Magnetic Overunity Motor Design

[TinselKoala]

Nice work.

The fact that current is independent of load is characteristic of many pulse motor designs, if not all of them. Don't let this simple fact lead you astray. Many of us have pulse motors of different various designs that illustrate this. The situation with pulse motors is very very different from wound-armature, commutated motors or even brushless DC or synchronous AC motors. Especially if the motor's pulse is controlled by outside settings like from a microprocessor.


"attraction vice repulsion"
Do you mean you are using attraction instead of repulsion, or that you are using _both_ attraction and repulsion (repultraction) ? The latter is the most efficient as it does not waste half the field of the interacting magnets.

[travin69]

Update #5:

Prony brake set up and tested.  Horrible results.  Very inefficient.  10 watts in, 0.5J out.  This was using attraction forces between the drive coil/magnet and the rotor magnets.  I was very peved to say the least. 

I decided to move back to repulsion between the drive coil/magnet.  Initial prony brake test was 5x more weight with no "tweaking" and same loaded rpm.  I think repulsion might be where its at.  Adjusted the secondary coil to a new position in relation to the rotor; gave me some extra rpm.

Set up magnetic thrust bearings due to the drive magnet pushing the rotor out of alignment.  So far so good.  Also saw an increase in rpm.

More prony brake tests coming up tonight/tomorrow.  Really hoping for at least 80-90% EFF.  If not, I am scraping this design and moving on to my next (see below).

Tinsel:

I agree about trying to use both repulsion and attraction or at least using both poles, however, my current design doesn't lend itself to that at this point.  I do have an idea for that but it will take some major changes, new rotor, and new coil design.  My 2.0 design will use both poles in a repulsion - repulsion arrangement.  I am so far into this design that I couldn't not finish and get some raw data and just do some easy testing of my major design ideas.

[Liberty]

Update #5:

Prony brake set up and tested.  Horrible results.  Very inefficient.  10 watts in, 0.5J out.  This was using attraction forces between the drive coil/magnet and the rotor magnets.  I was very peved to say the least. 

I decided to move back to repulsion between the drive coil/magnet.  Initial prony brake test was 5x more weight with no "tweaking" and same loaded rpm.  I think repulsion might be where its at.  Adjusted the secondary coil to a new position in relation to the rotor; gave me some extra rpm.

Set up magnetic thrust bearings due to the drive magnet pushing the rotor out of alignment.  So far so good.  Also saw an increase in rpm.

More prony brake tests coming up tonight/tomorrow.  Really hoping for at least 80-90% EFF.  If not, I am scraping this design and moving on to my next (see below).

Tinsel:

I agree about trying to use both repulsion and attraction or at least using both poles, however, my current design doesn't lend itself to that at this point.  I do have an idea for that but it will take some major changes, new rotor, and new coil design.  My 2.0 design will use both poles in a repulsion - repulsion arrangement.  I am so far into this design that I couldn't not finish and get some raw data and just do some easy testing of my major design ideas.

In my experience, I have found that if you really want to achieve high efficiency in a motor, you will want to avoid using a coil directly in the motor.  I have made a few (out of the box thinking) models that also use magnets in the rotor and stator.  I remove the coil from being directly in the motor by using a voice coil actuator.  My motor in the video, while under power 100% of the time, ran about 70% efficient using 2 - 12" speakers for actuators.  (Measured by prony brake method).  It would quite likely exceed 100% electrical efficiency with a proper actuator and precise pulse timing.  I calculate realistically, that about 70-80% of the input power could be conserved without sacrifice of output power from the motor.  (Most of the motor torque comes from the permanent magnets in this design). 

All the best to you and your team.

Liberty

[TinselKoala]

@travin...
Well... at least you discovered why pulse motors don't show an increase in current under load!!

Carry on, I'd like to see your prony brake setup, and of course when your mods are done, let's see how it works!

[travin69]

Update #6:

New data - 0.919 J at 475 RPM output; 9.4 Watts input.  Looks like I doubled the efficiency but still way too low.  That is basically 11% efficiency if my calcs are correct.  Better than before.

I think I will play with the timing and voltage some more when I wake up.  Motor 2.0 might get started sooner than I thought.

Tinsel:

I was wrong about the current not changing.  After some research and time trials at load, the current does in fact go up slightly.  This is apparently due to the time constant of the coils changing based on the frequency of the pulsed dc (according to the EE I spoke with).

Liberty:

Watched your videos.  Interesting.  Are you still pursuing that motor research?