Gyroscopic Inertia Generator

[MileHigh]

Scorch:

Thanks for the information and the picture.

I am going to make a prediction for you.  I am assuming that the system is wired so that the set of coils in the first disk is independent of the coils in the second disk.   So you have the option of pulsing the motor coils on "one side" only if you want to.   I am also pretty sure that pulsing on one side only will not affect the bearing and there will be no increased bearing friction.

The prediction is that motor will perform better if you only pulse on one side.  Say for example if you do a basic test where you look at motor RPM vs. input power.  You will get higher RPMs for the same input power when you pulse on one side only as opposed to pulsing on both sides.  It's very likely that many other performance metrics that you can come up with will show better performance if you only pulse on one side.

So when you finish your build and start testing, I hope that you will try that basic "RPM vs. input power, once side pulsing vs. two side pulsing"  test suggested above.

MileHigh

[TinselKoala]

The ability to put both poles of the magnets and coils to work (except for the ends of the stack) is the one thing about this kind of design that is "better" than single-pole PMs like the MHOP. But is this feature implemented correctly, or even optimally? Eventually one winds up with a design that strongly resembles ordinary "can" DC motors. Even good strong and efficient "inside out" brushless DC motors, so called "outrunners", suffer from this pole problem, where only one pole of the coils interacts with only one pole of the rotor magnets. Making a vertical sandwich like the Quanta designs is one attempt at a cure, even though it "orphans" the poles that are on the outside of the sandwich. Perhaps a better way to do it would be to wrap horseshoes (U-shaped cores) around the edge of the rotor disc, and wind coils on the outer portions of the horseshoes. This way both poles of the coil will affect both poles of a rotor magnet embedded in the disk Quanta-style.

[MileHigh]

I am making some basic assumptions about the timing and the energizing of the coils.  I think there is a reed switch to control the pulsing of the coils. The reed switch is governed by small separate magnets that concentrically spin somewhere else in the motor.  You can move the reed switch around to adjust he timing, add your own little biasing magnets, etc.

It looks like all of the coils will pulse at the same time, six per left "slab" and six per right "slab."  It may very well be more flexible than that because most of the Quanta Magnetics motors have some kind of a patch field for rewiring things.

But I am guessing that the basic default mode of operation is that 6 coils + 6 coils all pulse at the same time, and there are six pulses per revolution.  The physical build has the left and right energizing coils facing each other with the six-magnet main rotor spinning in the center between the two slabs that hold the drive coils.  Hence my thought that you will get better performance with only only one 6-coil "slab" pulsing.

[Scorch]

Hey MileHigh. 

Yes; there is a timing disk and reed switch controlling a solid state relay part # SDP4020D.
Reed switch types have varied in these designs but it has been discovered that a reed relay actually performs better in this application and the current version is an OMR-C-105H.

And this particular, G1, design does not, necessarily, energize all coils for each magnet six times per revolution.
The timing disk does have 6 holes for 6 pulses but there are tuning choices to run from anywhere between 1 to 6 pulses per revolution depending on desired performance.
And, yes, both timing and pulse width may be adjusted by moving reed switch in or out or around the timing disk.

And this system has at least nine tuning parameters so I am expecting some challenges just trying to tune this experiment. 
(See image capture from youtube comments.)
And there are even external influences including position of device in relation to magnetic north and location of device in relation to the junctions and lines of the icosahedron shaped core of this planet and its effects on the source field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic_grid
http://cs.sou.edu/~sahrk/dgg/pubs/gdggs03.pdf
Also see or hear:
www.amazon.com/Source-Field-Investigations-Civilizations-Prophecies/dp/0452297974/
(Includes references to scientific investigations, studies, papers, journals and etcetera.)

And, because this system incorporates a substantial flywheel storing kinetic energy resulting in a three phrase alternator that continues charging even when pulse motor is off, one does the option to only run pulse motor intermittently through additional control circuitry (not part of this experimental kit) such as a manual switch, 555 timer, voltage, frequency, or RPM based sensor and control system, or whatever.

This is one of the many interesting things about this design.
I have built many pulse motors but have never incorporated a large flywheel or a high efficiency, three phase, alternator that fits INSIDE the motor rotor.
Think of a standard automotive alternator that is actually mounted INSIDE a high efficiency motor.

It would appear this provides for the highest possible 'leverage' (mechanical advantage) for the motor to turn the alternator when the motor rotor has effectively been replaced with an alternator at its core.
Therefore requires less electrical and magnetic effort to turn the alternator as compared to something more conventional such as a belt or direct drive between a motor and alternator of similar diameter.

The farther away from the central shaft you can locate the coil and rotor magnet; the more mechanical advantage-leverage there is for that same coil and magnet to actually turn that shaft.

This one of the great advantages of a disk design. But, of course, there may be limits to this.
Because the larger your disk; the more you have fill that space with larger coils and magnets or simply add additional coils and magnets...
Of course, with the Muller/Wood disk motor design, there is an "offset" number of magnets to coil pairs so that coils are pulsing sequentially and I believe this also has advantages and we may see this design more often in the future.

And, yes, some of the other QM designs, including the Q2 and Q3, do have a patchwork design in which each of the 6 coil pairs have independent bridge rectifiers for better capture of BEMF.
The "T" series and "G1" does not incorporate this complicated patchwork of wiring into 6 rectifiers.
And I am very thankful for this because that patchwork is a very time consuming pain in tail to build... 

I intend to build the alternator stator next but not sure when I will begin that.
Have lots of other priorities around here. . .
Hopefully within the next few days but I do have to tackle a major plumbing project soon to replace a bathtub faucet in addition to everything else I am trying to complete, before winter, including cutting down and processing no less than 7 large, dead, elm trees on this land which is what I have been occasionally working on this summer... by myself... while trying NOT to kill my vessel (body) in the process...

Kindest regards;

}:>

I am making some basic assumptions about the timing and the energizing of the coils.  I think there is a reed switch to control the pulsing of the coils. The reed switch is governed by small separate magnets that concentrically spin somewhere else in the motor.  You can move the reed switch around to adjust he timing, add your own little biasing magnets, etc.

It looks like all of the coils will pulse at the same time, six per left "slab" and six per right "slab."  It may very well be more flexible than that because most of the Quanta Magnetics motors have some kind of a patch field for rewiring things.

But I am guessing that the basic default mode of operation is that 6 coils + 6 coils all pulse at the same time, and there are six pulses per revolution.  The physical build has the left and right energizing coils facing each other with the six-magnet main rotor spinning in the center between the two slabs that hold the drive coils.  Hence my thought that you will get better performance with only only one 6-coil "slab" pulsing.

[Scorch]

Hey Milehigh. 

There does not appear to be an option to pulse just one side but there are options to pulse anywhere from one to six times per revolution.

Kindest regards;

}:>

Scorch:

Thanks for the information and the picture.

I am going to make a prediction for you.  I am assuming that the system is wired so that the set of coils in the first disk is independent of the coils in the second disk.   So you have the option of pulsing the motor coils on "one side" only if you want to.   I am also pretty sure that pulsing on one side only will not affect the bearing and there will be no increased bearing friction.

The prediction is that motor will perform better if you only pulse on one side.  Say for example if you do a basic test where you look at motor RPM vs. input power.  You will get higher RPMs for the same input power when you pulse on one side only as opposed to pulsing on both sides.  It's very likely that many other performance metrics that you can come up with will show better performance if you only pulse on one side.

So when you finish your build and start testing, I hope that you will try that basic "RPM vs. input power, once side pulsing vs. two side pulsing"  test suggested above.

MileHigh