Hi all
For the last few years I have gone from building a permanent magnetic motor to building a pulse motor. My interest is linear-reciprocating rather than rotary and magnetic attraction rather than repulsion. I would like to converse with someone who has used permanent magnets to attract in a motor. My latest work can be seen at http://www.eebeh.com/piston.html . I have placed a link at the bottom of the page to the Opposed Piston Engine on which I am currently working.
Peter
Hey peter,
I've been messing around with this concept as well.
Here's a document with the info I've gathered so far.
Hope it helps.
Best of luck
http://dreamslaughter.com/magforce/magforce.htm
Other overunity.com thread:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1873.0
RUKIDDING
Thanks for the input. These are some of my observations: With my simple one piston motor, there is an increase in RPM when I add a PM in the attracting mode to the core bottom of the EM. There is a "bounce" rather than a sudden stop when the piston is attracted to the EM and if the timing is right, the EM force is sufficient to repel the piston over center where it is again attracted to the EM core.
Regarding your drawings and queries, if more than one cylinder (2 pistons) is used then the attracting force of one set of pistons will turn the crankshaft while the other is being released. Also, the PM pistons should not contact the EM core but should have an air gap between. There is a great difference in the force required to separate the two.
Thanks again
Peter
Quote from: tropes on January 12, 2007, 11:20:10 AM
RUKIDDING
Thanks for the input. These are some of my observations: With my simple one piston motor, there is an increase in RPM when I add a PM in the attracting mode to the core bottom of the EM. There is a "bounce" rather than a sudden stop when the piston is attracted to the EM and if the timing is right, the EM force is sufficient to repel the piston over center where it is again attracted to the EM core.
Yes, I think there is a gain in not using the EM to repel the PM. Just put enough current to the EM to release the magnetic grip. This is if you are using a crankshaft so that the action phase of the next PM pulls the just used PM away. The RPM's have to be right so that the residue magnetic field in the EM after the release pulse is timed to continue the grip release. We need to have a sawtooth waveform on the EMs field. On a guess the magnetic residue after the release pulse lasts maybe 20 to 50 milliseconds (I plan to do some tests next week to determine this value). We want the RPM to match this up against dissipation. If for instance the dissipation time is 100 milliseconds, we would want to have an rotation rate of 10 per second or 600 RPMs. Hopefully I?ll know this soon.
Quote from: tropes on January 12, 2007, 11:20:10 AM
Regarding your drawings and queries, if more than one cylinder (2 pistons) is used then the attracting force of one set of pistons will turn the crankshaft while the other is being released.
Yes, of course, that?s the idea. The distance a piston moves is about 3 centimeters, the distance a big strong PM?s attraction becomes strong is about 2.5 centimeters. In the design the pistons are arranged to that they are all in the 3 centimeter distance. We want to have the pistons past the 90 degree spot on the crankshaft. So the attraction happens on the sweet spot of the crankshaft.
Another main reason you want to use two PMs on each side of the EM is because you get twice the amount of attraction and you use the same amount of power to release the grip of both PMs. Another reason is because by pulling a PM from both sides of an EM there is no induction, they cancel.
Quote from: tropes on January 12, 2007, 11:20:10 AM
Also, the PM pistons should not contact the EM core but should have an air gap between. There is a great difference in the force required to separate the two.
Yes, the PM should not contact the EM for a number of reasons. We don?t want an actual electrical connection between the PM and the EM. Also the repeated contact would break the PM over time. The air gap makes it easier to release the grip, but it also makes it so there is not as much pull force. The attraction is greatly reduced by a gap. So we want to engineer the air gap as close as engineering can accomplish. For experiments use a piece of plastic about .5 millimeters between the PM and the EM. The final air gap is determined by the length of the piston.
Thanks for your help.
RUKID
Much of what we are doing is "breaking new ground" but I think we are on the same wavelength. I think it would be of benefit if we used the same model to reference. Since I am in construction mode with a model partially built lets stick to my model. Perhaps you could use that CAD program to construct a drawing using my dimensions. I would send you these by email if you will do this.
Peter
Quote from: tropes on January 13, 2007, 10:40:15 AM
RUKID
Much of what we are doing is "breaking new ground" but I think we are on the same wavelength. I think it would be of benefit if we used the same model to reference. Since I am in construction mode with a model partially built lets stick to my model. Perhaps you could use that CAD program to construct a drawing using my dimensions. I would send you these by email if you will do this.
Peter
If its not too difficult, sure. Email them to me. Just keep the drawings open source and in the public domain.
All of my work has been in the public domain as has the work of others in the EVGRAY Yahoo group. My earlier work is posted here
http://theowlnest.com/kickbypage.html
My latest progress is posted at http://www.eebeh.com/opm.html
What I am saying is if we are to expect input we must use the same model for reference.If anyone else would like to construct a CAD model I would be willing to send you the dimensions.
I have received several emails with questions and encouragement. Thanks, but please use this forum and I will answer the questions just once.
BTW, yes it was tricky to construct the crankshaft in 5 pieces.
Peter
Peter,
Go over to this thread:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1873.0.html
Thanks
I will continue to post in this Pulse Motor thread if there is any interest in the Opposed Piston Motor.
Peter
Your opposed piston concept is very elegant from an engineering
point of view. Fewer out-of-balance forces to deal with.
Will the attraction stroke take the same time as the repulsion
stroke? At the moment, they must; they are linked.
Also, when you take the voltage off the coil, you will get the
back emf kick back. Do you plan to use this? Put it in a capacitor
and use it on the next cycle?
Paul.
Paul_R
The ultimate goal is to use the back EMF to charge the power system but before that I would like to use the attract force of a second set of pistons to lessen the power needed to repel the first set of pistons. First I would like to get this model up and running.
Peter
Peter,
Here's a couple more jpegs:
<a href="http://dreamslaughter.com/magforce/peter array 11 print.jpg"> <img src="http://dreamslaughter.com/magforce/peter array 11 print thumb.jpg></a>
Click image to enlarge.<a href="http://dreamslaughter.com/magforce/peter array 11 cell print.jpg"> <img src="http://dreamslaughter.com/magforce/peter array 11 cell print thumb.jpg></a>
Click image to enlarge.Use them as you like.
Hope this helps.
Good work RUKIDD. Now we're getting somewhere. I am just finishing up the motor and am awaiting some coil bobbins. Ian at http://www.mintakafulcrum.net/ says he will wind a coil for me since he has the equipment and expertise. His site is definitely worth visiting. I am a little concerned about the proximity of the cylinders (the effect of adjacent magnets on each other) but we can deal with that later. I will post my latest today at http://www.eebeh.com/opm.html
Peter
Cool,
I have thought about the magnets affecting each other, I don't think there would be a problem with your size magnets if you keep the gap between them over two or three inches.
Good work.
:)
RUKIDD
I notice you have alternated the polarity of each cylinder; any reason for that?
Peter
Not really,
I went back and forth about which would be better, I couldn't decide if one would be better than another. I went ahead with alternating them for visual and there maybe a overall system stability thing going on. I'm not sure. I tried to think of a way to get a benefit from the forces between the pistons, but I couldn't.
What are your thoughts on this?
I'm just guessing but...
I think the distance between cylinders is determined by the greatest distance between pistons of the same cylinder (length of stroke x 2, plus the coil length plus the gaps between piston and coil). I think the pistons on each bank should be oriented the same way. First, we must get one cylinder running and then evaluate and move on.
Peter
Yesterday I received six free solenoid bobbins from Cosmo Corporation in Cleveland Ohio.I had asked them for a sample last week. I phoned Ian Coke-Richards last night and he is going to use these bobbins to wind three coils for me. We also discussed using a mechanical commutator rather than the Hall IC. I have completed the motor except for coil and electrical. I will be gone 'til Monday evening.
Peter
Peter,
Hi! I have been looking at your link on your reciprocating magnet piston engine. I would like to duplicate it, if that's alright with you. I need to know the magnets you used and the size of the coil, and what power supply you used. I have done some experimenting with pulse motors and like the reciprocating type motor. I also would like to eventually experiment with the back EMF. But, I figured I would start at the ground floor (so to speak). Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Howard
Hi Howard
So good to have another builder to compare notes. Most of the info can be found at http://www.eebeh.com/opm.html
The magnets are 3/4' x 1/2' Neo cylinders; the coil is 1.125" Length x 1.125" OD with a .385" ID with 24 gauge or 26 gauge wire. I have two power sources; a 12v and a 6 v sealed lead acid battery so I will try 12v or 18v. Do you have access to fabricating or lathing and milling equipment? The crankshaft posed the greatest challenge. I will be relying on my friend to claim the back EMF which is my eventual goal. If you need specific info as you build, just ask.
Peter
Peter,
How do you hold the permanent magnets in the piston heads without them coming out?
Quote from: rukiddingme on January 26, 2007, 01:36:13 AM
Peter,
How do you hold the permanent magnets in the piston heads without them coming out?
You drill a small hole in the back of the delrin magnet holder (piston), you press fit the magnet into the piston and if the piston is machined to the right size it will stay. If not add some epoxy glue.
Peter
Quote from: bloomers on January 20, 2007, 11:47:10 PM
Peter,
Hi! I have been looking at your link on your reciprocating magnet piston engine. I would like to duplicate it, if that's alright with you. I need to know the magnets you used and the size of the coil, and what power supply you used. I have done some experimenting with pulse motors and like the reciprocating type motor. I also would like to eventually experiment with the back EMF. But, I figured I would start at the ground floor (so to speak). Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Howard
Okay Howard
How is your duplication coming along? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Peter
rukiddingme, I remembered this next video when I seen your design and I thought it may be helpful to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anYxNitcrm0&feature=related
Quote from: nightlife on December 09, 2007, 10:41:38 PM
rukiddingme, I remembered this next video when I seen your design and I thought it may be helpful to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anYxNitcrm0&feature=related
Thanks, that is interesting. The drawings above were made by me of Tropes design, that's not my design. Although my design can be found here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1873.0.html
And here:
http://dreamslaughter.com/magforce/magforce.htm
Hiya Tropes,
Hope everything is good with you. Have you started working on your design again yet?
Best to you.
Quote from: rukiddingme on December 11, 2007, 05:56:36 PM
Thanks, that is interesting. The drawings above were made by me of Tropes design, that's not my design. Although my design can be found here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1873.0.html
And here:
http://dreamslaughter.com/magforce/magforce.htm
That is the design I was talking about. It is very interesting and it could work if a couple things were changed and if couple of things were added it would be more powerful and more efficient.
The sleeves that the pistons move in could be used to generate electricity and the coils could be wired in a series so that they run off the others EMF and collapsing fields using capacitors.
The coils should be used to draw one side and repel the other so the cams go in the same direction. Meaning, when the coil fires, one side will draw and the other would repel. This would utilize both coil effects.
I would like to see one built because I think it can work but then again, I am no physicist or scientist but I am a auto mechanic with 25 years in the field.
Quote from: rukiddingme on December 11, 2007, 05:58:48 PM
Hiya Tropes,
Hope everything is good with you. Have you started working on your design again yet?
Best to you.
Thanks RUKIDD
Yes everything is good. Sorry I can't contribute to the forum at present.
Tropes
Quote from: nightlife on December 11, 2007, 08:22:41 PM
That is the design I was talking about. It is very interesting and it could work if a couple things were changed and if couple of things were added it would be more powerful and more efficient.
The sleeves that the pistons move in could be used to generate electricity and the coils could be wired in a series so that they run off the others EMF and collapsing fields using capacitors.
The coils should be used to draw one side and repel the other so the cams go in the same direction. Meaning, when the coil fires, one side will draw and the other would repel. This would utilize both coil effects.
I would like to see one built because I think it can work but then again, I am no physicist or scientist but I am a auto mechanic with 25 years in the field.
I went around about which would be better, both pulling or being opposite. It turns out that when you pull from both sides at the same time, it cancels out all induction, I think that's is a good thing.
I agree with capturing the collapsing fields and capacitors to feed it back into the system, I addressed that in the "Magnetic Force" paper.
Putting coils around the sleeves is brilliant. Good for you.
This would make a great motor just for the extreme torque, but my hope is that it is overunity. Gaining the difference between the pull of the magnet compared to what it takes to release the magnetic grip is where the gain appears; I think that it may be necessary to create only enough current to just ?release the grip? and not going to the full repel. I?ll think some more about this.
The hardest part so far is coming up with the crankshafts. I looked into some old cranks from outboard motors, but I could only find ones that have three pistons. Cranks from car engines would be too big. I talked to a number of crankshaft people and they all said that with the forces involved, one would have to overlap the crankshaft center shaft with the shafts that attach to the pistons. With the Magnets in my example, one would need about a 3 centimeter gap between the electromagnet and the permanent magnets.
I really can?t say this would be overunity, but it would be an awesome motor.
If there is anything I can do to help, let me know.
rukiddingme, I thought the added power from having both the repelling and attraction would give the motor twice the power. I also thought the EMF and or collapsing of the switched polarity would just add that more energy back to the battery's. At the same time, I thought it would recharge both having one polarity feed back charge one and the reverse charging the other.
Have you thought about using hollow core electromagnetic coils? Or maybe even just using a very thick walled steel bushing for the core having a hole it the middle to attach a rod from one magnetic piston to the other?
I think that would alleviate the compression from the attraction giving you more efficiency as well as more power. Although, using a o ring seal between the core and the rod connecting the pistons go would make for a interesting air compressor by using one way valves, one for the air intake and the other for air out to a holding tank. It would be interesting to know what kind of compression could be achieved.
As for the crank shaft and rods, I do believe you will have to have them custom fabricated based on the throw and or attraction distance. Then you will also need to know what the least amount of attraction and or push you will need to have to get your over all HP needed.
I think the compressor idea would be good as a testing stage as well as it would be a great invention for that field if it was to produce enough to be usable. If it was to work, it would be worth millions just as a air compressor. Think about what air pressure is used for.
Over all I think you have came up with a good design. Good job and I hope you continue with building it. If you build the air compressor version and it works and makes you millions, don?t forget about me. LOL
Hello
I finally have a new motor with some 1.5 inch magnets. I posted the video on U Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHvxB8sFyFo
Tropes
An interesting observation:
When the 2 magnets are repelled by a coil the direction of current is opposite the direction when the 2 magnets are attracted towards the coil. This induced current is captured in a capacitor when the motor is running by using a diode.
I am in the process of constructing a crankshaft for a 5 coil, 10 piston "Sotropa Motor". So far I have built 1 coil-2 piston and 2 coil-4 piston models using 1 photointerrupter per coil (see attach.). Using this set-up I would have to use 5 photointerrupters (one for each coil). Is there anyone out there who can tell me how to construct a commutator system that will supply current to each of the 5 coils using just 1 photointerrupter firing every 72 degrees?
Tropes
The bottom photo is the 2 coil-4piston set-up.
Sadly, you are stuck with one per coil. Cant see any way around that one.
If you used mechanical contacts, you would still need a set per coil to turn
it on and off at the prescribed time. Just the way of it.
thaelin
Quote from: Thaelin on January 20, 2009, 08:07:48 AM
Sadly, you are stuck with one per coil. Cant see any way around that one.
If you used mechanical contacts, you would still need a set per coil to turn
it on and off at the prescribed time. Just the way of it.
thaelin
ThanksThaelin
I suspected that.I am sure however that I will be able to reduce the duration (opening in the slotted wheel) to about 17 degrees for each coil for a total of 80-85 degrees. The beauty of the opposed pistons is that 180 degees of rotation is generated by the attaction of the two magnets. This axial force is greater than the tangential attraction of a round rotor.
The collection of the BEMF is a simple matter of attaching a diode to each coil wire.
I hope someone will undertake to construct this motor and share their experience. Working in a vaccuum is the shits.
Tropes
Hello Tropes,
when I saw your posts here I remembered this paper of Aspden ( Potter-Debate ) :
http://www.aspden.org/reports/Es4/esr4.htm (http://www.aspden.org/reports/Es4/esr4.htm)
Keep up your good work
Regards
Kator01
Quote from: Kator01 on January 20, 2009, 05:43:58 PM
Hello Tropes,
when I saw your posts here I remembered this paper of Aspden ( Potter-Debate ) :
http://www.aspden.org/reports/Es4/esr4.htm (http://www.aspden.org/reports/Es4/esr4.htm)
Keep up your good work
Regards
Kator01
Thanks for the great info. The Energy Science Report N0.4 is one of a very few documents which examine the value of a reciprocating magnetic electric motor. Adams maintained that his motor was an attraction motor and realised the value of using magnetic attraction as a " free force".
What I have not found is research done where Faraday's Law and Lenz's Law are applied to 2 attracting magnets moving towards a coil. Perhaps because of the lack of strong Neo magnets, it was not realized that a strong attraction was possible even when separated by a coil.
Thanks again for the valuable report.
Tropes
@Kator
Since I was not able to find any info. regarding Lenz's Law using two opposing magnets, I did an experiment using magnets and coil on my motor. I posted the video at
http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=sotropa+motor+r%26d2&hl=en&emb=1&aq=-1&oq=#
Why don't you set up 2 piston sets (one on each side) for more consistent torque?
Also, I would probably go with a nice planetary gear set to spin up the rotational speed - probably a 10x gear, so you can run around 600 rpm, spinning up to 6k rpm. They're only 95% efficiency, but that's way better than any other chain/gear set you'll find (between 85 and 90% efficiency, if you're lucky).
Quote from: solinear on June 25, 2009, 02:23:56 PM
Why don't you set up 2 piston sets (one on each side) for more consistent torque?
Also, I would probably go with a nice planetary gear set to spin up the rotational speed - probably a 10x gear, so you can run around 600 rpm, spinning up to 6k rpm. They're only 95% efficiency, but that's way better than any other chain/gear set you'll find (between 85 and 90% efficiency, if you're lucky).
This website http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=74637
says that chain drives are only about 1% less efficient than gears.
Quote from: solinear on June 25, 2009, 02:23:56 PM
Why don't you set up 2 piston sets (one on each side) for more consistent torque?
Also, I would probably go with a nice planetary gear set to spin up the rotational speed - probably a 10x gear, so you can run around 600 rpm, spinning up to 6k rpm. They're only 95% efficiency, but that's way better than any other chain/gear set you'll find (between 85 and 90% efficiency, if you're lucky).
Thanks for the interest. I would like to answer your question but could you attach a drawing of your concept of "2 piston sets (one on each side)"? My latest video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XHUGD-NPeY illustrates how I am now able the generate power by placing a coil around each piston.
Tropes
I was thinking instead of mounting it vertically, mount it horizontally, then stick another set of pistons opposite the current set, then attach the planetary gear set where the generator is connected (with the generator connected to the faster spinning side).
Quote from: solinear on June 25, 2009, 04:21:40 PM
I was thinking instead of mounting it vertically, mount it horizontally, then stick another set of pistons opposite the current set, then attach the planetary gear set where the generator is connected (with the generator connected to the faster spinning side).
solinear
I value any input but am having trouble visualizing without a drawing.
Tropes
Quote from: tropes on June 25, 2009, 03:59:11 PM
Thanks for the interest. I would like to answer your question but could you attach a drawing of your concept of "2 piston sets (one on each side)"? My latest video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XHUGD-NPeY illustrates how I am now able the generate power by placing a coil around each piston.
Tropes
I previously misunderstood your design (thought you were using the coils to pump the magnets and using those to turn your generator below). I now understand that the coils are the *output* mechanism and what I thought was a generator is actually a motor.
BTW, in electricity, power = watts. Are you getting more watts out than you are putting in or just saying that you're getting volts (which have little meaning until you know the amperage and consequently, the watts) out when you pass a magnet through a wire coil?
Quote from: solinear on November 19, 2009, 06:07:15 PM
I previously misunderstood your design (thought you were using the coils to pump the magnets and using those to turn your generator below). I now understand that the coils are the *output* mechanism and what I thought was a generator is actually a motor.
BTW, in electricity, power = watts. Are you getting more watts out than you are putting in or just saying that you're getting volts (which have little meaning until you know the amperage and consequently, the watts) out when you pass a magnet through a wire coil?
Hi Solinear
The design is really quite simple: two magnets are attracted to each other and are repelled by an excited coil between them.
This motor is a fine toy for my three grandchildren who like the name, "Sotropa Motor".
The coils wrapped around each piston were added to one of my toys to demonstrate how an electrical current is generated by moving a magnet through a coil.
The "Sotropa Motor is just a different way of building a pulse motor rather than building another Bedini or Adams or Newman which continues to be done thousands of times.
Tropes
Quote from: tropes on November 19, 2009, 09:13:30 PM
Hi Solinear
The design is really quite simple: two magnets are attracted to each other and are repelled by an excited coil between them.
This motor is a fine toy for my three grandchildren who like the name, "Sotropa Motor".
The coils wrapped around each piston were added to one of my toys to demonstrate how an electrical current is generated by moving a magnet through a coil.
The "Sotropa Motor is just a different way of building a pulse motor rather than building another Bedini or Adams or Newman which continues to be done thousands of times.
Tropes
I like it, a toy. My son would probably love it, but I'd make him be the one to build it.
How much power (watts) did it consume?
The single coil motor consumed .875 watts (3.5V x .25A).
Google AdSense finally paying after 26000 views of my first pulse motor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBjcaSCUoQg
I know, it's not the best but more than 26000 view must mean some like it.
You say that it consumed .875 watts. Was there any power generation occuring or was that a calculation of (input power - output power)?
Quote from: solinear on January 28, 2010, 12:30:48 PM
You say that it consumed .875 watts. Was there any A occuring or was that a calculation of (input power - output power)?
There is always power induced by the pistons moving towards the coil so I keep a small fan motor running while the motor is running.
My latest video of the 1 coil motor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YOHSOK5kU4
Tropes
Quote from: tropes on January 28, 2010, 01:26:17 PM
There is always power induced by the pistons moving towards the coil so I keep a small fan motor running while the motor is running.
My latest video of the 1 coil motor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YOHSOK5kU4
Tropes
Why not feed it into the battery that you're running the coils with? Better yet, put a generator on the crankshaft. Mattering on the size of the generator and the draw that you put on it, you might be able to get more out than you're putting in. From what I can see, you've got a decent pull on that crankshaft - at least a couple of pounds. If you have 2 pounds of force and we're talking about a 1/2" radius with 1200 RPM, that works out to 20 * 2/12 foot pounds/second. I might be wrong about the calculations, but the kinetic energy that you're talking about is approximately 5 foot pounds per second. 5 foot pounds/second works out to 7 watts worth of energy. Of course, this is only if you can maintain the 1200 RPM while putting a load on the crankshaft. If the draw remains the same, as long as you can keep your RPM over 200 RPM, you should be able to have it self-run. I think that your RPM will drop, but it's hard to say how far it will drop. If your pull is 1 pound, then you have to keep the RPM up around 400 RPM to have it self-run.
Quote from: solinear on February 04, 2010, 07:23:29 PM
Why not A it into the battery that you're running the coils with? Better yet, put a generator on the crankshaft. Mattering on the size of the generator and the draw that you put on it, you might be able to get more out than you're putting in. From what I can see, you've got a decent pull on that crankshaft - at least a couple of pounds. If you have 2 pounds of force and we're talking about a 1/2" radius with 1200 RPM, that works out to 20 * 2/12 foot pounds/second. I might be wrong about the calculations, but the kinetic energy that you're talking about is approximately 5 foot pounds per second. 5 foot pounds/second works out to 7 watts worth of energy. Of course, this is only if you can maintain the 1200 RPM while putting a load on the crankshaft. If the draw remains the same, as long as you can keep your RPM over 200 RPM, you should be able to have it self-run. I think that your RPM will drop, but it's hard to say how far it will drop. If your pull is 1 pound, then you have to keep the RPM up around 400 RPM to have it self-run.
Solinear
Using the basic single coil Sotropa Motor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YOHSOK5kU4 I have hooked the induced current back to the source battery and have not had good results. By going to a capacitor and regulator I found that I could use the 2.25 watts (.5 amp x 45V) to fire the coil 4-5 times using a SPDT switch.
Once I get the 5 coil motor running again (replace the broken rockers) I will use the capacitor to fire a couple of the coils.
You say this is not the most efficient design, so how do you think it could be improved?
As far as a patent, by making my work public I am allowing anyone to construct and improve this motor.
Building is Learning.
Tropes
Quote from: tropes on February 04, 2010, 08:39:41 PM
Solinear
Using the basic single coil Sotropa Motor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YOHSOK5kU4 I have hooked the induced current back to the source battery and have not had good results. By going to a capacitor and regulator I found that I could use the 2.25 watts (.5 amp x 45V) to fire the coil 4-5 times using a SPDT switch.
Once I get the 5 coil motor running again (replace the broken rockers) I will use the capacitor to fire a couple of the coils.
You say this is not the most efficient design, so how do you think it could be improved?
As far as a patent, by making my work public I am allowing anyone to construct and improve this motor.
Building is Learning.
Tropes
How would I make it better? I would get rid of the load (the flywheel/crankshaft) during the repel phase. There are a few ways to engineer it, but you're pretty clever and I think you can manage it. Actually, you might be able to do it in a more clever way than I would - you're the only other person I've seen here who has come up with a design that isn't identical to 900 other designs that don't work, but somehow claiming that you can get it working.
Quote from: solinear on February 04, 2010, 08:53:00 PM
How would I make it better? I would A the load (the flywheel/crankshaft) during the repel phase. There are a few ways to engineer it, but you're pretty clever and I think you can manage it. Actually, you might be able to do it in a more clever way than I would - you're the only other person I've seen here who has come up with a design that isn't identical to 900 other designs that don't work, but somehow claiming that you can get it working.
Clever is often not enough. As an old drag racing engine builder I find it difficult to get past the flywheel connected to the crankshaft connected to the piston. Your engineering thoughts are welcome.
Tropes
Quote from: tropes on February 04, 2010, 10:23:42 PM
Clever is often not enough. As an old drag racing engine builder I find it difficult to get past the flywheel connected to the crankshaft connected to the piston. Your engineering thoughts are welcome.
Tropes
For now, I would just go with putting a generator on the crankshaft, possibly attached to the flywheel.
Quote from: solinear on February 05, 2010, 12:37:15 AM
"How would I make it better? I would get rid of the load (the flywheel/crankshaft) during the repel phase."
Solinear
The motor is also a generator as are all pulse motors.
I am more interested in how and why to get rid of the load during the repel phase.
Tropes
Quote from: tropes on February 05, 2010, 08:38:00 AM
Solinear
The motor is also a generator as are all pulse motors.
I am more interested in how and why to get rid of the load during the repel phase.
Tropes
Why? Because if there is no load during the repel phase, you're moving the weight of the magnets (and their carrier). If you're putting a load on, then you're moving the weight of the magnets plus the effective weight of the load, which requires more joules of energy, while all the energy that you get from attraction costs you no electrical energy while generating kinetic energy.
The goal is to get as much kinetic energy as you can from as little electrical energy as possible, so while you'll get some energy back from the repulsion, it won't be as much as you are putting in. Additionally, every joule worth of energy that you pull out of the system is a number of joules worth of energy that were put into the system somewhere else. Basically, on the attraction side of the cycle, you're getting x joules worth of energy from 0 joules worth of energy - it's all gain. During the repulsion side of the cycle, you're getting y joules worth of energy from (y * (1/efficiency rating)) joules of energy. Remove the load and your equation changes to simply expending the energy required to move the magnets back to the start (maximum distance) of the cycle. Since you can hit high levels of efficiency from reducing friction (over 90%) and your carriers probably weigh very little, you'll expend very little energy in moving them back to start.
Quote from: solinear on February 05, 2010, 10:34:25 AM
Why? Because if there is no load during the repel phase, you're moving the weight of the magnets (and their carrier). If you're putting a load on, then you're moving the weight of the magnets plus the effective weight of the load, which requires more joules of energy, while all the energy that you get from attraction costs you no A energy while generating kinetic energy.
The goal is to get as much kinetic energy as you can from as little electrical energy as possible, so while you'll get some energy back from the repulsion, it won't be as much as you are putting in. Additionally, every joule worth of energy that you pull out of the system is a number of joules worth of energy that were put into the system somewhere else. Basically, on the attraction side of the cycle, you're getting x joules worth of energy from 0 joules worth of energy - it's all gain. During the repulsion side of the cycle, you're getting y joules worth of energy from (y * (1/efficiency rating)) joules of energy. Remove the load and your equation changes to simply expending the energy required to move the magnets back to the start (maximum distance) of the cycle. Since you can hit high levels of efficiency from reducing friction (over 90%) and your carriers probably weigh very little, you'll expend very little energy in moving them back to start.
Very good explanation of the "WHY" but what about the "HOW"?
Quote from: tropes on February 05, 2010, 11:38:03 AM
Very good explanation of the "WHY" but what about the "HOW"?
Unfortunately, most of the methods I would use would require dramatic changes to your design.
In the meantime, using your '10 cylinder' design, you can just lower the voltage on the coils to the point where they aren't pushing. The end result is that all the real work is being done by the attraction phase of the other pairs. I'm not sure what the difference would be and it might not even be a positive impact.
Quote from: solinear on February 05, 2010, 11:43:16 AM
In the meantime, using your '10 cylinder' design, you can just lower the voltage on the coils to the point where they aren't pushing. The end result is that all the real work is being done by the attraction phase of the other pairs. I'm not sure what the difference would be and it might not even be a positive impact.
Because the two opposing pistons (magnets) are at their closest proximity to each other at one point while the others are attracted, it is necessary to fire that one coil. Otherwise all the magnets are in a state of balance and there is no motion. I will give this further thought. Thanks for the input.
Tropes
Quote from: tropes on February 05, 2010, 11:57:03 AM
Because the two opposing pistons (magnets) are at their closest proximity to each other at one point while the others are attracted, it is necessary to fire that one coil. Otherwise all the magnets are in a state of balance and there is no motion. I will give this further thought. Thanks for the input.
Tropes
What I'm saying is to have them fire on the same timer, just lower the voltage while they are charged, so that you're expending less energy.
Quote from: solinear on February 05, 2010, 12:43:53 PM
What I'm saying is to have them fire on the same timer, just lower the voltage while they are charged, so that you're expending less energy.
To clarify what I'm saying, don't change the 'repel' phase timer in any way, just adjust the voltage to a lower amount (1.5v from 3.5v or whatever you're currently using) and that will reduce the wattage consumed significantly, then attach a generator to the crankshaft, if you don't currently have one. I understand that your back-EMF makes the motor a generator, but it doesn't utilize as much of the torque as it could or as efficiently as it could.
Quote from: solinear on February 08, 2010, 12:41:18 PM
To clarify what I'm saying, don't change the 'repel' phase timer in any way, just adjust the voltage to a lower amount (1.5v from 3.5v or whatever you're currently using) and that will reduce the wattage consumed significantly, then attach a generator to the crankshaft, if you don't currently have one. I understand that your back-EMF makes the motor a generator, but it doesn't utilize as much of the torque as it could or as efficiently as it could.
I will experiment with different source voltage. The main source of generated power is not BEMF but current induced in the coil when the two magnets are drawn towards it.
Tropes
Quote from: tropes on February 08, 2010, 02:43:59 PM
I will experiment with different source voltage. The main source of generated power is not BEMF but current induced in the coil when the two magnets are drawn towards it.
Tropes
There is going to be a maximum amount of energy you can get from a single coil. If you attached a small generator (hand crank dynamo, maybe), you would get more energy out than you'll get from that single coil. Not to mention that you're inducing kinetic energy from the repel phase of your cycle, which ends up being basically 80% loss (small amount of energy goes into the flywheel, but not much). If you had a small generator attached, I think it would probably be closer to 20-40% loss, which is a pretty big difference.
BTW, do you have a diagram of your controller circuit, with the parts you used? I like your photointerrupter and need something similar for my design. I could use a commutator, but would rather use something more like what you have set up there.
Quote from: solinear on February 10, 2010, 10:33:23 AM
BTW, do you have a diagram of your controller circuit, with the parts you used? I like your photointerrupter and need something similar for my design. I could use a commutator, but would rather use something more like what you have set up there.
A simple circuit using a photointerrupter is found here: http://www.simplemotor.com/oimotor.htm
Tropes
You mentioned previously that the closer the magnets (pistons) got to each-other, the more voltage had to be applied to the coil to get it to push them apart again.
Is the relationship between pull force of the magnets (in lbs) or is it based on the flux density?
Quote from: solinear on February 11, 2010, 04:28:52 PM
You mentioned previously that the closer the magnets (pistons) got to each-other, the more voltage had to be applied to the coil to get it to push them apart again.
Is the relationship between pull force of the magnets (in lbs) or is it based on the flux density?
Solinear
The distance between the magnets is a factor in determining both pull force and flux density.
When you say I "mentioned previously" please give reference to the posting so I am able to better answer your question.
I would like very much to see your design.
Tropes
Quote from: tropes on January 12, 2007, 11:20:10 AM
Also, the PM pistons should not contact the EM core but should have an air gap between. There is a great difference in the force required to separate the two.
Thanks again
Peter
I guess I was reading quickly when I did read it. I'm not using a core with my design, so it's not really relevant for me. Does the distance between the EM and the PMs (in your design) make a difference in the amount of power you have to spend to repel them?
Quote from: solinear on February 11, 2010, 08:59:26 PM
I guess I was reading quickly when I did read it. I'm not using a core with my design, so it's not really relevant for me. Does the distance between the EM and the PMs (in your design) make a difference in the amount of power you have to spend to repel them?
The quote from Jan. 2007 was referring to a single piston repelled by a solid core coil.
Yes, the distance makes a difference.
Would you share your design which has no core? Perhaps it is an air core.
Tropes
I'm still doing some early testing with my design and want to do a lot of validation before I post anything about it. If you read through my posts in this thread though, I give some small hints.
I first came up with my concept about 8 months ago after dumping a couple dozen other designs and ended up chasing some dead-end ideas (or at least ideas that I didn't have the time/resources to chase further) and having incomplete understanding of magnetism and motors. I've made a couple of design changes and am ready to do some early testing over the next few weeks. Once I get that done, I'll talk to my business partner to see what he thinks before I give out any details.
Our designs have a number of conceptual similarities, but the implementation is completely different from a mechanical standpoint. That's probably why I post in this thread more than others - I think that, of the ideas on this site (including that Orbo stuff), yours has the most potential.
Quote from: solinear on February 12, 2010, 02:36:32 PM
I first came up with my concept about 8 months ago after dumping a couple dozen other designs and ended up chasing some dead-end ideas (or at least ideas that I didn't have the time/resources to chase further) and having incomplete understanding of magnetism and motors. I've made a couple of design changes and am ready to do some early testing over the next few weeks. Once I get that done, I'll talk to my business partner to see what he thinks before I give out any details.
I first came up with my concept in 2006 and after 7 prototypes and limited resources I'm finally getting my second multi-coil motor completed.
The learning curve has been steep since my knowledge was mainly mechanical (internal combustion engines).
Your reluctance to disclose details is probably due to patent concerns but unless you have very deep pockets you will exhaust yourself defending a patent. Unless a new idea comes from a major player like General Motors or Northrop Grumman the public will not buy in. Sadly, it's the "American Way".
Tropes
Quote from: tropes on February 12, 2010, 07:49:30 PM
I first came up with my concept in 2006 and after 7 prototypes and limited resources I'm finally getting my second multi-coil motor completed.
The learning curve has been steep since my knowledge was mainly mechanical (internal combustion engines).
Your reluctance to disclose details is probably due to patent concerns but unless you have very deep pockets you will exhaust yourself defending a patent. Unless a new idea comes from a major player like General Motors or Northrop Grumman the public will not buy in. Sadly, it's the "American Way".
Tropes
In 2006, I was still looking at gravity-based systems (had just started looking at overunity). Since then I've went through 100% PM systems (burned about 2 years looking at them occasionally in my evenings and weekends) and finally started looking at PM/EM systems. I'm primarily a troubleshooter, I look at a problem, then try and figure out why a design won't work, then either find a way around that problem or discard the concept and move on. There are a few designs that I have that are similar to yours (parallel attraction from a magnet), but I think they will be something that requires a lot of fine tuning - beyond what I would want to run through at this point in time. In the last 8 months I've been looking at EM/EM systems and I think they'll work, but it won't be as efficient as PM/EM systems could be.
As for patent fights, there are dozens of patents out there for non-standard EM motor designs. Most of them have expired and I haven't found any that are similar to mine (though I have found some with similarities to yours) yet. Also, with appropriate safeguards you can really make any challenges go away or be tossed out quickly. Get a highly public business figure to back you (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, the Google guys, etc...) and the fact that your announcement is almost immediately world news means that any challenges would have a HUGE hurdle to jump over and would seem like an opportunistic company trying to steal your design. Proper preparation and waiting until your patent is awarded means their hurdle is even higher. Do I think that there wouldn't be challenges? Absolutely not - there are going to be opportunists that try and either get bought off (free money) or steal your invention, but I think that, if you're careful, they would lose.
Quote from: solinear on February 14, 2010, 12:59:06 PM
As for patent fights, there are dozens of patents out there for non-standard EM motor designs. Most of them have expired and I haven't found any that are similar to mine (though I have found some with similarities to yours) yet. Also, with appropriate safeguards you can really make any challenges go away or be tossed out quickly. Get a highly public business figure to back you (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, the Google guys, etc...) and the fact that your announcement is almost immediately world news means that any challenges would have a HUGE hurdle to jump over and would seem like an opportunistic company trying to steal your design. Proper preparation and waiting until your patent is awarded means their hurdle is even higher. Do I think that there wouldn't be challenges? Absolutely not - there are going to be opportunists that try and either get bought off (free money) or steal your invention, but I think that, if you're careful, they would lose.
There is no hope in hell that someone like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates is going to back you financially before you've spent at least $100,000 of your own cash but I will not convince you of that until you go through the process yourself.
Tropes
Well, I think that having a working motor, the only way you're going to get any acceptance is if you have a big name sitting there next to you doing the actual announcement. Bill Gates or Steve Jobs? Maybe not, though Bill Gates did just come out stating that we need to get away from the carbon (coal, natural gas, petroleum, etc...) economy and move towards a solar/wind/renewable economy, so he might not be in the "no hope in hell" category, provided you have a working design.
That being said, we can get back to more relevant discussion - design and testing.
I have been doing some small tests and have noticed that it takes a LOT of power to repel 2 magnets that are in attraction. This might be because I'm using 2 thicker magnets (you're using thin magnets, right?), so their field extends quite a bit, compared to a pair of thinner magnets. I've got a few thoughts on what to do about this. I'll let you know more tomorrow evening about my tests with that.
After a small amount of testing, repelling a magnet with metal on the other side (think of your 2-piston motor with 1 magnet and 1 piece of metal) and, while the pull force is around half (actually around 45%), the repel wattage is less than a tenth.
2 magnets in attraction:
56.7 volts @ 14 ohms = 4 amps, 230 watts - not enough.
1 magnet with steel:
9.15 volts @ 14 ohms = .65 amps, 6 watts - not enough
18.3 volts @ 14 ohms = 1.3 amps, 24 watts - more than enough
I'm going to have to look this over and do some thinking. I might test with 12 volts to see how that works (12v @ 14 ohms = .85 amps, 10.3 watts).
I need to wind some more electromagnets, both thicker and wider (.9" wide, .25" thick) to see how much of a difference that makes.
Quote from: solinear on February 15, 2010, 10:47:12 PM
Well, I think that having a working motor, the only way you're going to get any acceptance is if you have a big name sitting there next to you doing the actual announcement. Bill Gates or Steve Jobs? Maybe not, though Bill Gates did just come out stating that we need to get away from the carbon (coal, natural A, petroleum, etc...) economy and move towards a solar/wind/renewable economy, so he might not be in the "no hope in hell" category, provided you have a working design.
That being said, we can get back to more relevant discussion - design and testing.
I have been doing some small tests and have noticed that it takes a LOT of power to repel 2 magnets that are in attraction. This might be because I'm using 2 thicker magnets (you're using thin magnets, right?), so their field extends quite a bit, compared to a pair of thinner magnets. I've got a few thoughts on what to do about this. I'll let you know more tomorrow evening about my tests with that.
These are the magnets: http://www.kjmagnetics.com/
Part# DX8C-N52.
Check out http://www.theowlnest.com/hopgy.html
Tropes
Quote from: solinear on February 15, 2010, 11:17:34 PM
I'm going to have to look this over and do some thinking. I might test with 12 volts to see how that works (12v @ 14 ohms = .85 amps, 10.3 watts).
I need to wind some more electromagnets, both thicker and wider (.9" wide, .25" thick) to see how much of a difference that makes.
It is very important to match the coil to the magnets. Spend time on this aspect of the motor. 2 magnets on each side of a coil act differently than one especially when they are in motion.
Tropes
Quote from: tropes on February 15, 2010, 11:26:51 PM
These are the magnets: http://www.kjmagnetics.com/
Part# DX8C-N52.
Check out http://www.theowlnest.com/hopgy.html
Tropes
Much more powerful than I had expected. Are you still using an iron/steel core EM or are you using an air core?
Quote from: solinear on February 16, 2010, 12:15:58 AM
Much more powerful than I had expected. Are you still using an iron/steel core EM or are you using an air core?
As I said, "It is very important to match the coil to the magnets". I have used both iron and air core.
Tropes
Quote from: tropes on February 16, 2010, 09:32:42 AM
As I said, "It is very important to match the coil to the magnets". I have used both iron and air core.
Tropes
Are you currently using air or iron core though? Due to the peculiarities of PM on iron core EMs, I think that it would work better with an air core, but I'm curious what your experience has been.
As for matching coils to the magnets, I'm not sure exactly how you mean that - build an EM that produces the same force as the PM has or... ?
Quote from: solinear on February 16, 2010, 10:21:11 AM
Are you currently using air or iron core though? Due to the peculiarities of PM on iron core EMs, I think that it would work better with an air core, but I'm curious what your experience has been.
As for matching A to the magnets, I'm not sure exactly how you mean that - build an EM that produces the same force as the PM has or... ?
Since you and I are the only contributers to this thread taking up space from the more popular Ozzie thread, perhaps you should send a personal message to me.
Tropes