Sharing ideas on how to make a more efficent motor using Flyback (MODERATED)

[shylo]

Hi MH,
I liked those analogies , I found them very helpful, Thank-you.
You also mentioned something about ; how the more components you add to a circuit the more loss you will suffer, is this correct?
I have to disagree.
artv

[gotoluc]

About two weeks ago I spent a couple of days explaining more or less the same stuff about inductors and capacitors and I gave a half a dozen coil-flywheel explanations in great detail and at the expenditure of a lot of effort.

I clearly got almost nowhere with that thankless endeavour and I am almost certain that I will never make the considerable effort and invest the time to do it again.

I noticed and there will always be some individuals that this is wasted on.  I just treat it as community service.
There seems to be this intuitive conviction that inductors are the best energy receivers for inductors, despite that life is full of examples demonstrating that opposites complement each other the best....like hand in glove.

BTW:  I monkeyed off the flywheel examples from you.  Grumage could probably even make instructional videos out of them if he did not have to pay for materials.

You guys create your own situations with your know it all attitudes, then claim no one bothers listening to me and look at all the time I've wasted when you actually have not contributed anything that will improve what is being tested or worked on.

Do you for a minute think about how much time I've contributed in building and testing ideas because you know it all are convinced, or should I say brain washed there is no alternative?

Run along now and find someone else to play your gratifying games.
Don't bother posting a justification as they will be deleted. However, if you wish to contribute something that will improve what I'm working on, by all means do. Then you may get as many gratifications as I get for building and taking the time to share the real results

Regards

Luc

[gyulasun]

About two weeks ago I spent a couple of days explaining more or less the same stuff about inductors and capacitors and I gave a half a dozen coil-flywheel explanations in great detail and at the expenditure of a lot of effort.

I clearly got almost nowhere with that thankless endeavour and I am almost certain that I will never make the considerable effort and invest the time to do it again.

Hi MileHigh,

No harm intended but then what shall I say in connection with You?  Because I already wrote to you on the permeability of permanent magnets and still you did not recall it at once, only later when I mentioned it. And also I mention this debate on the magnetic lines of flux for the facing like poles case, you disregard measured experience.

Here are two links on the repel pole bar magnets for your consideration. I consider the meaning of the texts as correct and they confirm other people's and my own experience.

http://www.homofaciens.com/technics-electrical-engineering-magnets_en_navion.htm

http://my.execpc.com/~rhoadley/field04.htm

I do not think I continue this "repel flux cancellation debate" with you, I clearly desribed my stance on this in my recent posts, it is up to you what you accept or do not accept of course, I understand this and also that you make assumptions and insist on examples which compare a weaker magnet with a stronger one: it is obvious that the stronger may change the weaker magnet's strength, poles etc.  Why don't you consider testing some real magnets instead of doing false thought experiements?  Again, no harm intended.

Gyula

[tinman]

Hi MileHigh,

No harm intended but then what shall I say in connection with You?  Because I already wrote to you on the permeability of permanent magnets and still you did not recall it at once, only later when I mentioned it. And also I mention this debate on the magnetic lines of flux for the facing like poles case, you disregard measured experience.

Here are two links on the repel pole bar magnets for your consideration. I consider the meaning of the texts as correct and they confirm other people's and my own experience.

http://www.homofaciens.com/technics-electrical-engineering-magnets_en_navion.htm

http://my.execpc.com/~rhoadley/field04.htm

I do not think I continue this "repel flux cancellation debate" with you, I clearly desribed my stance on this in my recent posts, it is up to you what you accept or do not accept of course, I understand this and also that you make assumptions and insist on examples which compare a weaker magnet with a stronger one: it is obvious that the stronger may change the weaker magnet's strength, poles etc.  Why don't you consider testing some real magnets instead of doing false thought experiements?  Again, no harm intended.

Gyula

Gyula & Luc

You are both correct-there is no cancellation of magnetic fields when like poles are pointed toward each other. In fact,something else happens-the opposite of cancellation. The two combined fields actually create a situation where the pull force from that bucking field is around 3 times that of what you would get from a single magnet alone !! but you have to be careful with what your seeing here in regards to how your test setup is setup !!. For example-if a single magnet was able to create a pull force !of say 100 grams! on a piece of magnetic material at a set distance of say 10mm,then by adding a second magnet of equal size and strength directly opposite to the first so as like poles face each other,then the pull force on that same piece of magnetic material will be 3x that given by the single magnet alone.

But what if the two magnets are placed in the same positions under the same test,but where as the two magnets now have the opposite poles facing each other?. Will the two magnets now still apply a pull force on the magnetic material that is 3x that of a single magnet alone ?. The answer will tell you if this bucking field setup is any better or more efficient than a !!standard!! setup.

I have done these test,but i will let everyone place there bets first.
Some of you will be surprised,and some will see nothing out of the ordinary. 

Then there is the second thing to consider.
If we have two identical electromagnets/inductors as in Luc's setup,dose having those two inductors in bucking mode effect the amount of inductive kickback energy that can be gained from those two inductors,as apposed from that if they were in a standard (not bucking) mode,where unlike poles are formed when facing each other ?.

There are also things to consider when looking at Luc's setup--is there really a bucking field taking place-even though his two primary coils produce magnetic fields that are like poles facing each other?. It is my belief that with the E core configuration that there is no bucking fields in the true sense of the meaning-that being the two like fields distorting each other in the shape of a squashed balloon.  I picture the fields to be that of the diagram bellow,where the fields must form loops  due to the E core configuration,and the size of the stator block on the wheel.

[gyulasun]

Hi Brad,

Thanks and my two "cents" on your first question:  it depends on what position the iron piece has with respect to the stator cores in the moment when the current to the coils is switched on and then what position it has when the current is off?  When the iron piece starts approaching and entering into the gap between the facing cores say from the bottom and moves upward,  first it sounds good if both flux poles can close via the iron because pulling from two unlike poles gives stronger pull in general versus a single pole pull  BUT if current is still ON when the leading edge of the iron piece is about to leave the center column of the E core then a cogging possibility may occur between say the lower and middle prongs if the iron entered at 6 o'clock and moves upward.
In the position you drew the iron piece in your attached drawing, a second cogging point may occur if the current is still ON, and the flux could close via the iron piece at all the 4 routes you indicated. This would not be good to let it happen.

So while I agree with the quasi 3 times more force with the 2 like poles presence (when no opposite poles are present) but when the latter are present and the iron piece is not yet started to enter the gap then the 3 times more pull force may change to less.  Thanks for pointing to the presence of the opposite pole.

I will try to answer the rest tomorrow, I have to finish now.

Gyula