The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )

[MarkE]

Resistance is the enemy for a pulse motor drive coil because it represents lost energy as waste heat.  So low resistance is preferable.  If you have few turns with larger gauge wire you have less resistance but a weaker magnetic field compared to more turns for the same current.  It's all a trade off between resistance, the strength of the magnetic field, and the rise time for the current to really start flowing, and nature of the rotor and magnet configuration, etc.  So there is no simple and easy answer.  I can't tell you precisely what will give you more losses in an identical setup.

However, nothing is stopping an experimenter from doing some tests if they want.  You could make some kind of multi-tap coil and try making measurements at different tap settings, etc.

My gut feel is telling me that a lower-resistance lower-turn coil would be better overall.  However, like Mark has mentioned already, with a lower-resistance lower-inductance coil, you would probably have to chop the main drive pulse into a series of shorter pulses to get good push on the rotor with minimum resistive losses.  The shorter pulses are needed to make sure that the current does not get too high.

MileHigh

As it turns out for a given magnetic field strength the power loss is theoretically almost completely independent of the wire diameter and resistance.  The loss follows I²*R, but the required I for a given field strength is inversely proportional to the number of turns N.  The number of turns that can be fit into a winding window is inversely proportional to the wire cross-sectional area, and R is proportional to the length of the wire, hence the number of turns and inversely proportional to the area.  In a first approximation where we ignore the proportion of wire area taken up by the insulation:

So:  P_LOSS = (K₁/N)²*K₂*N² = K₁²*K₂

[MileHigh]

It's my believe and interpretation of what i see wich i never try to impose on the ones asking the questions...it's their decision to decide if they are gonna go with it or not and that's the way it should be...

LOL...you are beating around the bush here...
Pulse motor running at a certain rpm nice and steady with a Mosfet/Hall circuit and when i load it with a coil lenz effect takes place and the drive see that effect...but according to you there are some other things/factors also placing a load on the drive side and that's one of the reasons i see the input increase... ...lol...you are very funny...and it makes no sence to me...lol

Anyway, you have the right to believe what you feel is right and so i do...
Btw,Lenz effect can be delayed or slowed down... ...yep, i know already...it's not true...lol
Cheers

There are no "interpretations" or "beliefs" when it comes to trying to understand how a pulse motor works and understanding its performance characteristics.  I am not beating around the bush.  I summarized what I said in two sentences, and if you look back about two pages the detailed reasons are all there explained point by point.  There is nothing funny about it, it's all there if people want to learn and it all makes perfect sense.

No indeed, there no "delayed" or "slowed down" Lenz effect.  If you or Timnan disagree, then you have to back up your statements with examples and analysis.  It's the way the world of electronics works.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Indeed TJ,but there are many here that will disagree. The fact is that not only can it be delayed,it can be completely reversed so as to add torque to the prime mover. The proof is in the fact that an electromagnetic field dose have a speed limit--it dose take some time to develope,as the speed is not infinite. Man has done many test to confirm the speed of light,but what about the speed of a magnetic field?-is it faster than the speed of light,or slower . One little hint is that if we apply a heavy load(low resistance) to the inductive kickback of an inductor when it becomes open circuit,the magnetic field around that inductor will collap's slower than if we applied a lite high resistive load to the inductive kickback.

Timman, I am surprised at reading this from you, you seem to be all over the map.  You can't take Lenz drag and convert it into Tinman's push!  It doesn't work like that.  Any time you state something radical like that you would have to back it up with some hard experimental evidence.  The "speed of a magnetic field" is the speed of light.

One little hint is that if we apply a heavy load(low resistance) to the inductive kickback of an inductor when it becomes open circuit,the magnetic field around that inductor will collap's slower than if we applied a lite high resistive load to the inductive kickback.

The slow speed of the collapse of a magnetic field around a coil when discharging through a low resistance load has absolutely nothing to do with the speed of a magnetic field's propagation into 3D space, which is the speed of light.

Dose the magnetic field invert when the inductor becomes open,and a load is applied to the inductive kickback,or dose it remain the same field orientation. Is it the voltage polarity of that inductor that determonds the magnetic field orientation,or the direction of current flow through that inductor?.

I am really surprised that you wrote the above.  The orientation remains the same, and it has nothing to do with the voltage at all.  It is the direction of current that determines the orientation of the magnetic field.  It's like you are rolling back the clock five years here.  You have to know this stuff by now.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

As it turns out for a given magnetic field strength the power loss is theoretically almost completely independent of the wire diameter and resistance.  The loss follows I²*R, but the required I for a given field strength is inversely proportional to the number of turns N.  The number of turns that can be fit into a winding window is inversely proportional to the wire cross-sectional area, and R is proportional to the length of the wire, hence the number of turns and inversely proportional to the area.  In a first approximation where we ignore the proportion of wire area taken up by the insulation:

So:  P_LOSS = (K₁/N)²*K₂*N² = K₁²*K₂

Thanks Mark, I kind of suspected that it might be a zero-sum type of game.  So to me that means you are back to a timing issue again.  In other words pick a coil inductance that gives you a magnetic field of a certain strength within a certain amount of time so that you can match it with the attributes of your rotor and the speeds that you want to run at, etc.  I suppose you are always thinking about not overloading the battery either because the battery becomes less efficient at higher current draws.

Here is what would be a good pulse motor competition but I think it's beyond what you will see around here:  I am going to assume at typical true-RMS meter requires a 25 Hz or higher periodic waveform to work properly.  Let's say every participant has to put 3 watts AC into a load resistor with a value of their choice.  This comes from a generator coil and the waveform period has to correspond to 25 Hz or higher.  So the competition would be to build a pulse motor to do that, and the winner is the person that builds the pulse motor that requires the least amount of average input power.  There would have to be near-zero direct coupling between the drive coil(s) and the generator coil and every competitor in the contest would have to prove this.

The other good thing about this competition is that the back-EMF spike from the drive coil is now pretty much useless and of no importance.  So people would have rethink that one-track-mind business about collecting the back-spike into a capacitor.

A good competition where you have to agonize about minimizing your input power for the same output power.  It would be really cool and it's a reflection of the real world where engineers struggle with that issue every day when they design portable electronics devices.

MileHigh

[Jimboot]

Here's a shot of the latest build. Have to work on the rotor steels next and then the coils