of a coil waveform were the voltage is always above zero volts are two separate things under discussion. For me the "W" wave means nothing. The "always above zero volts" waveform is impossible. If you want to draw a diagram of the setup and/or demo something then I would be able to comment more.
The reason there is nothing remarkable about the setup with the lossy coil is because the pulsing coil combined with the rotor in effect looks like an electrical circuit. In other words, you have a pulse motor which is a combination of an electrical circuit and a mechanical circuit and electrical circuits are analogs for mechanical circuits and mechanical circuits are analogs for electrical circuits. So, a pulse motor is an electro-mechanical circuit which just looks like an electrical circuit. If you were on the bench playing with a purely electrical circuit and changed a component value and saw the power-in change and the power-out change you would not think anything of it. So why think something unusual or remarkable is happening or that the magnets are doing something special when you add the rotor?
If you do undertake to test a more efficient coil that would be great. Like I already stated I think your rotor also leaves a lot to be desired. If I can offer a suggestion it would be to use a two-pole or four-pole rotor with the same pole facing outwards for all magnets. That will give you a cleaner and more controlled test environment for your coil.
With the typical kinds of bench experiments that you and your peers do with pulse motors and coils and transformers, it's basically impossible for you to do anything that "conventional science can't explain" or to "observe an exception to a so-called law." There is always an explanation, but sometimes that explanation is not that obvious and it takes some brainstorming to figure it out.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on January 03, 2016, 03:13:02 PM
I gave you one method to achieve the same effect without using magnets. If you are interested in seeing it done without them, why don't you build it?
Because as i said,your test/experiment did not show the same effect. Your experiment showed how to reduce both the P/in and P/out at the same time,and so the results you obtained were not the same as mine,and did not show an increase in efficiency. So it is clear that cause and effect are not the same between the two DUTs.
Brad
Thanks for the long but interesting post wattsup
Very well written I must say and very interesting information. Makes one think.
However, as interesting as it is you're not going to get people attention until you build a device that will prove your suggestions.
Have you done this yet?
I build things to demonstrate what I'm suggesting and still don't get much feedback from people.
That's just the way things are.
Thanks for sharing
Luc
Quote from: MileHigh on January 03, 2016, 05:26:23 PM
Brad:
I am assuming the "W" wave and the allegation of a coil waveform were the voltage is always above zero volts are two separate things under discussion. For me the "W" wave means nothing. The "always above zero volts" waveform is impossible. If you want to draw a diagram of the setup and/or demo something then I would be able to comment more.
The reason there is nothing remarkable about the setup with the lossy coil is because the pulsing coil combined with the rotor in effect looks like an electrical circuit. In other words, you have a pulse motor which is a combination of an electrical circuit and a mechanical circuit and electrical circuits are analogs for mechanical circuits and mechanical circuits are analogs for electrical circuits. So, a pulse motor is an electro-mechanical circuit which just looks like an electrical circuit. If you were on the bench playing with a purely electrical circuit and changed a component value and saw the power-in change and the power-out change you would not think anything of it. So why think something unusual or remarkable is happening or that the magnets are doing something special when you add the rotor?
If you do undertake to test a more efficient coil that would be great. Like I already stated I think your rotor also leaves a lot to be desired. If I can offer a suggestion it would be to use a two-pole or four-pole rotor with the same pole facing outwards for all magnets. That will give you a cleaner and more controlled test environment for your coil.
With the typical kinds of bench experiments that you and your peers do with pulse motors and coils and transformers, it's basically impossible for you to do anything that "conventional science can't explain" or to "observe an exception to a so-called law." There is always an explanation, but sometimes that explanation is not that obvious and it takes some brainstorming to figure it out.
MileHigh
Here is the problem MH. If i go to a two pole rotor with the same field pointing out,then i would have to get the rotor spinning at twice the speed,and then try and get it to sync--and it is hard enough as it is now. If i go to a 4 pole rotor with all the same field out,then we !may! loose some of the force placed upon the rotor when the coil fires,as with the alternating fields,we know that the coil will be pushing on one magnet,and pulling on the next. But i will give it a try anyway,and make a 4 pole rotor--maybe a bit smaller in diameter to make it easier to sync.
Brad
Wattsup,
I'd like to echo Luc's note of appreciation for your post. I watched your Half Coil #3 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELto2eCr0PY with great interest. I assume that Lenz' law is producing the half coil effect you register, and that it is arising in the coil as a response (to the charge) from the dielectric/aether. I believe this situates me among those who would consider coils to be open systems, and that OU is in fact a result of open system factors whose wide pervasiveness classical EM theory doesn't seem ready to acknowledge. Polemics aside, I find your video and post helpful for my own experimenting. Looking forward to the next one.
Bob
Quote from: gotoluc on January 03, 2016, 09:16:01 PM
Quite the contrary, my test is very comparable to JLN. We are just using different sizes of magnets, mounted on different surfaces and placing them in different locations.
His large magnet will make his wheel vibrate which makes the sound you think is motor action. Mine is at most 10% of the size of his, so obviously won't be affected as much and it is also being held by a small steel lamination dampened by my fingers. You're also not comparing how much power he is putting in his coil compared to mine.
So all this is giving you a false impression that these test are not the same. Seeing a schematic will also not conclude anything. Both are coils being turned on and off.
How different and complicated is that ::)
You were wrong about a magnet not being able to increase a cored coils inductance and your wrong about these tests not being the same.
What are the chances, since I got the exact core that were recommended for the Orbo build and don't you think JLN did the same?
Here you are arrogantly making a mockery of JLN test based on your ignorance that a magnet cannot increase inductance:
and you come up with your own BS motoring hypothesis.
The one who is off the clouds is you! and you could of saved your face a little but you've openly admitted (above) that you've already seen my video back in 2011 and failed to remember what should of been obvious at the time.
What are you doing here??? are you not at least capable of learning something form someone who is supposed to know less than you?
May this be a lesson to you and all your followers that you don't have all the correct answers based on what you have learned from the past. There are new products like Finemet that you obviously know nothing about.
So it's fine if you don't want to do experiments but don't think you know all the answers as things are changing fast and in time you'll be an old school dinosaur.
So better stop your BS now before you really sink your ship... or should I say shit?
Luc
Well, that is one nasty piece of work. In fact it's so nasty that I am going to reply here where you can't exercise your thought control.
I agree that what you said on a technical level has merit. Your tone will be addressed later. I never said that you were wrong and I acknowledged that you were measuring what appeared to be an increased inductance. Nor do I claim to be an expert in magnetics.
I spent a half hour doing some research and found a paper which is attached to this posting.
From the paper:
QuoteAbstract
The resistive and reactive components of magneto-impedance (MI) for Finemet/Copper/Finemet sandwiched
structures based on
stress-annealed
nanocrystalline Fe
75
Si
15
B
6
Cu
1
Nb
3
ribbons as functions of different fields
(longitudinal and perpendicular) and frequencies have been measured and analyzed. Maximum magneto-
resistance and magneto-inductance ratios of 700% and 450% have been obtained in 30-600 kHz frequency range
respectively. These large magneto-resistance and magneto-i
nductive ratios are a direct consequence of the large
effective relative permeability due to the closed magnetic flux path in the trilayer structure. The influence of
perpendicular bias fields (H
per
) in the Longitudinal Magneto-impedance (LMI) configuration greatly improves
the MI ratios and sensitivities. The maximum MI ratio for th
e resistive part increases to as large as 2500% for
H
per
~ 1 Oe. The sensitivity of the magneto-resistance incr
eases from 48%/Oe to 288%/Oe at 600 kHz frequency
with the application of H per
~ 30 Oe. Such high increase in MI ratios and sensitivities with perpendicular bias
fields are due to the formation the favourable (transverse) domain structures.
The paper is very technical and I managed to gleam that indeed a magnetic field can increase the inductance of a toroidal coil with a Finemet core just like you said.
I note how you acknowledge that this effect does not take place for regular ferrite materials and in that case the influence if a magnetic field reduces the effective inductance, which is something that I also said.
MileHigh
Luc:
This is from the first posting in your thread: "If you wish to post in this topic please keep it on topic and constructive as I reserve the right to edit or delete any post that are not so."
You are not living up to your own credo, shame on you.
QuoteQuite the contrary, my test is very comparable to JLN. We are just using different sizes of magnets, mounted on different surfaces and placing them in different locations.
Yes I substantially agree. I was ignorant of the fact that apparently transverse magnetic fields passing through the Finemet tape material can increase the inductance.
QuoteHis large magnet will make his wheel vibrate which makes the sound you think is motor action. Mine is at most 10% of the size of his, so obviously won't be affected as much and it is also being held by a small steel lamination dampened by my fingers. You're also not comparing how much power he is putting in his coil compared to mine.
I don't think it is motor action, I know it is motor action. The power to make the magnet vibrate clearly comes from the pulsing toroid.
The key thing is this: Often two or three effects can be happening at the same time, and in a purely linear system they will all just add together. Armed with the new knowledge that I know have, I would state that two effects are happening at the same time, 1) increased inductance from the effect of the external magnetic field, and 2) apparent increased inductance from the motor action. My gut feel is that the second effect is stronger than the first effect. In the case of your experiment, my gut feel is that the first effect is stronger than any possible second effect.
QuoteSo all this is giving you a false impression that these test are not the same. Seeing a schematic will also not conclude anything. Both are coils being turned on and off.
How different and complicated is that
My impression has been modified, but if I assume for the sake of argument that the motoring effect in the JLN clip predominates and the motoring effect in your test is negligible or nil, then the two tests are still fundamentally not the same.
I will just repeat to you that whenever you demonstrate a circuit you should spend the few minutes to draw a sketch of the circuit and show where your measuring points are. This is a common courtesy that all experimenters should do for each other. I noticed that you were a bit embarrassed when working with Verpies because you had no schematic to show.
QuoteHere you are arrogantly making a mockery of JLN test based on your ignorance that a magnet cannot increase inductance
Yes, I scolded JLN because his point does not make any sense like I already stated. Running a test and them making a point that does not make sense is a fail and he should have known better. Nor was he aware of the motoring action.
Quoteand you come up with your own BS motoring hypothesis.
The motoring is 100% correct and you have been doing energy research for something like six years and you should realize this yourself. There has to be a power source to make the magnet vibrate - it's a motor. Whoops you are getting nasty and breaking your own credo.
MileHigh
Luc:
QuoteThe one who is off the clouds is you! and you could of saved your face a little but you've openly admitted (above) that you've already seen my video back in 2011 and failed to remember what should of been obvious at the time.
Now you are scolding me for not remembering seeing a clip made by you in 2011 and now it is 2016? You are being rude and breaking your own credo.
QuoteWhat are you doing here??? are you not at least capable of learning something form someone who is supposed to know less than you?
I just demonstrated that I am perfectly capable of learning something. What's your problem?
QuoteMay this be a lesson to you and all your followers that you don't have all the correct answers based on what you have learned from the past. There are new products like Finemet that you obviously know nothing about.
So it's fine if you don't want to do experiments but don't think you know all the answers as things are changing fast and in time you'll be an old school dinosaur.
So better stop your BS now before you really sink your ship... or should I say shit?
Luc
Wow, you just had a "release," does it feel good? You broke your own credo again.
So why don't you go back and edit your posting and censor yourself to bring it in line with what you want to see in your own thread?
MileHigh
Quote from: Grumage on January 03, 2016, 03:06:14 PM
Dear Luc.
Not quite a pond but at least there's no breeze to upset things !! ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YCAFvvbxuk
Cheers Grum.
@Grumage
I left this comment on your video.
@Grum C Think of the attraction as not coming from your polar horizon. Think that the magnet wants to point straight 3000 miles under your feet to the polar positions of the Earths core, not the Earth surface, that's a fallacy. You would see this if the magnet was in a gyro mechanism. I think I can see your boat tipping deeper in the water at the blue mark. That's why it wants to veer off the plate to find a better straight angle down, which it can only find at the equator or the poles to be still.
Search this video on youtube Understanding Magnetism Science Documentary Full Length Documentaries Look At 6:40. wattsup?
Added the video link here but could not in youtube comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6-Tx6j5nf0
Quote from: MileHigh on January 03, 2016, 02:00:42 PM
Wattsup:
I made a few short comments a week or so ago about your proposition.
I am attaching a drawing showing two auto-transformers for you to contemplate. I am assuming that you would agree that a coil in an auto-transformer setup is almost acting like a potentiometer in the sense that it acts like an AC voltage divider? MileHigh
@MH
Hmmmmm. That simply confirms HCS. Variac is the same. You will need to think very deeply about this one. It's not easy to mind play but you will soon realize that alternating current cannot exist with a ground if electrons move in the wires, you would have a short circuit at every half cycle. We don't need to get to technical to understand the logic. It still took me a good five years to figure it out. But it is very possible with Spin Conveyance since for SC, there are no electrons, conveyance is by the stationary copper nuclei that work like gyro magnets. Just look at the best images of Atoms and you will see some perfect, some not perfect, some squeezed together. Resonance happens when you get to a frequency that permits the most number of copper atoms to gyro at once but that does not mean you get amperage. So simple. Since the atom nuclei is the one doing the work, its too and fro spin can accommodate a change of "direction" without changing the ground. But as in DC, AC primaries still suffer from HCS. Ahha.
I will put more soon. But please if you have better proof of AC under electron flow, let me know and we can look at it together. I have to say that I have learned a lot since the old days and a lot of it was with you guys @MH, @poynt99, @verpies and many others, it was your solid EE base that saved me tons of work to substantiate constructs but guys, I really think SC will explain every single effect on our benches and most importantly provide a visual basis that all experimenters can share when explaining effects.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 03, 2016, 05:31:43 PM
However, as interesting as it is you're not going to get people attention until you build a device that will prove your suggestions. Have you done this yet?
I build things to demonstrate what I'm suggesting and still don't get much feedback from people.
That's just the way things are.
Thanks for sharing. Luc
@gotoluc
I know a picture (1000 words) a video (priceless) but only once you first figure out how to go about explaining something that is by its nature very difficult to explain. So I am searching for ways to show.
I watch ever single one of your videos as I do with other @members and am always appreciative of your content and approach. I probably have a good 20 posts in your subdirectory on my computer (many subs for many @members) that was never posted simply because at those times I was thinking "These guys are not ready yet for this", and this was my mistake since no one will ever be ready, but still I did not want to go and steer your efforts away from where they were going even if I thought at times they were going nowhere special. This is my mistake. I will try and work against my inner over-analysis. I am always looking for ways to push the limit, to go a little further off the beaten path so guys can have more angles of observation, not just the standard book of EE formulas that have been used and reused so many times we are losing count.
Example: There could be a whole new science revolving around rebiasing transformers. If the fixed atoms in the cores and the copper wire are randomly arranged, this would explain all the losses we experience in our coils since an impulse is the same as a magnet passage that can only act on a certain amount of those atoms that are favorably positioned. It would then be logical to presume that if more atoms were sharing the same alignment, once you find the resonance frequency for those atoms, either the voltage output or amperage should increase. The rebias has to be done with a pulse that will be multiple times stronger then the working pulses so the new rebiasing holds a new but more widely shared latent position.
So take any transformer with a primary and secondary. Find the resonance where the highest voltage is seen on the secondary. Try and measure the amps as well. Write those down. Now find yourself at least a 2 foot length of heavy copper wire. Wind the first foot around the coil leaving 2" at the start end free and the 1 foot length also free from the other side. Put the 1 foot length to a car battery negative. Spike the other end to the positive terminal 3 or 4 times giving it good zaps. Redo your test and see if you now have a new resonance frequency (if old frequency is not resonant any more) and measure output.
The zapping can be done by winding the "Zapper Wire (ZW)" around the coil or the ZW can be configured into a pancake type coil and held only one one side of the coil and zapped (like on the end of a coil that has a passing magnet) then on another side of the coil and zapped, etc. There has to be a method to realign those coupling atoms in a same "direction", were more will respond to a given frequency. This is a whole new avenue and would require one whole department to study the effects but for the OUer, it is one more method to add to our arsenal of effects. But it has to be better understood and to do that it takes time and a real effort and methodical record keeping.
@Bob Smith
Thanks, I will have more soon. hehehe
wattsup
Webby:
Heat, understanding heat, knowing where it's going, knowing how and where and when it's being produced are critical things to consider when you are trying to understand the energy dynamics of any device. I have pushed the issue a bit but I don't think it's getting much traction and it seems to be fading out of the discussion. When engineers design cell phones and tablets they agonize over heat issues.
Without being conscious of heat, you can observe many things that look like they are contrary to what "should" happen. You have to keep your eye on the heat.
Typically, heat is the end of the line. You drop a book on the floor and you just produced an explosion of heat. All the walls, the floor, and the ceiling in the room get a fresh coat of heat.
When you are doing cardio exercise, you can say your heart is doing three things, 1) powering your muscles, 2) keeping you alive, and 3) working to expel excess heat. I am usually quite conscious of how much of my cardio energy is working to expel excess heat when I exercise.
MileHigh
Quote from: gotoluc on January 03, 2016, 11:54:26 AM
Interesting, I never thought a physical magnet could have interaction with the earths magnetic field to do work.
Have you built such a device and seen it work?
Thanks for sharing
Luc
Hi Luc Tinman Mag and Grum
Here my experiment
https://youtu.be/qNA37WSB8Nk
Youp veird
Hope this helps
Laurent
Quote from: woopy on January 04, 2016, 05:14:43 PM
Hi Luc Tinman Mag and Grum
Here my experiment
https://youtu.be/qNA37WSB8Nk
Youp veird
Hope this helps
Laurent
Hi Laurent-great video.
What kind of wire or string are you using in your experiment?. My only guess at this point in time as to why it keeps spinning is that you are using some sort of twisted wire or string,and it is untwisting,and also getting longer at the same time. Maybe try it with a single strand line such as fishing line,and see if it still spins. If it dose,you have just made the first all magnet motor ;)--but i will stick with the untwisting string theory for the time being.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on January 04, 2016, 05:37:24 PM
Hi Laurent-great video.
What kind of wire or string are you using in your experiment?. My only guess at this point in time as to why it keeps spinning is that you are using some sort of twisted wire or string,and it is untwisting,and also getting longer at the same time. Maybe try it with a single strand line such as fishing line,and see if it still spins. If it dose,you have just made the first all magnet motor ;) --but i will stick with the untwisting string theory for the time being.
Brad
Hi Brad
I am sure that you are already on it because this experiment is so simple and you are probably in possession of a ring magnet and some of your wife sewing thin cotton thread.
And no i have not invented the first all magnet motor, i simply replicated Mag and Grum experiment, and by doing this i stumble upon this issue, And it is why i share it with all of you.
So i expect from you that you will try it in the south hemisphere and report the direction of spinning.
Thank's
Laurent
Ghost.
Quote from: woopy on January 04, 2016, 05:14:43 PM
Hi Luc Tinman Mag and Grum
Here my experiment
https://youtu.be/qNA37WSB8Nk (https://youtu.be/qNA37WSB8Nk)
Youp veird
Hope this helps
Laurent
Very interesting Laurent
Just like TinMan, the only thing I can think of is the cotton thread you're using is untwisting. However, you mentioned it is not the case.
But if you let it run as long as you can, there must be a point where it will stop as the cotton thread will get twisted to a point it will start making loops? ... when it gets to this point and you remove it from the nail and let it fall so it finds its natural straight line. If you hook it back will it start once again going in the same direction till it stops because of loops?
I don't think fishing line will work since it can't or should not turn. However, if you add a fishing line swivel (see pic) this may allow the magnets to turn if the friction of the swivel can be overcomed by the magnets rotation. If not, I would suggest using 2 needles glued between the magnets to hold the magnets on a hard surface.
Thanks for sharing
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on January 04, 2016, 06:23:43 PM
Very interesting Laurent
Just like TinMan, the only thing I can think of is the string you're using is untwisting. However, you mentioned it is not the case.
But if you let it run as long as you can, there must be a point where it will stop as the string will get twisted to a point it will start making loops? ... when it gets to this point and you remove it from the nail and let it fall so it finds its natural straight line. If you hook it back will it once again go the same direction till it stops because of loops?
I don't think fishing line will work since it cant or should not turn. However, if you add a fishing line swivel (see pic) this may allow the magnets to turn if the friction in the swivel can be overcomed by the magnets rotation force. If not, I would suggest using 2 needles glued between the magnets to hold the magnets on a hard surface.
Thanks for sharing
Luc
However,
Hi Luc
Please read all my comments on the video and also the reply of the readers of youtube
And it seems that some others around the world are already testing the system with success.
I hope you will take the 5 minutes it takes to make this very interesting experiment
Good night
Laurent
Let's start off by being adults and remembering what we learned in high school if you took a science course: The magnetic field of the Earth is essentially constant and unchanging. There is no possible way for the Earth's magnetic field to make the magnets spin. It is simply impossible.
For starters, have you looked at the thread under a magnifying glass or with a magnifier app on your cell phone? Can you see a twist in the thread?
How can you double-check if the magnet is spinning because the thread is untwisting?
I can think of two ways.
1) Look at the separation between the bottom of the magnet and the wooden crossbeam of the chair. Do you see the separation getting smaller as the magnet spins?
2) Take the thread and flip it upside down and redo the test. If there is torque from the untwisting of the string then the magnet will spin the opposite way.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on January 04, 2016, 07:20:15 PM
Let's start off by being adults and remembering what we learned in high school if you took a science course: The magnetic field of the Earth is essentially constant and unchanging. There is no possible way for the Earth's magnetic field to make the magnets spin. It is simply impossible.
For starters, have you looked at the thread under a magnifying glass or with a magnifier app on your cell phone? Can you see a twist in the thread?
How can you double-check if the magnet is spinning because the thread is untwisting?
I can think of two ways.
1) Look at the separation between the bottom of the magnet and the wooden crossbeam of the chair. Do you see the separation getting smaller as the magnet spins?
2) Take the thread and flip it upside down and redo the test. If there is torque from the untwisting of the string then the magnet will spin the opposite way.
MileHigh
Flip the string around, and the magnet will spin the other way ???
Lol-better have another think about that one MH
Maybe if we put a propeller on backwards, the plane will fly backwards too lol.
Okay, here is my test device to verify if the earths magnetic field has an effect on our magnets.
I may not of mentioned this in the video demo but when my magnets are at rest they always line up across the 12 to 6 o'clock vertical position which happen to line up exactly with the floor tiles.
Link to video demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs862lNtfTc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs862lNtfTc)
I have nothing unusual to report which could be because my test device is different. However, if there is interactivity between the earths magnetic field and magnets, I'm quite confident my test device should be sensitive enough to detect it.
My test device also eliminates the possible participation of the twisted sewing thread. So we don't have to deal with string theories ;)
Luc
Quote from: tinman on January 04, 2016, 11:07:52 PM
Flip the string around, and the magnet will spin the other way ???
Lol-better have another think about that one MH
Maybe if we put a propeller on backwards, the plane will fly backwards too lol.
Yeah, you are right about that one. I guess that I have some compass on my face! Next time I put my two index fingers together and twist I will have to be more careful!
Quote from: woopy on January 04, 2016, 05:53:22 PM
Hi Brad
I am sure that you are already on it because this experiment is so simple and you are probably in possession of a ring magnet and some of your wife sewing thin cotton thread.
And no i have not invented the first all magnet motor, i simply replicated Mag and Grum experiment, and by doing this i stumble upon this issue, And it is why i share it with all of you.
So i expect from you that you will try it in the south hemisphere and report the direction of spinning.
Thank's
Laurent
Sure,i'll try it out Laurent.'
One thing to keep in mind is that cotton thread is a lot of single cotton strands twisted together.
Brad
Quote from: gotoluc on January 04, 2016, 11:21:17 PM
Okay, here is my test device to verify if the earths magnetic field has an effect on our magnets.
I may not of mentioned this in the video demo but when my magnets are at rest they always line up across the 12 to 6 o'clock vertical position which happen to line up exactly with the floor tiles.
Link to video demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs862lNtfTc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs862lNtfTc)
I have nothing unusual to report which could be because my test device is different. However, if there is interactivity between the earths magnetic field and magnets, I'm quite confident my test device should be sensitive enough to detect it.
My test device also eliminates the possible participation of the twisted sewing thread. So we don't have to deal with string theories ;)
Luc
very punny. Thanks Luc
I can't see it being a twisted string , because at the beginning the magnet was hanging perfectly still, and with the small spin it came back to rest in the same position.
I have used this test many times to find the poles of my magnets ,whichever side comes to rest facing north is what I call the south pole of my magnet.
I have never seen any of my magnets continue to spin like that, but I will try to replicate.
Thanks Woopy very interesting.
Yep confirmed in Melbourne Laurent runs ccw. Wtf is my equal but opposite reaction? photos and vids to follow. Fascinating guys.
The string I used was brand new. I tried to get some pics but these will have to do. Too big? Let me know. Thought you'd want the res. The twisted up string is what happens after a "run". It winds itself up basically. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ1VV6nWjMc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ1VV6nWjMc)
Also after winding itself up it wound down and then up again and now down.. anyway several minutes of spinning, from a half a turn. Better than any pulse motor Ive ever built :)
Repost from Lucs thread,as it belongs here as well.
QuoteI am basing my comments on what I actually see when a pulsing coil does a motor action and makes something move by exporting power to the outside world. Are you "sure" those are the conditions that Poynt was talking about? Perhaps he was referencing more of a static condition where the magnet does not move? Perhaps it also depends on the relative directions of the magnet's field lines and the coil's field lines since magnetic fields are a vector quantity with magnitude and direction?
Well as we have all be discussing magnets moving in relation to stationary core's,then one would hope that he was talking about the same thing,if he was trying to explain as to what is happening.\
Quote
You need to think more than one or two steps deep for all this stuff.
It would appear as though i have thought deeper about this than what you and Poynt have.
I will talk about this some more toward the end of my reply to your post.
QuoteMagluvin referenced a book where a a coil with a ferrite core can be "preloaded" under the influence of an external magnetic field. Considering in my example the two magnetic fields are 180 degrees diametrically opposed I think that will apply in this case. It looks like when the coil first energizes it has to do the work to "clear out" the biasing of the core which is in the opposite direction that the coil wants to fire. That sounds to me like it will increase the effective inductance - in this case.
Lol-amazing . Here i have been,trying to tell you this on two thread's !!for how long now!!?,and all i get from you and Poynt ,is that is incorrect.
QuoteOn the other hand, if a static and unmoving magnet was "behind" the coil and biasing the core in the "right" direction, then when the coil was energized then in short order the core would get saturated and go "air core." That sounds like it would reduce the effective inductance to me. See? You actually have to think these things through.
!!We!! have to thinks things through ::)-->man,where have you been for the last two week's-->and what have myself and Luc been trying to tell you??.
We have to think things through Lol--is this some sort of joke MH?.
QuoteIf we want to be more complete in our description it looks like there are several effects:
1) The coil when energized has to "clear out" the biasing of the core and then start biasing the core the "right" way.
As i have been trying to tell you and Poynt for weeks now.
Quote2.1) When the magnet moves away, an EMF will be induced in the coil that is opposite that of the battery.
Not with my DUT,as it is the south field that is approaching the core of the coil that produces a north field at the end of the coil where the rotor is. But this has nothing to do with the reduction in current on the P/in side.--Detailed reason and evidence at bottom of this post--that you seem'd to have overlooked.
Quote2.2) It's likely that the summation (integration) of the "negative EMF" times the instantaneous current flow represents the energy that is put into the moving mass of the magnet - the motor action.
So once again we are being told that energy from the coil is transferred to the rotor,and at the same time the rotor returns this stored energy,!!BUT!! the I/ in drop's resulting in less P/in. Once again-some how,we have put energy into the rotor,and taken that energy back out(equal and opposite-minus losses due to windage and bearing friction of the rotor),but seem to have reduced the P/in ::).
Quote3) Points 1) and 2) above will work to slow the increasing of the current flow when the coil is energized, which effectively makes it look like the coil is a higher inductance - and reduce the average power consumption of the coil.
Thats because the coils inductance has risen.
Quote4) The distributed resistance of the wire of the coil is always there in the background dissipating energy and working to slow down the current flow.
Really?-->we shall see.
QuoteThat's about all that I can think of and I intentionally ignored discussing the back spike. I have never done any of this stuff in real life. I am forced to try to visualize it in my mind.
And that is where you fail. The vital information to understanding what is happening,is right there in the back spike. And you say we need to look further than just two step's,while you have totally ignored the very thing that is showing you that the induced reverse voltage across the coil from the moving magnet is not what is reducing the I/in-P/in. This !is! the case with Poynt's sim(that was suppose to simulate the results of my DUT,but did not),but not the case with my DUT.
QuoteYou can investigate what is taking place to any level of detail that you want.What you can't do is cherry pick one thing and then blindly assume that it applies to all cases without thinking things through. That seems to happen way too often around here.
I really cannot believe what i am reading in this whole post of your MH--it is truly unbelievable :o
Quote: What you can't do is cherry pick one thing and then blindly assume that it applies to all cases without thinking things through.
And this is exactly what you have done throughout the ages you have been here on this forum. You blindly stick to what the books tell you,and everything must obey the !known! laws-->which are based only around current observations-->thats right MH-observations,and observations are not laws. With people like you trying to sway others that see different,is it any wonder that any new observations have never been see.
You tell us that !we! need to look at more than two thing;s,and yet here you admit to leaving out the one thing that provides all the answers--the inductive kickback current.
You insist that we cant just cherry pick one thing ,and blindly assume that it applies to all cases--and yet here you are saying,or trying to preach that everything must abide by these know laws--everything.
You clearly have the inability to stand back,and have an unbiased go at working this out. You must stick to your known laws that are based only on observations so far. You preach books that are filled with information that is 100's of years old-->and we are suppose to be looking for the energy of the future.
Poynts quick little attempt at trying to replicate my DUT's test results failed. What he showed was !your! normal outcome,from your known !!laws!!. He succeeded in reducing the I/in-P/in,and as a result,he also reduced the P/out. Why did his results show this?. That is easy-the inductance of the coil remained the same when he switched on his tank circuit,that was suppose to represent a magnet moving toward and away from the core of the coil. As the inductance remained the same,then when the current was reduced,then so was the magnitude of the magnetic field built up around the coil/inductor. We know this is true,because the I/out-P/out also dropped<--this is the bit you chose to ignore,and your undoing to understanding that what i have been saying is true,and in the case of my DUT,it has nothing to do with the induced reverse voltage across the coil.
Look closely at the scope shots below MH-->do you see a reduction in the I/out P/out in my DUT/
No,in fact you see an increase,and this increase was measured by both the scope across the CVR,and also by the DMM's across the CVR-->both methods recommended by both you and Poynt.
So now all you have to do,is work out as to why or how we can have a reduction of current flowing into the coil,and yet have an increase of current flowing out of the coil--how is it that my results are opposite to that of what Poynt showed?. How can you decrease the current flowing into an inductor,and yet increase the current flowing out of the inductor during the kickback.
The only way to increase the current flowing out of the inductor(when the inductors wire and turn ratio remain the same),is to increase the magnitude of the magnetic field that is built up around the inductor. Now,how can that magnetic field be increased if we have just decreased the I/in-P/in of that inductor MH?. Well the answer is simple--the inductance of that inductor had to have increased. You wrote this your self MH--Quote: It looks like when the coil first energizes it has to do the work to "clear out" the biasing of the core which is in the opposite direction that the coil wants to fire. And this is exactly what happens with my DUT,and is exactly what i have been saying,and trying to tell you on two different thread for the past 3 weeks.
Again-->As the south field of the magnet on my rotor approaches the core of the coil,it induces that field into the core. When the coil fires,it fires a !!north!! field at the end of the coil that is closest to the rotor. You just said exactly what i have been saying for over three week's,and during that time,you !and Poynt! are trying to tell us all here that it is this !!cannot be seen!! reverse voltage across the coil that is the reason for the reduction in current draw during the ON time. Well in Poynt's Sym case,that is correct,as the I/out also went down<-- Your lenz's law.
But in my case,we have a situation where the I/in went down,but the I/out went up. If what you and Poynt are saying were true with my DUT,then we would have seen the same results Poynt showed,in that when the I/in was reduced,then the I/out would have also been reduced--but it was not-it increased.
So i hope you take some notice of your own words,and go and have a closer look at what is happening with my DUT. Try and be unbiased for once in your life MH.
Re-posted on my thread.
Brad
Quote from: Jimboot on January 05, 2016, 05:18:02 AM
Yep confirmed in Melbourne Laurent runs ccw. Wtf is my equal but opposite reaction? photos and vids to follow. Fascinating guys.
The string I used was brand new. I tried to get some pics but these will have to do. Too big? Let me know. Thought you'd want the res. The twisted up string is what happens after a "run". It winds itself up basically. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ1VV6nWjMc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ1VV6nWjMc)
Also after winding itself up it wound down and then up again and now down.. anyway several minutes of spinning, from a half a turn. Better than any pulse motor Ive ever built :)
Jimboot
Looking at your pic's,and the twist direction of the string,the magnets in your video were spinning in the correct direction to untwist the string.
One easy way to verify what is going on,is to lower your spinning magnets so as they are about 1mm of the floor. Then let the magnets spin. If the magnets touch the floor after some time of spinning,then you know the string was unwinding,and getting longer. If the distance between the magnets and floor increases,then you and woopy will kicking back on a tropical island in no time flat.
I believe that what you and woopy are seeing,is the force of gravity unwinding the string--nothing more.
I would love to be wrong on this though lol.
Brad
Brad,
If your hypothesis is that the drive coil's inductance is being increased by the passing magnets, could you devise a test setup to verify your hypothesis?
There is one way I can think of that might increase the inductance of a cored inductor, but only momentarily during the ON time, which of course is what we are dealing with here.
If we think of the core polarization as a pendulum, where zero polarization is when the pendulum is at a neutral low position, and full polarization (in either direction) when the pendulum is at 90 degrees to one side or the other, it is possible that an apparent increase in inductance might occur if the pendulum (core) is pre-set at 90 degrees (or anything between 0 and 90) to one side, and the firing of the coil is in the direction or polarity which pulls the pendulum in the opposite direction, causing the pendulum to pass through zero.
I think we know that the converse is true, i.e. the momentary inductance would be decreased if the firing of the coil was in the same polarization that the core was already in.
This would not be too difficult to test, and I think could be done in a sim quite easily as well. I will give it a try.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2016, 09:08:39 AM
Brad,
If your hypothesis is that the drive coil's inductance is being increased by the passing magnets, could you devise a test setup to verify your hypothesis?
Is the information and test results not enough to confirm this?
How else can you increase the output current(while maintaining the same output voltage),when the input current has been decreased. The decrease of input current obviously did not decrease the magnitude of the magnetic field being built around the inductor,as if it did,then we would see what your results showed,and that being a reduction in output current. If the core of the coil is biased by a PM's field that is opposite to the one to be induced when current starts to flow through the coil-dose that not increase the effective inductance during the point of current flow through the coil--as MH stated ?.
As you know(or should know),with my DUT,a south field is approaching the core of the coil,and this field is induced into the core before the ON time. Once the current starts to flow,this induced field from the PM now has to be flipped to the opposite field,and the magnet is pulled the rest of the way toward the core of the coil.
If i was to make a test setup to verify this,how would i go about it,other than the way i already have? I think with your sim setup,the opposite field that the tank circuit provide's(the simulated rotor),is happening at the same time as the field that is being produced by what would be your coil,where as in my DUT,the field from the magnet on the rotor is already building in the core of the coil before the current starts to flow in the coil.
Brad
OK-just finished the test with the ring magnet on a string--cotton thread used for sewing.
I started with the magnet 2mm off the wooden floor. When started,the magnet once again(as all the other test done showed)spun in a CCW direction. After 7 minutes the magnet touched the floor.
Two things tell us that it is the string/thread unwinding.
1- All thread around the world(or most there off) is wound in the same direction--something to do with a world standard,so as it suits all sewing machines around the world,and the way the bobins spin in those machines. I guess if it was wound in the opposite direction,the spin direction of the bobins in sewing machines may unwind the thread?.
Anyway,this is why we all get the same CCW spin,no matter where in the world we are.
2- The simple fact that my thread got longer,and not shorter,is telling us that the thread is unwinding.
Ah well,it was a quick,easy and fun test,and as far as i can see--problem solved.
Brad
About the magnet and thread experiment: I replicated this and really thought it was incredible, but it must be caused by the tension in the thread. I eliminated the thread by placing my magnet in a plastic lid and floating the lid in a plastic bowl full of water. The attraction to north was very strong. The magnet was easily able to swing the lid around. Sadly, it cogs as one would expect. No rotation in either direction.
Quote from: tinman on January 05, 2016, 09:47:57 AM
OK-just finished the test with the ring magnet on a string--cotton thread used for sewing.
I started with the magnet 2mm off the wooden floor. When started,the magnet once again(as all the other test done showed)spun in a CCW direction. After 7 minutes the magnet touched the floor.
Two things tell us that it is the string/thread unwinding.
1- All thread around the world(or most there off) is wound in the same direction--something to do with a world standard,so as it suits all sewing machines around the world,and the way the bobins spin in those machines. I guess if it was wound in the opposite direction,the spin direction of the bobins in sewing machines may unwind the thread?.
Anyway,this is why we all get the same CCW spin,no matter where in the world we are.
2- The simple fact that my thread got longer,and not shorter,is telling us that the thread is unwinding.
Ah well,it was a quick,easy and fun test,and as far as i can see--problem solved.
Brad
Thank's very much Brad for testing it
And also Luc and Jim and others.
So effectively "problem solved"
I have made a video (with comments ) of some testing i did as i have the matos to do it.
https://youtu.be/HBNrPubeGVc
Effectively with a unidirectional non twisted kevlar string, the tendency to have more CCW movement is confirmed in my particular house, and it is also possible to get some turns of CCW rotation (probably due to initial input), but nothing so spectacular as with the cotton sewing thread.
It is anyway interesting to play with so simple experiment to better feel with once fingers ,the earth magnetic field. I did not imagine before, that it could be so strong.
Hope not having disturbed the thread too much
Laurent
Brad:
>>> Magluvin referenced a book where a a coil with a ferrite core can be "preloaded" under the influence of an external magnetic field. Considering in my example the two magnetic fields are 180 degrees diametrically opposed I think that will apply in this case. It looks like when the coil first energizes it has to do the work to "clear out" the biasing of the core which is in the opposite direction that the coil wants to fire. That sounds to me like it will increase the effective inductance - in this case.
QuoteLol-amazing . Here i have been,trying to tell you this on two thread's !!for how long now!!?,and all i get from you and Poynt ,is that is incorrect.
I am talking about the simple controlled test that I described in my posting. It's separate and distinct from your pulse motor so why are you making a connection when there is no connection?
Beyond that, I don't get that feeling or remember statements like that from you. If you can show me where you said that that would be appreciated.
>>> On the other hand, if a static and unmoving magnet was "behind" the coil and biasing the core in the "right" direction, then when the coil was energized then in short order the core would get saturated and go "air core." That sounds like it would reduce the effective inductance to me. See? You actually have to think these things through.
Quote!!We!! have to thinks things through (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)-->man,where have you been for the last two week's-->and what have myself and Luc been trying to tell you??.
We have to think things through Lol--is this some sort of joke MH?.
One more time, I am talking about the simple controlled test that I described in my posting. It's separate and distinct from your pulse motor so why are you making a connection when there is no connection?
One more time, please go ahead and show me what you have been telling me. Or are you just saying something for the sake of saying something with no context?
I assume that your frame of reference is your clips where you narrowed the pulse from the signal generator as much as possible so that the rotor was still turning. This was done with your lossy coil. I will just repeat again that has nothing to do with the controlled test that I described in my posting:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
For how it's happening, a simple test that anybody can do:
Suppose you pulse a fixed coil and it produces a north field that is facing the north end of a movable magnet:
[S-coil-N] [N-magnet-S]
So naturally the magnet will get pushed away when you pulse the coil.
Now, what happens if you have the coil open circuited and on your scope, and you pull the magnet away?
My expectation is that you will see an EMF generated by the coil that is opposite the applied voltage of the battery that you used in the first part of the test.
The conclusion: When the battery pulses the coil, and the magnet gets pushed away, then the moving magnet will induce EMF in the coil that effectively reduces the voltage applied across the coil. Even though you can't see it on your scope, it's still happening "inside" the coil. That internal EMF opposing the battery voltage will reduce the rate of current rise when you energize the coil. WOW - two things are happening simultaneously inside the coil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So I would say that all the righteous indignation is misplaced and saying, "That's what I have been saying to you all along" is not even applicable considering we are discussing two separate things. Nor can I recall cases where you say what you are alleging you said. Lots of postings have passed under the bridge, so if you want to cite specific examples I will try to respond.
MileHigh
Brad:
>>> 2.1) When the magnet moves away, an EMF will be induced in the coil that is opposite that of the battery.
QuoteNot with my DUT,as it is the south field that is approaching the core of the coil that produces a north field at the end of the coil where the rotor is. But this has nothing to do with the reduction in current on the P/in side.--Detailed reason and evidence at bottom of this post--that you seem'd to have overlooked.
Yeah, but I am talking about my proposed controlled test, and
not about your pulse motor. Do you get it? The bait and switch and moving the goal posts games you play to advance your argument are too much sometimes.
As far as your motor goes, the first issue for me is that your eight-pole rotor relative to the large coil gives you a blended magnetic polarity as viewed by the coil. There is no "heartbeat, inverse heartbeat, heartbeat, ..." waveform associated with alternating north and south outward facing poles on the rotor. There is what looks like a modified sine wave with a more half-circular form to the positive and negative excursions. So to me that makes it unclear as to what a "south field that is approaching the core" really means. The rotor is spinning slaved to an outside signal source.
What your motor needs if you want to analyze it properly is a timing diagram that you mark up and improve as you continue your investigations. For example, the rotor is spinning slaved to the pulse train from your signal generator. Do you know if the motor is spinning due to attraction pulses or repulsion pulses? From my perspective, I don't really know. I am not even sure if you really know. If that's the case, how are you supposed to truly understand the dynamics of your motor and the drive coil if you still haven't pinned down the basic timing?
I would love it if you actually made a timing diagram and said things like, "Relative to our zero reference angle the pulse starts at 40 degrees and ends at 65 degrees and it is operating in attraction mode. I am not expecting you to do it though, so it makes it that much harder to figure out the coil dynamics for your operating pulse motor.
My recommendation to you is if you intend to start out fresh with a new setup with a new more efficient coil, etc, then work on a timing diagram from the get-go. You will see how much easier and clearer things are like that. For a modest extra effort you get a big bang in returns.
MileHigh
Brad:
>>> 2.2) It's likely that the summation (integration) of the "negative EMF" times the instantaneous current flow represents the energy that is put into the moving mass of the magnet - the motor action.
QuoteSo once again we are being told that energy from the coil is transferred to the rotor,and at the same time the rotor returns this stored energy,!!BUT!! the I/ in drop's resulting in less P/in. Once again-some how,we have put energy into the rotor,and taken that energy back out(equal and opposite-minus losses due to windage and bearing friction of the rotor),but seem to have reduced the P/in
Yes, for sure energy is being transferred from the coil to the rotor and a few people have floated the suggestion that the rotor also returns the stored energy. From previous postings you rejected this. That shows you failing to think past one or two steps. Let's say the coil is energized from 20 degrees to 70 degrees. It's just a hypothetical. From 20 degrees to 50 degrees the coil can be putting energy into the rotor. From 50 degrees to 70 degrees the rotor can be returning energy to the coil. It's possible, but you never thought about it that way and simply blocked out just the idea of it in your mind. And since we have no timing diagram at all, we are just guessing.
Yes, the average input current can drop and the average power in can drop. We have reduced the average input power. You seem to think that is a radical concept, like it's breaking a "rule" or something. One more time, you are forgetting that with no rotor and higher input power - the input power is nothing more than useless waste heat. With no rotor the coil is a just a glorified resistor. So there is no "big deal" to go from 100% waste heat at a higher average input power to 40% mechanical output power and 60% waste heat at a lower average input power. No rules have been broken - you changed the configuration and when you did that change you are changing the overall electro-mechanical impedance of the system. You seem to be forgetting about the waste again. This has been discussed many times already.
We have reduced the power-in when we added the rotor and it means nothing.
MileHigh
Quote from: tinman on January 05, 2016, 09:37:29 AM
Is the information and test results not enough to confirm this?
While you may believe your hypothesis to be true, you have not demonstrated results that verify that hypothesis.
Quote from: woopy on January 04, 2016, 05:53:22 PM
Hi Brad
I am sure that you are already on it because this experiment is so simple and you are probably in possession of a ring magnet and some of your wife sewing thin cotton thread.
And no i have not invented the first all magnet motor, i simply replicated Mag and Grum experiment, and by doing this i stumble upon this issue, And it is why i share it with all of you.
So i expect from you that you will try it in the south hemisphere and report the direction of spinning.
Thank's
Laurent
I can't believe this is actually mystifying people. Have you tried the simple control experiment of using an inert weight instead of a magnet?
Somebody on YT claimed he had discovered "perpetual motion" because he did this with a magnet, almost a year ago. He even offered lots of money for a disproof of his claim. So I investigated it and proved him wrong, proved that it was the twist of the thread unwinding that caused the rotation. Of course there was never any money-- I told him to give the money to his local no-kill animal shelter or spay-neuter program, but I doubt if he ever actually did.
The great scientist Robert Murray-Smith also thought this was "magnet perpetual motion".
Here are my videos covering the issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehva-GfWdXA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfuRyLxRPDI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTY_wLKK_Ak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofF3zHo_okM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Qz6FIGlsQ
Read the Descriptions and comments.... I see now that someone called "Mongrel Shark" supposedly got the 1000 dollars... for _MY_ work disproving this silly claim!
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 05, 2016, 01:15:17 PM
The great scientist Robert Murray-Smith also thought this was "magnet perpetual motion".
Well I get a kick out of that considering that he has banned me from commenting on his YouTube channel for pointing out his outrageous and totally unacceptable complete failure to measure the energy density in his B-type EESD.
Brad:
>>> That's about all that I can think of and I intentionally ignored discussing the back spike.
QuoteAnd that is where you fail. The vital information to understanding what is happening,is right there in the back spike. And you say we need to look further than just two step's,while you have totally ignored the very thing that is showing you that the induced reverse voltage across the coil from the moving magnet is not what is reducing the I/in-P/in. This !is! the case with Poynt's sim(that was suppose to simulate the results of my DUT,but did not),but not the case with my DUT.
I suppose that I could have discussed the back spike but I was running out of gas.
I would not call the back spike vital information. Rather, I would call it supplemental information. The back spike is the energy discharge from the coil. Most of the dynamics happen during the time that the coil is being energized. The final amount of current flow at the end of the energizing cycle determines the amount of energy in the back spike. So if you examine the ramping up of the current flow through the coil during the energizing cycle, then the back spike information is inherent in that. Presumably you know what the final current flow is before the MOSFET switches off by looking at the CVR trace. So you know how much energy is in the back spike just by looking at the CVR waveform.
Now of course, with a spinning rotor and a changing magnetic field there may be some dynamics that affect the amount of energy in the back spike. That's were you need a timing diagram.
When the coil discharges and you get the back spike, that of course is the magnetic field collapsing. Is that giving the rotor a final small push, or is it giving the rotor a final small pull? Is the back spike adding energy to the spinning rotor or taking energy out of the spinning rotor? I suppose you don't really know because you don't have a real timing diagram.
MileHigh
Brad:
QuoteYou blindly stick to what the books tell you,and everything must obey the !known! laws-->which are based only around current observations-->thats right MH-observations,and observations are not laws. With people like you trying to sway others that see different,is it any wonder that any new observations have never been see.
Your mistake, and other experimenter's mistake, is to not have the humility to put what you are doing in the context of a bigger overall picture. You experiment with coils, capacitors, MOSFETs and transistors and make very very basic circuits and motors. Meanwhile there is a multi-billion dollar motor industry, and a multi-billion dollar magnetics industry out there that is leveraging off of 100+ years of accumulated knowledge. You simply can't possibly see "something new" considering the materials you are working with and the types of experiments you are doing. Sorry to burst your bubble, but whenever you think that you are "outside of the box" and the "dinosaurs" won't understand it, think again. I have been looking at this stuff for about seven years and have looked at countless "new discovery" clips and I have never seen anything that phased me. And I am just an ordinary guy, not an expert.
QuoteYou tell us that !we! need to look at more than two thing;s,and yet here you admit to leaving out the one thing that provides all the answers--the inductive kickback current.
I think I addressed that one quite well in my previous posting. And to split hairs, it's the
initial inductive kickback current and the inductive kickback
energy. As you continue to explore and have fun with this stuff, you have to start adopting the proper concepts and use the commonly accepted language. I don't go to the grocery store and ask for a stone bag of potatoes.
QuoteYou insist that we cant just cherry pick one thing ,and blindly assume that it applies to all cases--and yet here you are saying,or trying to preach that everything must abide by these know laws--everything.
A very simple experiment like what you are doing here, and all of your previous experiments, abide by the known laws. So do EMJunkie's, and you note that he is transfixed into thinking that he has some secret sauce himself. I wish that "magic" could happen so easily but it doesn't.
I don't mean to drone on about this, but I did a few thousand hours on the bench and I learned all about this stuff and I am just giving you the straight goods as I see them. You may have noticed that Poynt, PW, and Verpies have been contributing and they are not phased either. It takes something really big to raise eyebrows because some people take a conservative approach by virtue of their knowledge, experience, and personality.
I can tell you what almost seems like magic but it isn't magic. In 1984 a typical hard drive for a personal computer was 10 megabytes. In 2016 you can get a hard drive that is eight terrabytes. That's
800,000 times larger.
In 1984 if you told me that you could get an eight terrabyte drive I would have told you impossible but if you could do it you would definitely be "out of the box" and in "uncharted territory that scientists and engineers can't understand."
But now we are in 2016 and I know better at there is
nothing special about an eight terrabyte hard drive. It's not impossible and it's not "out of the box."
In your case, the type of work you are doing with coils and stuff is like something from the turn of the last century, say 1910. But it's 2016 and there is nothing exciting about 1910 technology. To put it in context, I never heard Tesla's name mentioned once when I was in school, not once. And the reason for that is Tesla's pioneering research is five human generations away from us, and who knows, something like 20 technological generations away from where we are right now.
MileHigh
Brad:
Still trying to go the distance on this one. You have a potential "showdown" with Poynt which will get me off the hook! lol
QuoteSo now all you have to do,is work out as to why or how we can have a reduction of current flowing into the coil,and yet have an increase of current flowing out of the coil--how is it that my results are opposite to that of what Poynt showed?. How can you decrease the current flowing into an inductor,and yet increase the current flowing out of the inductor during the kickback.
Yeah, but an average reduction of current flowing into the coil does not determine the final current before the MOSFET switches off. It all depends on the shape of the current ramp-up curve.
I won't really address the above except to state your terminology still sucks. If you are going to have a face-off with Poynt then please work on brushing up your terminology because I think your understanding is way ahead of your use of the terminology. If you enter the competition then your measurements and the words you use to describe your measurements will be critical.
QuoteThe only way to increase the current flowing out of the inductor(when the inductors wire and turn ratio remain the same),is to increase the magnitude of the magnetic field that is built up around the inductor. Now,how can that magnetic field be increased if we have just decreased the I/in-P/in of that inductor MH?. Well the answer is simple--the inductance of that inductor had to have increased. You wrote this your self MH--Quote: It looks like when the coil first energizes it has to do the work to "clear out" the biasing of the core which is in the opposite direction that the coil wants to fire. And this is exactly what happens with my DUT,and is exactly what i have been saying,and trying to tell you on two different thread for the past 3 weeks.
I am starting to run out of gas so my comments will be brief.
What you wrote above is a bit of a mash-up, I am not really sure what you are trying to convey. If you want to convince me of what your device is really doing you will make a timing diagram and put your claims in the timing diagram itself. i.e.; when we look at what you quoted from me, "it has to do the work to "clear out" the biasing of the core" and say that you are making that claim, back it up with a timing diagram. If there was one, I could click on it right now and see what you are claiming.
Let's assume that you are getting greater effective inductance because the rotor magnet has pre-biased the coil's core. That's all fine and dandy. But it doesn't mean that there is not a "negative EMF" from the moving rotor magnet either. It's easily possible that both things are happening. That's why a timing diagram would be so helpful - it could be seen right there on paper instead of you just saying it's what you said. I am not going to read through all your posts like a Biblical scholar to find that grain of information that you are talking about. Plus I am very wary of your bait and switch. A picture is worth 1000 words and it's just a mouse-click away.
QuoteAnd this is exactly what happens with my DUT,and is exactly what i have been saying,and trying to tell you on two different thread for the past 3 weeks.
If you want to back that up with quotes that would be great.
MileHigh
Quote from: tinman on January 05, 2016, 09:02:23 AM
Jimboot
Looking at your pic's,and the twist direction of the string,the magnets in your video were spinning in the correct direction to untwist the string.
One easy way to verify what is going on,is to lower your spinning magnets so as they are about 1mm of the floor. Then let the magnets spin. If the magnets touch the floor after some time of spinning,then you know the string was unwinding,and getting longer. If the distance between the magnets and floor increases,then you and woopy will kicking back on a tropical island in no time flat.
I believe that what you and woopy are seeing,is the force of gravity unwinding the string--nothing more.
I would love to be wrong on this though lol.
Brad
The string is winding itself up. It is not unwinding. I'll try the measure test tonight and have a look at Tk vids.
Brad:
There is now light at the end of the tunnel.
QuoteAgain-->As the south field of the magnet on my rotor approaches the core of the coil,it induces that field into the core. When the coil fires,it fires a !!north!! field at the end of the coil that is closest to the rotor. You just said exactly what i have been saying for over three week's,and during that time,you !and Poynt! are trying to tell us all here that it is this !!cannot be seen!! reverse voltage across the coil that is the reason for the reduction in current draw during the ON time. Well in Poynt's Sym case,that is correct,as the I/out also went down<-- Your lenz's law.
But in my case,we have a situation where the I/in went down,but the I/out went up. If what you and Poynt are saying were true with my DUT,then we would have seen the same results Poynt showed,in that when the I/in was reduced,then the I/out would have also been reduced--but it was not-it increased.
So i hope you take some notice of your own words,and go and have a closer look at what is happening with my DUT. Try and be unbiased for once in your life MH.
Yes, you are frustrated, but the "try to be unbiased for once in your life" is hyperbole. I express what I think I am seeing to the best of my ability. There is no reason for me to be biased. That's like when someone shows a dumb-ass experiment and says, "you must be a government agent" when you comment on it. Why would a government agent be concerned with somebody showing an experiment that affects nothing and dates from about 1905?
I think that the idea that a coil could be clamped to a battery voltage and still have in induced EMF inside it from a changing external magnetic field is something that you did not understand and thus were incapable of conceiving. Is that a true statement or not?
I don't think that you were aware of this.
The clue is to look at the current flow through the coil while it is clamped to the battery voltage. If the current deviates from what it is "supposed" to be under these conditions then that can be explained by an induced EMF in the coil due to external factors.
So, that is one of the key factors in helping us understand what is going on.
If you accept Poynt's challenge, perhaps with a new setup with a more efficient coil and perhaps a better rotor, I implore you to make a timing diagram. Poynt can do the same thing by just dropping virtual probes onto his schematic. But if you want to get some real satisfaction and convey your points to your audience with efficiency and impact, a nice timing diagram that is annotated with short text descriptions will be way better than about 400 posts like we have right now.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on January 05, 2016, 02:36:51 PMMeanwhile there is a multi-billion dollar motor industry, and a multi-billion dollar magnetics industry out there that is leveraging off of 100+ years of accumulated knowledge.
To put it in context, I never heard Tesla's name mentioned once when I was in school, not once. And the reason for that is Tesla's pioneering research is five human generations away from us, and who knows, something like 20 technological generations away from where we are right now.
MileHigh
You want to talk about the motor industry. Then explain why these magnets that can do no work are now used in almost all small DC motors used in industry? Why aren't they still using field coils?
Tesla is not mentioned for a very simple reason. There are many who for whatever reason are rewriting history to reflect their agenda. I did learn about Tesla in high school. I learned of his fantastic genius and amazing engineering skills. I am appalled to see how his name is misused today and only an extremely ignorant person would even attempt to minimize the great achievements he accomplished.
Regards,
Carroll
Something to consider when we are talking about a magnet biased core increasing induction....
By the book, the magnet is not moving and dragging its field across the windings. ???
But with the rotor moving the magnets fields are cutting the windings..
Consider a transformer. When we apply an ac input to the primary, the inductance is as high as it should be for that coil without the secondary loaded. But when we load the secondary we now have a moving field coming from other than the primary and it is said that the primary inductance will be lowered in that case.
So it is probably not a good thing to say for sure that the drive coils inductance is raised when the rotor magnet is in motion. Not yet anyway. In no way am I disputing the value of the rotor in the circuit as shown. But we may have to delve into it a bit more to see what is really going on since I got this Hantek scope.
I put the motor setup from my vid showing the second stage coil running off of the bemf of the first drive coil, along with using the second stage bemf to charge a battery, back together.. Im going to start with examining the first stage bemf into a resistive load. I bought 8 20w 8ohm non inductive resistors from Radioshack and put them in parallel to give 1 ohm. Ill be using it in the future for current readings using the scope. I have some other gigits n coils I want to use in that old setup to test some theories I have on this subject.
Just recently got my password for YT back in hand as I had forgot what it was for a bit due to not using YT much lately. So Ill post vids of what I want to see here. If thats ok. ;D I tell ya, I miss the old YT. Its not what it was, which was great. ::)
Mags
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2016, 01:02:02 PM
While you may believe your hypothesis to be true, you have not demonstrated results that verify that hypothesis.
I must say Poynt,that you have not demonstrated or simulated the results that my DUT have shown either. Are you able to do that with your simulated replication of my DUT ?-->can you decrease the I/in-P/in,while increasing the I/out-P/out?.
I know you said you dont really have the time,but that could be seen as--i cant do it,or replicate Brads result's.
I have always been happy to carry out experiments as requested--even though MH seems to have missed the timing experiment results posted some time back on this thread. So i hope that would hold true for those that wish to dispute my claim's,and back up there dispute with experimental results that !do! simulate my results.
Brad
Quote from: MileHigh on January 05, 2016, 11:53:16 AM
Brad:
>>> Magluvin referenced a book where a a coil with a ferrite core can be "preloaded" under the influence of an external magnetic field. Considering in my example the two magnetic fields are 180 degrees diametrically opposed I think that will apply in this case. It looks like when the coil first energizes it has to do the work to "clear out" the biasing of the core which is in the opposite direction that the coil wants to fire. That sounds to me like it will increase the effective inductance - in this case.
I am talking about the simple controlled test that I described in my posting. It's separate and distinct from your pulse motor so why are you making a connection when there is no connection?
Beyond that, I don't get that feeling or remember statements like that from you. If you can show me where you said that that would be appreciated.
>>> On the other hand, if a static and unmoving magnet was "behind" the coil and biasing the core in the "right" direction, then when the coil was energized then in short order the core would get saturated and go "air core." That sounds like it would reduce the effective inductance to me. See? You actually have to think these things through.
One more time, I am talking about the simple controlled test that I described in my posting. It's separate and distinct from your pulse motor so why are you making a connection when there is no connection?
One more time, please go ahead and show me what you have been telling me. Or are you just saying something for the sake of saying something with no context?
I assume that your frame of reference is your clips where you narrowed the pulse from the signal generator as much as possible so that the rotor was still turning. This was done with your lossy coil. I will just repeat again that has nothing to do with the controlled test that I described in my posting:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
For how it's happening, a simple test that anybody can do:
Suppose you pulse a fixed coil and it produces a north field that is facing the north end of a movable magnet:
[S-coil-N] [N-magnet-S]
So naturally the magnet will get pushed away when you pulse the coil.
Now, what happens if you have the coil open circuited and on your scope, and you pull the magnet away?
My expectation is that you will see an EMF generated by the coil that is opposite the applied voltage of the battery that you used in the first part of the test.
The conclusion: When the battery pulses the coil, and the magnet gets pushed away, then the moving magnet will induce EMF in the coil that effectively reduces the voltage applied across the coil. Even though you can't see it on your scope, it's still happening "inside" the coil. That internal EMF opposing the battery voltage will reduce the rate of current rise when you energize the coil. WOW - two things are happening simultaneously inside the coil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So I would say that all the righteous indignation is misplaced and saying, "That's what I have been saying to you all along" is not even applicable considering we are discussing two separate things. Nor can I recall cases where you say what you are alleging you said. Lots of postings have passed under the bridge, so if you want to cite specific examples I will try to respond.
MileHigh
Post 270--The reduced P/in with the rotor is more to do with the induced flux into the inductors core,and not the induced negative voltage.
Post 676 on Luc's thread i also go into detail as to the possible !domain alignment. There are many more i have posted,but not going to waste time looking for them throughout both threads.
I would also like to repost a quote from your self MH.
Quote: No, if anything, the presence of an external magnetic field should interfere with the core material's normal domain flipping and effectively reduce the inductance and therefore make the current waveform rise more quickly.
Well ,as we know,this is not the case. So this can only mean that your theories do not represent the effect that is taking place here. It is obvious that if this theory of yours is from your book's or known laws,then something is wrong with those known laws. It is obvious from your own quote that the inductance is not being reduced,as we do not see the increase in the current wave form that you state should happen with a reduction in inductance--we see the opposite,a decrease in the rise time of the current wave form,which going by your own rules and laws means an increase in inductance.
Brad
@ MH
Now lets look at the peak current flow with and without the rotor.
Is it not clear that the peak input current flow without the rotor is higher than it is with the rotor--and yet,the peak current flow on the P/out side remains at the same value in both cases,but continues to flow for a longer period of time with the rotor in play,as can be seen by the dime duration on the yellow voltage trace.
So i ask once again,how can this be if it is not the inductance of the coil rising?.
Brad
Quote from: citfta on January 05, 2016, 05:13:33 PM
You want to talk about the motor industry. Then explain why these magnets that can do no work are now used in almost all small DC motors used in industry? Why aren't they still using field coils?
Tesla is not mentioned for a very simple reason. There are many who for whatever reason are rewriting history to reflect their agenda. I did learn about Tesla in high school. I learned of his fantastic genius and amazing engineering skills. I am appalled to see how his name is misused today and only an extremely ignorant person would even attempt to minimize the great achievements he accomplished.
Regards,
Carroll
You take a motor and measure 100 electrical watts in, 95 mechanical watts out, and 5 watts of waste heat. Now where do you think the power came from to make the motor output 95 watts of mechanical power?
Those are the facts. If you willfully chose to ignore the facts I don't know what to say.
The average 25-year-old has probably never used a record player or a cassette deck. They would consider CDs and DVDs to be "old technology." They would not even know what a "vertical hold" knob is. There is no rewriting of history with respect to Tesla. He only did basic fundamental research, and then it was improved upon. An average 30-something computer programmer has probably never written code for an 80386 chip or even seen one. Times change. There is no rewriting of history or "agenda."
MileHigh
Let's say you are right Brad, that the apparent inductance increases momentarily. I believe that it is possible, and I posted to that effect. Let's say we are both correct, and both are happening at the same time.
Now what? What are you going to do with this information? What is the purpose of all this to begin with? If the purpose is simply to make the most efficient IK power source, then see below.
You up for my challenge? Here is is again:
Let's have some fun and put this to bed. You up for a challenge Brad?
I challenge you to an efficiency battle using only flyback from a coil. You stick with your iron core coil and rotor of magnets, and I'll use whatever coil I choose, but with no rotor, and no resonant tank. What do you say?
Let me know if you're up for it, then we can agree on some goals for the challenge.
Quote from: tinman on January 05, 2016, 06:24:00 PM
Post 270--The reduced P/in with the rotor is more to do with the induced flux into the inductors core,and not the induced negative voltage.
Post 676 on Luc's thread i also go into detail as to the possible !domain alignment. There are many more i have posted,but not going to waste time looking for them throughout both threads.
I would also like to repost a quote from your self MH.
Quote: No, if anything, the presence of an external magnetic field should interfere with the core material's normal domain flipping and effectively reduce the inductance and therefore make the current waveform rise more quickly.
Well ,as we know,this is not the case. So this can only mean that your theories do not represent the effect that is taking place here. It is obvious that if this theory of yours is from your book's or known laws,then something is wrong with those known laws. It is obvious from your own quote that the inductance is not being reduced,as we do not see the increase in the current wave form that you state should happen with a reduction in inductance--we see the opposite,a decrease in the rise time of the current wave form,which going by your own rules and laws means an increase in inductance.
Brad
This is shorthand:
QuoteThe reduced P/in with the rotor is more to do with the induced flux into the inductors core,and not the induced negative voltage.
Your point is valid but are you just expecting the readers to fill in the blanks? Is it all so obvious? Just using the term "induced flux" is potentially misleading because we are talking about the energy required to flip the magnetic domains in the core - but you are not stating that so I am not going to remember it as "the energy required to flip the domains." Perhaps stuff like this is obvious to you when you are in your own technical and bench bubble - but it's not obvious to the readers. You have to state things more clearly.
If we assume that both flipping the domains and the negative induced EMF come into play, I am going to guess that the negative induced EMF is the larger of the two factors.
QuoteI would also like to repost a quote from your self MH.
Quote: No, if anything, the presence of an external magnetic field should interfere with the core material's normal domain flipping and effectively reduce the inductance and therefore make the current waveform rise more quickly.
But that was a generic discussion, it was not a discussion about your motor. You and Luc reported the same observation and agreed with the statement. Then later on I qualified that some more and talked about the direction component of the vector addition, etc. I also said that this situation has to be looked at on a case by case basis and you can't make a generic statement about the effect. It's just another bait and switch.
QuoteWell ,as we know,this is not the case. So this can only mean that your theories do not represent the effect that is taking place here
That's another bait and switch. I have stated about 10 times that when a coil pulses to drive a rotor the current waveform for the coil rises more slowly.
QuoteIt is obvious that if this theory of yours is from your book's or known laws,then something is wrong with those known laws.
You are just going back to your comfort zone and playing the "laws" card.
MileHigh
Quote from: tinman on January 05, 2016, 06:02:12 PM
I have always been happy to carry out experiments as requested--even though MH seems to have missed the timing experiment results posted some time back on this thread.
Brad
You are trying to equate whatever timing information you have posted with my request for a timing diagram for the motor. You have not presented anything even remotely close to a timing diagram as I have described it over many postings.
Quote from: MileHigh on January 05, 2016, 06:49:34 PM
You take a motor and measure 100 electrical watts in, 95 mechanical watts out, and 5 watts of waste heat. Now where do you think the power came from to make the motor output 95 watts of mechanical power?
Those are the facts. If you willfully chose to ignore the facts I don't know what to say.
MileHigh
That answer has absolutely nothing to do with the question. I'll repeat the question. Maybe you'll get it this time. If magnets can't do any work then why has industry switched over to using permanent magnets instead of field coils in almost all smaller DC motors?
Now to answer your question. The output power of 95 watts mechanical power came from the interaction between the armature and the permanent magnets. If you take the magnets out you will get no mechanical power from that motor. Seems pretty simple there must be something those magnets are doing.
Carroll
Quote from: tinman on January 05, 2016, 06:33:04 PM
@ MH
Now lets look at the peak current flow with and without the rotor.
Is it not clear that the peak input current flow without the rotor is higher than it is with the rotor--and yet,the peak current flow on the P/out side remains at the same value in both cases,but continues to flow for a longer period of time with the rotor in play,as can be seen by the dime duration on the yellow voltage trace.
So i ask once again,how can this be if it is not the inductance of the coil rising?.
Brad
Okay, for starters let's delve into the concept of the inductance of the coil "rising."
The coil has a core of a certain material and a wire of a number of turns and the coil cylinder has a length, inner diameter and outer diameter. You can crunch the numbers on the Hyperphysics web site and get the inductance of the coil. Note these are parameters that are fixed and never change. Let's call that the "basic inductance" of the coil which does not change.
Then when you put the coil in a pulse motor, external factors will modify its electrical behaviour and give it a higher or lower "apparent inductance." For example, if the coil pulses and pushes a magnet away, the current rises more slowly and gives the coil a higher apparent inductance. But can you recover the energy in the back spike corresponding to the higher apparent inductance? The answer is no. You can only recover energy in the back spike that corresponds to the basic inductance. The rest of the energy that you want to recover from the apparent inductance is now tied up in the mass of the moving magnet.
Now to deal with this:
Quotethe peak current flow on the P/out side remains at the same value in both cases,but continues to flow for a longer period of time with the rotor in play,as can be seen by the dime duration on the yellow voltage trace.
I agree that you can see that the current discharge is longer in the case where the rotor is in place. So in this case it looks like the inductance really did increase and it looks like I am contradicting myself with respect to what I just said above.
But one more time, we are looking at two separate and distinct cases and they can't be compared. I don't know why the back spike discharge is longer when the rotor is in place. However, I can just make a guess. The guess is that during the back spike discharge the moving rotor magnet is coupling power through the coil. In other words, we are back to the theory that the rotor picks up energy at the start of the energizing cycle, and then gives up some of that energy during the kick back portion of the cycle. This goes right back to what Picowatt said.
If you had a proper timing diagram you could investigate this and see if it was true. If it was true you could annotate the timing diagram with a note and an arrow pointing to the discharge cycle. The note would say, "Rotor coupling extra energy into back spike discharge cycle due to transformer action between moving rotor magnet and coil."
Instead of explaining what is happening, your "explanation" is "the inductance of the coil is rising."
MileHigh
Quote from: citfta on January 05, 2016, 07:56:10 PM
That answer has absolutely nothing to do with the question. I'll repeat the question. Maybe you'll get it this time. If magnets can't do any work then why has industry switched over to using permanent magnets instead of field coils in almost all smaller DC motors?
Now to answer your question. The output power of 95 watts mechanical power came from the interaction between the armature and the permanent magnets. If you take the magnets out you will get no mechanical power from that motor. Seems pretty simple there must be something those magnets are doing.
Carroll
Your logic is wrong. There is no point in comparing two different types of motor. I am pretty sure that older motors were made on the cheap and people were not concerned with energy consumption. More modern motors are more expensive and more efficient because people are concerned about energy consumption.
They are just two different types of motors. Both types of motors get their ability to output mechanical power directly and exclusively from the input electrical power. The magnets are just a component that goes into building one of the motors and are as dead as a doornail. The magnets don't "push" they are pushed upon.
If you refuse to accept this then let's just agree to disagree.
I can respectfully agree to disagree. But I do have one more question. If the magnets are only pushed against and don't return the push then why can't we just use something else to be pushed against?
Carroll
Quote from: citfta on January 05, 2016, 09:20:43 PM
I can respectfully agree to disagree. But I do have one more question. If the magnets are only pushed against and don't return the push then why can't we just use something else to be pushed against?
Carroll
I tend to agree Carroll. Why go to all the trouble of magnetizing a permanent magnet when the armature could just pull against a dead piece of steel or iron. I think I know why--because that kind of motor would be a piece of trash with poor torque characteristics and high power demand. In other words, unusable as a convertor of electrical energy into mechanical force or rotation. As noted by Don Smith, it would spend a lot of energy just churning up the Aether.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2016, 07:18:56 PM
Let's have some fun and put this to bed. You up for a challenge Brad?
I challenge you to an efficiency battle using only flyback from a coil. You stick with your iron core coil and rotor of magnets, and I'll use whatever coil I choose, but with no rotor, and no resonant tank. What do you say?
Let me know if you're up for it, then we can agree on some goals for the challenge.
I don't see the fun in this challenge!
You could achieve 95 to 97% of your input from flyback with those conditions.
How could this be fair if you tell Brad what he has to use and you can chose what ever you wish?
Don't go for it Brad... unless you fire up your RT v3 ;)
Luc
Quote from: tinman on January 05, 2016, 09:02:23 AM
Jimboot
Looking at your pic's,and the twist direction of the string,the magnets in your video were spinning in the correct direction to untwist the string.
Nope - the string definitely wound up not down. That is why I posted the photo of the string after the run. Quite clearly it had wound up.
Quote from: tinman on January 05, 2016, 09:02:23 AM[/size]One easy way to verify what is going on,is to lower your spinning magnets so as they are about 1mm of the floor. Then let the magnets spin. If the magnets touch the floor after some time of spinning,then you know the string was unwinding,and getting longer.
Brad
Or I could see the string not wound up before the test and definitely wound up after. When you release it after it has run it UN ravels.
edit: Ok just did the measurement test. The string was definitely winding up placing tension on itself then it began to drop. I examined the string and it was falling apart and had deteriorated to just a couple of strands. So the tension on the string is not in doubt for me and the end of a spin. Maybe the breaking string came first which triggered the spin? Not sure but I will do more tests. Most definitely not an unwinding string though.
Quote from: citfta on January 05, 2016, 09:20:43 PM
I can respectfully agree to disagree. But I do have one more question. If the magnets are only pushed against and don't return the push then why can't we just use something else to be pushed against?
Carroll
Because the nature of the 'pusher' dictates the nature of the push (or pull), and thus also determines the nature of materials used in the construction of both pusher/puller and pushed/pulled.
In any current driven DC or AC motor, electricity is the pusher. Utilizing the magnetism that's produced by the electricity is merely one method which allows pushing (or pulling) without physical contact.
Static driven motors operate using the electric field not the magnetic field. Neither electromagnets or permanent magnets are needed for them to operate. But you still need electricity.
Permanent magnets in a DC motor are the electromechanical equivalent of a chemical catalyst, improving the performance of the motor but not actually contributing energy directly in any way. Instead, they improve performance and reduce the input energy required by helping to provide better electromechanical characteristics than would be the case without them.
They can help save energy and they can assist in the translation of energy during a device's operation, but they cannot produce energy.
Cheers.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2016, 07:18:56 PM
Let's say you are right Brad, that the apparent inductance increases momentarily. I believe that it is possible, and I posted to that effect. Let's say we are both correct, and both are happening at the same time.
Now what? What are you going to do with this information? What is the purpose of all this to begin with? If the purpose is simply to make the most efficient IK power source, then see below.
You up for my challenge? Here is is again:
Let's have some fun and put this to bed. You up for a challenge Brad?
I challenge you to an efficiency battle using only flyback from a coil. You stick with your iron core coil and rotor of magnets, and I'll use whatever coil I choose, but with no rotor, and no resonant tank. What do you say?
Let me know if you're up for it, then we can agree on some goals for the challenge.
Sure-you know me-I never back down from a challenge.
But first you must finnish the challenge you have already voluntarily half completed--> and that is to get your simulated setup to replicate my results from my DUT. That is-to get the output current-power to increase when the input current-power is decreased.
Once you have answered and completed that challenge you put upon your self, then we can set the ! Apples for Apples! parameters for the next challenge.
You will of course be required to build an actual device for the next challenge-as I do. And you will be required to post a video here on this thread of your device under test, and the results obtained from that test during the video--> as I do.
So yes, im up for the challenge as long as we are on equal ground.
Brad.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 05, 2016, 11:23:32 PM
I don't see the fun in this challenge!
You could achieve 95 to 97% of your input from flyback with those conditions.
How could this be fair if you tell Brad what he has to use and you can chose what ever you wish?
Don't go for it Brad... unless you fire up your RT v3 ;)
Luc
The RT V3 will not be playing a part in this Luc, but you will get to see my latest desig and build of the LAG-if it comes to that. But lets just say that Poynt will have to be up at around the 96% efficiency mark before we start any fine tuning-and that is discounting the small air screw being driven at 2350rpm.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on January 06, 2016, 12:44:53 AM
Sure-you know me-I never back down from a challenge.
But first you must finnish the challenge you have already voluntarily half completed--> and that is to get your simulated setup to replicate my results from my DUT. That is-to get the output current-power to increase when the input current-power is decreased.
Once you have answered and completed that challenge you put upon your self, then we can set the ! Apples for Apples! parameters for the next challenge.
You will of course be required to build an actual device for the next challenge-as I do. And you will be required to post a video here on this thread of your device under test, and the results obtained from that test during the video--> as I do.
So yes, im up for the challenge as long as we are on equal ground.
Brad.
Huh? Your response to my challenge is another challenge?
My challenge stands.
My simulation was an attempt to explain what is going on in the circuit, but it has nothing to do with my challenge to you. Why would you base your acceptance of my challenge on me being able to exactly replicate your results in my sim? :o
I already told you, so listen good. I am not going to spend any more time on that sim OK? It requires extensive tweaking to get magnetics to work properly in a sim, and I have better things to do with my time. I would much prefer to build a real flyback supply to go up against your ssg rotor setup. So it is up to you, take it or leave it.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 06, 2016, 08:25:26 AM
Huh? Your response to my challenge is another challenge?
My challenge stands.
My simulation was an attempt to explain what is going on in the circuit, but it has nothing to do with my challenge to you. Why would you base your acceptance of may other challenge on me being able to exactly replicate your results in my sim? :o
I already told you, so listen good. I am not going to spend any more time on that sim OK? It requires extensive tweaking to get magnetics to work properly in a sim, and I have better things to do with my time. I would much prefer to build a real flyback supply to go up against your ssg rotor setup. So it is up to you, take it or leave it.
Poynt
You know as well as i do(along with everyone else here) as to why you put together your sim to try and replicate my DUT. It was to show(or try to)me that there was nothing special going on with my DUT. This was a challenge you bought upon your self,and you either can or cannot back up that challenge with results. I mean,if i have nothing out of the ordinary going on,and it is an everyday situation,then why must you spend so much time trying to tweak your sim to show these !nothing out of the ordinary! results. I think you should finish one challenge before you take on the next one ;)
I have accepted your challenge on the grounds that you first finalize your!self induced! first challenge--so as we can all see the result's from that one first. Remember-you bought that one on your self,in the hope of showing me(and others) that my DUT was showing nothing out of the ordinary. So you either admit to not being able to replicate my results on your sim,or you spend the time to achieve the result you were hoping to show.
If you dont finalize the first challenge,then it looks like you are just moving on to the next one -and so on until you find one that succeeds. Thats not in the spirit of the research we do here. Turn the tables around Poynt--put your self in my position. Would you be that happy if i just said--no,im not finishing that one,as it dose not show what i am saying is true ???--I'll have to keep looking until i find something that fits. How can you say that you dont have the time to finish one challenge,but have the time to take on another one?--make no sense.
So that is my offer-take it or leave it.
Finnish the first challenge that you took upon your self to prove me wrong,and lets all see the results from that,and then we can start our next challenge--that was also offered by your self.
I have had !some! members of these forums say i never finish a project,or take it to the end,so as we can see the end result's. So now it's time for you to take that on board,and finish the one you started,and share the end results.
Brad
Brad,
That's an extremely poor reason not to accept my challenge, and will be perceived as a cop-out.
So be it. You didn't have much of a chance anyway. ;)
Carry on believing you have something extraordinary with your ssg rotor setup if you wish, but proof will be in the pudding, whether you can make anything extraordinary of it or not. I hope you do, but I'm quite certain that you're no further ahead when compared to good old fashioned proper engineering design.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 05, 2016, 11:23:32 PM
I don't see the fun in this challenge!
You could achieve 95 to 97% of your input from flyback with those conditions.
How could this be fair if you tell Brad what he has to use and you can chose what ever you wish?
Don't go for it Brad... unless you fire up your RT v3 ;)
Luc
Well hold on a minute there Luc, Brad is the one making claims that he has some extraordinary magic trick that is giving him better efficiency over anything else, so it is him that is putting those conditions on himself. The whole point of the challenge was to put good old engineering design up against his magic ssg scheme.
Capiche?
LOL,
It is ironic actually; I am often criticized for offering my simulations as a means to analyze a circuit and for rarely building anything, but here we have the exact opposite! Brad wants me to complete my simulation before he will accept a challenge where I would be building an actual device.
Too damn funny. ;D
I'm just baffled that anybody can believe that a pulsing coil and a few magnets spinning on a rotor can be doing something special. However, we have been there dozens of times in the past.
It's fun to try to figure out exactly what is going on as an interesting challenge. I think it was on the other thread that I took some measurements that Woopy made on one of his builds and I crunched the hell out of his measurements and extracted lots of information and pretty much reverse-engineered the energy dynamics of his entire setup. All that I got was stony silence.
I notice that Brad takes exception if somebody that is a so-called "big gun" changes their analysis or adapts their analysis over time because of something that they did not think of before or because some new information becomes available. Horror of horrors, that's just not permitted!
In the spirit of the "understanding" challenge I will post some sample timing diagrams on another thread. I don't expect that Brad will ever do a timing diagram, but perhaps seeing some examples will inspire somebody else to make one for their next pulse motor build. In fact, if there is ever another pulse motor build off, supplying a timing diagram for your motor should be a requirement for entry into the competition.
http://overunity.com/16317/the-beauty-of-timing-diagrams/msg470448/#msg470448 (http://overunity.com/16317/the-beauty-of-timing-diagrams/msg470448/#msg470448)
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 02, 2016, 01:53:09 AM
Here's what the induced voltage looks like when a rotor magnet passes a coil.
As the pole of the magnet approaches the coil, it induces a voltage whose polarity depends on the polarity of the magnet facing the coil. As the magnet gets closer and closer the flux changes faster and faster so the amplitude of the voltage increases. As the magnet passes "TDC" or closest approach, the polarity flips (because now the flux is decreasing instead of increasing) and the amplitude starts high (fast change in flux) and decreases as the magnet moves further away.
If the rotor magnet is flipped so that the other pole is facing the coil, the induced voltage pattern is flipped: first positive, then negative.
That is all true an useful when the coil is open, but when the coil is shorted by a load or a constant voltage source, then another form of analysis becomes more useful, namely the conservation of flux penetrating the coil as shown
here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL4pfisCX14).
Quote from: gotoluc on January 03, 2016, 12:15:37 AM
Quote from: tinman on January 02, 2016, 10:19:56 PM
Now all you have to do is get the entire wave form above the zero volt line without the use of rectifiers ;)
Why and what will that do for me?
According to Faraday's Law of Induction, if you get a waveform like that all above zero with an open coil that is not powered externally, then it means that the magnetic flux penetrating this coil is always increasing up and up and up....
Quote from: verpies on January 06, 2016, 03:50:48 PM
Why and what will that do for me?
According to Faraday's Law of Induction, if you get a waveform like that all above zero with an open coil that is not powered externally, then it means that the magnetic flux penetrating this coil is always increasing up and up and up....
Thanks verpies for explaining why it would be interesting to pursue this.
Now, when I achieve this (all above the zero line) and change the core to a Finemet core to boost the Inductance every time the special magnet arrangement goes by the coil, will there be any additional benefit?
Thanks for sharing
Luc
It would be interesting.
For starters these experiments (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/7948/2/474850.pdf) should be repeated with the Finemet cores.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 06, 2016, 09:00:19 AM
Capiche?
QuoteBrad,
That's an extremely poor reason not to accept my challenge, and will be perceived as a cop-out.
So be it. You didn't have much of a chance anyway. ;)
Carry on believing you have something extraordinary with your ssg rotor setup if you wish, but proof will be in the pudding, whether you can make anything extraordinary of it or not. I hope you do, but I'm quite certain that you're no further ahead when compared to good old fashioned proper engineering design.
Really Poynt ?
I would have expected better from you.
It is not me that is copping out here. You tried to replicate the effect from my DUT-you couldnt,and came up with the excuse that it needs more tweaking,but you dont have the time ::)
I have accepted your next challenge on the grounds that you complete your first challenge--nothing more than that.
Quote: Carry on believing you have something extraordinary with your ssg rotor setup if you wish, but proof will be in the pudding,
Well Poynt,we are awaiting for you to provide that proof,and show us that your simulation of my DUT can show what my DUT show's. Saying that you dont have the time to finish tweaking it,but to then propose another challenge(having time for another challenge) seems a bit Irish to me?.
QuoteWell hold on a minute there Luc, Brad is the one making claims that he has some extraordinary magic trick that is giving him better efficiency over anything else, so it is him that is putting those conditions on himself. The whole point of the challenge was to put good old engineering design up against his magic ssg scheme.
These claims i have made(an increase in inductance in the coil),are the very same one's that you !not so long ago! deemed may be possible. But here you are calling it a magic trick :o .It is also true that you set out to try and disprove my theory with what you call every day physics-nothing special going on there,and you were unable to achieve the results with your simulated version that i have with my DUT. If they are just everyday events taking place,why are you having so much trouble simulating the result's?. The reason you cannot,is because your simulator is based around known physics and parameters. Do you know why your simulated version cannot return the results that you had hoped it would Poynt-->because they still dont know what the magnetic force is,so they cannot program your sim to simulate that which they dont know. The proof of this is in your result's.
It would seem to me that it is you that took a cop-out with your first attempt to disprove me,when your simulated version returned a negative result.
Brad.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 06, 2016, 09:12:36 AM
LOL,
It is ironic actually; I am often criticized for offering my simulations as a means to analyze a circuit and for rarely building anything, but here we have the exact opposite! Brad wants me to complete my simulation before he will accept a challenge where I would be building an actual device.
Too damn funny. ;D
Now is your big chance at showing every one here that your sim can show real world/real device result's. I am often criticized for not seeing things through to the end(hey Poynt ;) ),so lets not have others place you in the same boat as me. I am taking this to the end,so how about you do the same :)
Like i said before--if you have the time to build an actual device,why dont you have the time to finish of your simulated version first,and show every one here that your sim will indeed show real world result's.
Brad
Quote from: MileHigh on January 06, 2016, 11:05:33 AM
I'm just baffled that anybody can believe that a pulsing coil and a few magnets spinning on a rotor can be doing something special. However, we have been there dozens of times in the past.
It's fun to try to figure out exactly what is going on as an interesting challenge. I think it was on the other thread that I took some measurements that Woopy made on one of his builds and I crunched the hell out of his measurements and extracted lots of information and pretty much reverse-engineered the energy dynamics of his entire setup. All that I got was stony silence.
In the spirit of the "understanding" challenge I will post some sample timing diagrams on another thread. I don't expect that Brad will ever do a timing diagram, but perhaps seeing some examples will inspire somebody else to make one for their next pulse motor build. In fact, if there is ever another pulse motor build off, supplying a timing diagram for your motor should be a requirement for entry into the competition.
http://overunity.com/16317/the-beauty-of-timing-diagrams/msg470448/#msg470448 (http://overunity.com/16317/the-beauty-of-timing-diagrams/msg470448/#msg470448)
QuoteI notice that Brad takes exception if somebody that is a so-called "big gun" changes their analysis or adapts their analysis over time because of something that they did not think of before or because some new information becomes available. Horror of horrors, that's just not permitted!
What i take exception to is being told i dont know what im talking about,and that i have nothing out of the ordinary taking place within my DUT. Then to have some one !!try!! and simulate my DUT,but are unable to achieve the same result's,and then say that they could achieve the result's if they tweak the sim a bit. When asked to do that,they then dont have the time,but in the next breath,they offer another challenge,where they now have the time to build an actual device,and post a video of the test and result's.
The next exception i take(after being told that what i believe is going on with my DUT is incorrect),is when a big gun decides that it may be possible that what i believe was going on could actually be what is going on-->and then credit is given to them for making this wonderful discovery. It's happened before,and it will happen again.
All i ask is for Poynt to finish his simulate version of my DUT,and repeat the result's of my DUT,as this is what he set out to do. I feel the reason that Poynt is trying his best to avoid completing his simulated version,and delivering the final result's,is because he cannot simulate the results i have with my DUT. To say he dosnt have the time !!IS!! a cop-out,as he seems to have the time for another challenge.
It's very easy to complete.
1-He either can and has got his sim to replicate the result's of my DUT-or
2-He says he cannot get his sim to replicate the result's of my DUT.
Why is he avoiding this?.
Maybe there is some one else out there that is well versed in simulations that could give it a go,and post there results from there simulated version?.
Brad
Quote from: verpies on January 06, 2016, 03:50:48 PM
Why and what will that do for me?
According to Faraday's Law of Induction, if you get a waveform like that all above zero with an open coil that is not powered externally, then it means that the magnetic flux penetrating this coil is always increasing up and up and up....
Quote from: tinman on January 06, 2016, 06:06:30 PM
Well Poynt,we are awaiting for you to provide that proof,and show us that your simulation of my DUT can show what my DUT show's. Saying that you dont have the time to finish tweaking it,but to then propose another challenge(having time for another challenge) seems a bit Irish to me?.
I think you are the only one waiting for something to happen, that I have already said 2 or three times, is not going to happen. ::)
Listen up Mr., as long as I retain free will, neither you nor anyone else is going to dictate what I do with my free time! >:( I don't have to justify bugger all to you, and its your problem if you can't see the sensibility in my decision to build rather than simulate. You should be bloody well more than satisfied that I am even willing to do that!
Quote
These claims i have made(an increase in inductance in the coil),are the very same one's that you !not so long ago! deemed may be possible. But here you are calling it a magic trick :o .
That is your over all claim of this thread? Is that so? No, You're moving the goal posts again.
Quote from: tinman on December 14, 2015, 09:08:53 AM
I posted a quick video showing how having a rotor with alternating magnetic field passing a pulsed inductor can improve the efficiency of that inductor as far as the inductive kickback output go's.
My challenge is to that statement, not to whether the inductance is increasing or not.
Anyway Brad, I could have a field day with your recent posts, but alas I choose to do other things with my time, because it is not worth it. My past dealings with Rosemary Ainslie taught me a great deal about dealing with "difficult" people and when one's time is worth investing and when it is not, so I will remain reserved.
You would be wise to stop tirading about and instead do something extraordinarily productive with that magic ssg rotor of yours. But I wouldn't want to tell you what you should do with your time now, would I?
Ok. It seems we have some work to do.
I just inserted a ferrite bead in my 1.65mh coil. It went up to 2.17mh. Then I added a 3/4 by 1/8 disk neo magnet, tried both ways. Got 2.15mh.
From what I had understood in the past before reading the power supply book was that adding a magnet to a coil would lower the inductance, from what were were discussing then was that the magnet sorta stiffens things up a bit.
But now I am at square 1. Hopscotch anyone?
So when I get home I will reread the text to see if what I reread already was accurate.
Thinking about it before I posted this, there may be an issue with reading inductance of the coil being it is biased one way and not the other with the magnet. So the question for me is it possible that adding the magnet screws with the way the inductance meter reads the coil?. Like I can understand that if the meter is putting and ac sig to the coil and sampling what it samples that the magnet biasing the coil might have an odd effect if the meter wants to see ac. Dunno yet.
Considering that the magnet instilled inductors the book was talking about were only for dc pulse efforts, then maybe we cannot look at the coil as being the same with magnetic biasing when were talk about inductance in general.. Like say if without the magnet on the coil being used in a dc-dc converter, dc pulsed, that the coil/core for the design has only so much in it before saturation, but when adding the magnet being biased against the coil field and our level of saturation becomes possibly near twice the level than without the magnet, could that increase be labeled as an increase in inductance? ??? ??? Larger core=higher inductance and larger core= higher saturation point. Being it is a dc pulsed inductor and not for ac(as in + and - from 0v), because if we reverse the magnet in that same situation, saturation levels would be down as compared to no magnet added because the coil would be adding to the mag field causing premature saturation, as the magnet has the core prefilled in a sense. So maybe we cannot assume the henry meters are showing the real deal when looking at magnetically biased core/coils. What got me thinking these things with the meters is that fact that it didnt matter what polarity the magnet was, the meter read the same, so we have to assume the meter is not dc pulsing the coil the get samples, it is using ac.
So in our case here, we are using dc pulsing. So, can we consider if the magnetically biased core increases the level of saturation of the core, would that also be considered an increase of inductance of the coil?? In a dc pulsed situation of course.
Just did these things after work here at my shop. Put the motor together last night and messed around a bit. Cant use my adjustable supply to run it as the grounds of the scope and supply cause big issues. Ground isolation plug adapters will work? Read in the past of someone cutting of the gnd post of the ac plug. Not doin that, yet.
Also had some settings on the scope messed up where my ac sig of the coil alone with rotor spinning was big on the plus side and little on the - side. Still getting used to this thing. Finding on a new project just to hit default settings. Lots of menus to miss something maladjusted. Can make ya loony tunes. :o ;)
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on January 06, 2016, 08:29:41 PM
I just inserted a ferrite bead in my 1.65mh coil. It went up to 2.17mh. Then I added a 3/4 by 1/8 disk neo magnet, tried both ways. Got 2.15mh.
Mags
Hey Mags, why are you using Ferrite to test?... it's the worse core you can use to test this.
Use steel laminations, at least you won't have a drop in Inductance or next to none.
Again, the only core material I have ever seen increase Inductance by a magnet (without need of movement) is Finemet.
I suggest you get some toroids and test it out like I did in my demo video.
You can buy them here: http://www.elnamagnetics.com/catalogs (http://www.elnamagnetics.com/catalogs)
If you have some kind of business you may be able to request a free sample.
I've attached some PDF's
Luc
Error
Quote from: verpies on January 06, 2016, 04:54:05 PM
It would be interesting.
For starters these experiments (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/7948/2/474850.pdf) should be repeated with the Finemet cores.
Thanks verpies, but that document is way too long for me.
If you want to go through it and chose the one you think is the most interesting and post a diagram of the test device, I'll see what I can do.
Thank for sharing
Luc
Inductance meters are arguably like car "idiot lights" or the newer term "numbers in boxes."
You can watch the inductance in action on your scope, experiment with both current/magnet directions, and as a bonus find the saturation point for the core.
From a YouTube search:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01Ebd6eR7Lw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01Ebd6eR7Lw)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74fz9iwZ_sM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74fz9iwZ_sM)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF4AbbBGa5M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF4AbbBGa5M)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhS8m38ef0Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhS8m38ef0Y)
Honestly any serious experimenter needs to be able to measure capacitance and inductance with his scope and a few support components.
Well, I looked at those four clips after the fact and I didn't like any of them because they are all based on frequency measurements.
I wanted a clip that measures the L/R time constant Tau. That way you can see all of the action in real time. You can also lower the resistance more and more so that the final current is such that the core is fully saturated. So you can determine the saturation current for a given coil + core material and hopefully observe the anomaly in the waveform as you break through the saturation level.
I couldn't find a clip that demonstrated that so I marked up a screen cap. With the attached setup you can look at the rising current waveform in real time and play with your magnets and such. Just measure the Tau and take it from there.
As far as I am concerned this pulse-based system is a "truer" inductance measurement because you are looking at the actual exponential current waveform. You have the option of measuring the inductance at different final current values to "feel out" how the core material is responding to different final B field intensities.
This is the real Spice.
I attached a second image with the math.
After that very helpful posting if I see one more jackass try to tell me what a horrible person I am, then they can shut their mouths and kiss my ass.
author=poynt99 link=topic=16261.msg470474#msg470474 date=1452128234]
QuoteI think you are the only one waiting for something to happen, that I have already said 2 or three times, is not going to happen. ::)
Interesting. I have never seen you give up so easily with your sim replication's.
QuoteListen up Mr., as long as I retain free will, neither you nor anyone else is going to dictate what I do with my free time! >:( I don't have to justify bugger all to you, and its your problem if you can't see the sensibility in my decision to build rather than simulate. You should be bloody well more than satisfied that I am even willing to do that!
The only reason your willing to actually build a device,is the need to beat me,and prove me wrong.
You failed at your first attempt,and now are seeking a second go at it,and as Luc pointed out-with the bases loaded in your favor. But non the less,i accepted your challenge on the condition that you accept my request that you finish what you started with your sim--that was suppose to show nothing out of the ordinary was taking place with my(and Luc's) DUT's. So !!Mr!!,i am not satisfied that you are unwilling to complete and finalize your sim version of my DUT-that you took upon your self to do.
QuoteThat is your over all claim of this thread? Is that so? No, You're moving the goal posts again.
No,it's not. You only have to follow the thread to see that as i experimented more and more,what i thought may be what was happening,turned out to make no sense.
Example- post 238 Quote: If the magnets were increasing the effective inductance of the coil,why dose this increase not happen when the magnet(either pole) on the rotor is stationary in front of the coil?.
I think the rotor magnets are inducing an EMF across the coil,and it is this EMF that is the cause of the reduce P/in,as the battery now dose not have to supply that bit of energy to create that EMF that already exist.
So you see Poynt,as i kept on moving along with experiments,i also worked on making what i thought make sense. As you can see,i was thinking along the same lines as you--no increase in inductance was taking place,but the effect was to do more with the EMF being produced across the coil by the moving magnets.
QuoteMy challenge is to that statement, not to whether the inductance is increasing or not.
Really?. Lets have a look at your post-post 253-Quote: An observation from the two scope shots:
It appears that the reduced current during the ON time is a result of the negative-induced voltage in series with the battery voltage. I presume Pin goes down with the rotor installed.
So is there a problem or something that apparently hasn't been explained?
Yes,there is a problem !or something! that was yet to be explained.
Here was my next thought as to what may be taking place to reduce the I/in-P/in,after i had discounted the produced EMF across the coil by the external magnetic fields.
Post 262- Quote: This is exactly what i said some pages back,so lets run with this for a bit,and think about what is happening during each cycle. We do know which comes first(the chicken or the egg) in this case,and that is the induced flux into the core from the PM's. We know this because we have alternating fields on the rotor. The coils produced field at the rotor end is north,so the other end of the coil will be of course a south field(we will stick to N&S as it makes it easy). We know that the magnetic domains within the core will align opposite to those in the PM,and so will be aligned the same when the coil has a current flowing through it. So the induced flux in the core from the PM's is now present before the coil switches on. This in turn lowers the P/in needed to raise the flux volume in that core and it's surroundings to the level we had without the rotor-->this we know,as the P/out dose not change,which tells us the field in and around the inductor was the same in both cases. The extra waste heat dissipated by the coil when the rotor is not in play,is due of course to more current flowing through the coil. The extra current flow is due to the fact that it now has to induce the flux into the core as well,where as with the rotor,the flux is already induced !mostly!,and the domains are !mostly! already aligned within the core material. So from this we know work is needed to induce the flux into the core,and align the magnetic domains within that core-->and we also know that this work being done came from the magnets when the rotor is in play. So lets use some example numbers here-that being the power required to spin the rotor,and the reduced power that the magnets on the rotor cause.
Post 269 in regards to your post 253-Quote: My explanation was regarding how or why Pin decreases when the rotor is used.It is an explanation if you put a little thought into it. I'm done spoon feeding.
So as we can see,you had made up your mind that it was this reverse voltage across the coil that the magnets on the rotor produced,that was the cause for the reduction in P/in and increase in P/out.
Post 270-my post after gaining further information from the tests i had been carrying out,and when a true understanding started to make sense of what was happening with my DUT.
Quote: The reduced P/in with the rotor is more to do with the induced flux into the inductors core,and not the induced negative voltage.
Now i will just requote what you wrote above=
Quote:My challenge is to that statement, not to whether the inductance is increasing or not.
Your post-272-Quote: That does not make sense. In fact it is opposite to what happens. Are you thinking that the inductance, and hence impedance of the coil increases when the magnet is flying by? No, it would decrease.
Your post 273- Quote: What are your thoughts Brad on trying a solid state version to achieve the same effect?
I was all for this solid state version being done to see the !!same!! effects.But we will get back to that later on in this post.
My reply to your post 272--post 274
Quote: That is actually incorrect.
The inductance rises when there is a changing flux value in the core of the inductor/ over time. Only when the flux value is constant,is there a reduction in the inductance value. As the magnetic flux is never a constant value in the core of the inductor when the rotor is in play,then the inductance value of the inductor is indeed higher than it would be without the rotor.
Your post-276 Quote: Do you have data or a technical reference to back that up? It goes against the physics of how cores work. If the core's magnetic domains are anywhere other than their neutral position (i.e. non-polarized) at the instant the coil fires, then the coil's inductance will be reduced, regardless if the domains were in rotation or were static at the time. The core is partially or fully polarized in either case.
Your post 277-Quote: I have one SS version to offer here, and you are close. Mine uses another coil yes, but it doesn't require another power source.The effect has been verified AFAIAC, and confirms my explanation offered earlier. My Conclusion? Nothing extraordinary going on here.
One of your comments on post 279 Quote: Take it as it is, there is no miracle action at hand here, just good old fashioned electrical theory. We all went down a similar road years back with Luc's Capacitor energy transfer experiments, which I also did a big paper on.
Your post on post 285-Quote: I honestly am beginning to think that one reason folks seem to learn too little around here, is because they are being spoon fed the answers all the time; yes by guys like me, verpies, MH, TK et al. Check out citfta's link, or google "inductance" and "frequency" together. Here is another link. Perhaps you'll learn more by digging some answers up yourself.
Which is what i have been doing with the tests i have been carrying out with my DUT--not from some books or laws !!theories!.
Your post 326 Quote: As I said Brad, the simulation could use some fine tuning to not only increase the effect, but maintain or increase the flyback power as well. I just don't have the will nor desire to do so. But I am confident it can be done.
I am confident that OU machines can be made,but that is neither excepted or proof. Your sim results did not simulate the results from my DUT,as you made claim to above-Quote: The effect has been verified AFAIAC, and confirms my explanation offered earlier
No-no it has not been verified at all,and that is a false statement you have made.
Your post 360-Quote: I gave you one method to achieve the same effect without using magnets. If you are interested in seeing it done without them, why don't you build it?
No-no you did not give me one method to achieve the same effect,as you did !NOT! achieve the same effect as my DUT with your sim. Why dont i build it you ask-->why dont you finish your sim project,and show that the same effect can be achieved without actual permanent magnets in motion?.
After reading all that,i will now re-quote your statement above
Quote:My challenge is to that statement, not to whether the inductance is increasing or not
Well that is not what you have posted throughout this thread-and it's all there to read as i posted above.
After all that,here is the kicker
Your post-392 Quote: There is one way I can think of that might increase the inductance of a cored inductor, but only momentarily during the ON time, which of course is what we are dealing with here.
After all your dismissive posts about an increase in inductance,your posts both on this thread and Luc's as to how what we think go's against some law's of inductors,and we have nothing out of the ordinary happening-->you post the above statement ::),a statement that resembles my exact setup--my DUT-->which of course is what we are dealing with here
After all you have posted throughout this thread,you then have the balls to post this-
Quote: Anyway Brad, I could have a field day with your recent posts, but alas I choose to do other things with my time, because it is not worth it. My past dealings with Rosemary Ainslie taught me a great deal about dealing with "difficult" people and when one's time is worth investing and when it is not, so I will remain reserved.
Are you Fn serious Poynt :o
And this-
Quote: You would be wise to stop tirading about and instead do something extraordinarily productive with that magic ssg rotor of yours. But I wouldn't want to tell you what you should do with your time now, would I?
Never did i think you would ever turn out to be some one like this Poynt.
Most of your post here on this thread(and Luc's) dismissed any possibility that the inductance could be increasing,and that being the cause of the increase in efficiency--even to go as far as simulating the effect--which you failed to do.
I have been learning-understanding as i go-reasoning with what my tests were showing me,and making sense of them. You on the other hand just went straight for the !!nothing out of the ordinary!! happening here,and decided it was the induced reverse voltage that was causing the effect.
You then have the ordasity to say to me--> You would be wise to stop tirading about and instead do something extraordinarily productive.
So go ahead Poynt--have a field day with my post on this thread.
But before you have a go at me like you have,take the time to go and read the whole thread,and remember the things you have said throughout that thread.
Brad.
Quote from: Magluvin on January 06, 2016, 08:29:41 PM
, so we have to assume the meter is not DC pulsing the coil the get samples, it is using AC.
This difference comes down to the
absolute permeability of the core vs. the
differential permeability of the core, respectively.
Inductance is proportional to one of these permeabilities. Can you guess to which one?
Hint: Inductance is the ratio of
Flux linkage to
Current.
Quote from: MileHigh on January 07, 2016, 12:49:18 AM
After that very helpful posting if I see one more jackass try to tell me what a horrible person I am, then they can shut their mouths and kiss my ass.
Thanks for your post and effort MH. I know all too well that most either can't or choose not to appreciate the effort that goes into posts which aim to explain and educate.
What this forum needs is more civilized posts and discussions, rather than the tirades this thread is being flooded with lately.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 06, 2016, 10:40:20 PM
Again, the only core material I have ever seen increase Inductance by a magnet (without need of movement) is Finemet.
I suggest you get some toroids and test it out like I did in my demo video.
You can buy them here: http://www.elnamagnetics.com/catalogs (http://www.elnamagnetics.com/catalogs)
If you have some kind of business you may be able to request a free sample.
I've attached some PDF's
Luc
It is interesting that in the Finemet document all the "Inductance vs. DC Bias Current" graphs show the inductance deceasing as the DC bias is increased. That seems contrary to your results Luc.
Which core model did you demo in your video?
Quote from: poynt99 on January 07, 2016, 08:44:26 AM
Which core model did you demo in your video?
Unfortunately I didn't bring the Finemet toroid with me and won't be going back to Ottawa until mid April.
I remember getting the part number from the Orbo topic in 2010 or 2011. I don't know if you can do a key word "Finemet" search in a specific topic?
Let me know if you do find the part number and I'll order a new one to test as well.
Thanks
Luc
My search for your posts did not pull up any part numbers. Suppose we need to find the orbo topics.
A Google search of "orbo" and "core" was not fruitful for me either.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 07, 2016, 09:36:55 AM
Unfortunately I didn't bring the Finemet toroid with me and won't be going back to Ottawa until mid April.
I remember getting the part number from the Orbo topic in 2010 or 2011. I don't know if you can do a key word "Finemet" search in a specific topic?
Let me know if you do find the part number and I'll order a new one to test as well.
Thanks
Luc,
Did you perhaps use the same part number/core mentioned in this video that you linked to in a post you made discussing this? (Part number MP1305LF3T)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuzSkKlnCzc
Taken from:
http://overunity.com/11377/magnet-inductance-boost-with-finemet-nanocrystaline-core/#.Vo6HDFLCvzE
PW
Quote from: picowatt on January 07, 2016, 10:46:49 AM
Did you perhaps use the same part number/core mentioned in this video that you linked to in a post you made discussing this? (Part number MP1305LF3T)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuzSkKlnCzc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuzSkKlnCzc)
Taken from:
http://overunity.com/11377/magnet-inductance-boost-with-finemet-nanocrystaline-core/#.Vo6HDFLCvzE (http://overunity.com/11377/magnet-inductance-boost-with-finemet-nanocrystaline-core/#.Vo6HDFLCvzE)
PW
I forgot I started a topic about it. Thanks PW for finding it.
Eric is the one who first brought my attention to this Inductance boost by magnet. However, I already had the 2 Finemet Toroid for Orbo testing but good chances they may be the same, they look to be about the same size. One way or the other we know his part number works, so I would say that should be good enough.
Eric's test setup is not very refined but proved the point. After my tests I found the ideal magnet size and magnet location to maximize Inductance which was in the toroid center.
Magnet was 1/4 inch N45 Neo cylinder, magnetized top to bottom.
Hope this helps
Luc
I just found this topic as well
http://overunity.com/8892/self-running-coil/msg236731/#msg236731 (http://overunity.com/8892/self-running-coil/msg236731/#msg236731)
Looks like Eric is user void109 and had a MP1305LF3T finemet toroid. So he is the one who brought my attention to it in April 2010.
I refined the effect to minimum magnet size and ideal magnet location (toroid center) to maximize Inductance.
Luc
The field is always there.
It can be negative or positive
It can be captured in both signs.
Use it.
artv
Hey guy's
just letting you know that i will more than likely be off line for some time.
The south west of our state (where i live) is being devastated by the largest recorded bush fire so far.
The fire has already taken out 1 town,and half of another on it's way toward my area.
Power in some areas has been lost,and it seems that most of the south west is going to loose power for some weeks due to the fires. There is no more fuel available from the service stations,as our corner has been cut off due to both the major highways being closed. Food is also going to be an issue ,due to the fact that no truck can get to this corner of the state ATM.
So were just going to dig in for the long haul,and will be back as soon as everything returns back to normal around here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6Dv3zHDGgQ
Brad.
Quote from: tinman on January 08, 2016, 06:26:49 AM
So were just going to dig in for the long haul,and will be back as soon as everything returns back to normal around here.
Good grief Brad. Not good news at all.
Hang in there best you can and know your limitations. When it's time to go, make sure you have time to go. Get everything packed up sooner rather than later.
I'll keep my fingers crossed for you, hoping this blaze turns itself off.
If i am unable to keep you updated,then the link below is our local new's on Face Book.
https://www.facebook.com/gwn7news/
Wow Brad, that's serious stuff, take care, and like Dog said; "When it's time to go, make sure you have time to go"
Regards Itsu
Take care Brad.
Hope all goes well and we see you back soon.
What area are you in?
Quote from: poynt99 on January 08, 2016, 08:17:23 AM
Take care Brad.
Hope all goes well and we see you back soon.
What area are you in?
I am in the Bunbury area. The next suburb along is Eaton/Australind.=-They are on an alert and act warning ATM. Standing at my front door,i can see the orange glow from the fire. Over 7000 hectare's and one town have been destroyed so far,and the fire has just hit the second town along in it's path(Harvey)
For the moment,Eaton,Australind,and Bunbury are safe,and we are hoping for rain tonight/tomorrow. Lets hope the weather man get's it right this time. Only problem being,it was the summer thunder storms we get this time of year,that started the fire to begin with. The other problem is that the fire is so large and hot,that it now has produced it's own weather pattern,and lightning can be seen coming from the smoke clouds.
The most north/western suburbs of Bunbury have reported red hot embers landing in peoples yard's,and a couple of small spot fires have been dealt with. The biggest problem is no vehicles can get in or out of the south west corner,as both major highways are now closed due to burnt and collapsed bridges. Fuel/gasoline has run dry already at most service station's,and it seems as there may also be a food shortage soon--so now every one is doing the !!mad pannic shoppers!! dash-which only makes things worse.
Anyway,i will keep you all updated as i can
Brad.
Well it is good that you have the ocean and all that sand close by !
Scary stuff indeed ...
Be safe ...will keep you and yours in our thoughts and prayers !
Chet
Quote from: tinman on January 08, 2016, 06:26:49 AM
Hey guy's
just letting you know that i will more than likely be off line for some time.
The south west of our state (where i live) is being devastated by the largest recorded bush fire so far.
The fire has already taken out 1 town,and half of another on it's way toward my area.
Power in some areas has been lost,and it seems that most of the south west is going to loose power for some weeks due to the fires. There is no more fuel available from the service stations,as our corner has been cut off due to both the major highways being closed. Food is also going to be an issue ,due to the fact that no truck can get to this corner of the state ATM.
So were just going to dig in for the long haul,and will be back as soon as everything returns back to normal around here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6Dv3zHDGgQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6Dv3zHDGgQ)
Brad.
Sorry to hear about this Brad
Wishing you and your family to be well and safe during this difficult situation.
Luc
@tinman
I had a bad feeling when I saw your mag rotor turning clockwise and now there are fires all around your location. It's all your fault! Just jok'in despite the seriousness of your situation. We're all root'in for y'a. Come back to us soon.
wattsup
Tinman
Any news on the fires in your area ?
Seems some of your infrastructure is not working... ?
Thanks
Chet
Quote from: ramset on January 10, 2016, 09:59:28 AM
Tinman
Any news on the fires in your area ?
Seems some of your infrastructure is not working... ?
Thanks
Chet
All under controll now, although 3 lives were lost, and a complete town burned to the ground.
Brad
Glad your out of that. Was worried about ya. ;)
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on January 10, 2016, 11:31:44 PM
Glad your out of that. Was worried about ya. ;)
Mags
Yea,was worried a bit myself Saturday night, but lucky for us,the wind swung around,and we got some rain as well.
Thanks for the thoughts guys.
Brad
Anyway,back on to the subject at hand.
If it is indeed true that the inductance of the inductor can be increased by way of external magnetic field's for that brief on time period,then what would this effect be called.
Could it be seen as !!reactive inductance!! ?. I think the name fits the effect,even though there is suppose to be no such thing as reactive inductance.
Reactive Inductance--.>The momentary increase of inductance within a pulsing inductor due to a reaction against an externally induced magnetic flux penetrating the inductors core.
Needs some refinement,but thats a rough description.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on January 13, 2016, 07:36:02 AM
If it is indeed true that the inductance of the inductor can be increased by way of external magnetic field's for that brief on time period,then what would this effect be called.
I think Smudge has analyzed it in
this paper (http://www.overunity.com/14690/non-coherent-access-to-hidden-precession-energy-in-ferromagnetic-material/dlattach/attach/139026/) and his conclusion was that it behaves like a magnetic capacitor.
I prefer to call it a "Flux Capacitor", though 8)
Quote from: tinman on January 11, 2016, 03:10:48 AM
Yea,was worried a bit myself Saturday night, but lucky for us,the wind swung around,and we got some rain as well.
Thanks for the thoughts guys.
Brad
Bloody hell mate, been so busy at work I had no idea. I know what that feels like. Glad to hear the outcome.