Quote from: aether22 on February 29, 2008, 01:43:47 AM
Thane mentioned to me that using 6 or so magnets is fine, would be interested to hear Thanes answer to your questions too.

EVERYTING DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU WANT TO DISPLAY.
AN 18 POLE ROTOR WILL SLOW DOWN MORE RAPIDLY IN CONVENTIONAL MODE BECAUSE OF THE TIGHTER MAGNET SPACING AND RESULTING BACK EMF INDUCED MAGNETIC DRAG.
I STARTED WITH AN 18 POLE ROTOR ONLY BECAUSE I WAS EMPLOYING MY MOTOR AT FULL INPUT POWER - THEN I GOT SMART AND NOW USE A VARIAC.

A 6 POLE ROTOR WILL ACCELERATE QUICKER BECAUSE OF THE REDUCED FLYWHEEL INERTIA AND IT WILL DECELERATE QUICKER WHEN THE LOAD IS DISCONNECTED.

Flywheel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flywheels resist changes in their rotational speed, which helps steady the rotation of the shaft when a fluctuating torque is exerted on it by its power source such as a piston-based (reciprocating) engine, or when the load placed on it is intermittent (such as a piston pump).

Quote from: nightlife on February 26, 2008, 10:25:06 PM
innovation_station, how many amps of the 140 volts did the capasitor have?

Why haven't you utilized that concept?

Am I missing something?

dont think so

M.O.T tech application 1

JUST CUZ I CAN 

ist!!

Quote from: OilBarren on February 29, 2008, 06:33:03 AM

YES YOU DO (GET ACCELERATION) THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS YOUR AC OUTPUT SINE WAVE WILL STAY ON ONE SIDE OF THE ZERO AXIS. 

Thane

Actually you won't, it's impossible.
But it will look less like a sine wave on an oscilloscope, you get a double hump arrangement, but there will be equal area under the 0 line as above.

 Actually you won't, it's impossible.[/quote]

WHAT'S IMPOSSIBLE?

Quote from: KA9Q on February 28, 2008, 06:29:52 AM
Here's an ultra-simple sanity check. It's so simple I can't understand why no one (to my knowledge) has suggested it.

Because the coils in his machine are either shorted or open, they produce no power. So if it provides any benefit at all, it would be by accelerating the motor past its normal no-load speed, i.e., without the apparatus in place.

So just remove the entire apparatus from the motor! Get rid of the electromagnets, the rotating disk with the magnets, everything. Leave just the motor, its drive circuit,  and the motor speed sensor. Apply power to the motor as usual. How fast does it run?

If the motor runs slower without the apparatus than with it, then it may be argued that the apparatus provides some sort of benefit to the motor, at least when the coil switches are closed. But if the motor runs faster *without* the apparatus, then it's obvious that the apparatus is a net power drain that only slows the motor down. It may slow it down a lot with the switches open and just a little with the switches closed, but in either case it's a net drain on the motor.

I'm a big fan of simple, but I recognize the problems with this method as was referenced by comments above. To counter those issues we could build a "super simple" test of total energy - run the device with a purely mechanical nonmagnetic light load ex. a simple string winder -  place a wooden spool against the motor wheel with a length of string while housed in the "apparatus" using a carefully measured constant amount of energy (hopefully a small battery pack for consistency)... and measure how much string was rolled up. Then remove the motor from the apparatus and run the same test. If the spool rolls more string it is more efficient, if not it is less. This should avoid all of the issues of hysterisis and proper power measurement...