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

[gotoluc]

Thanks Brad for taking the time to post your opinion and test experience.

I do agree that my design may not necessarily represent a true bucking coil configuration. Only real tests will prove if it can work in this configuration or not.
I've just finished building the higher RPM 2nd test device and presently testing and fine tuning.
A video demo should be released in the next day or two.

Stay tuned for the Bucking Field truth

Luc

[MileHigh]

Gyula,

From your first link:

The field strength around two magnets arranged in parallel is boosted if the north poles are pointing into the same direction. In an aintiparallel arrangement (the north pole of one magnet is pointing into the direction of the south pole of the second magnet) the field strength is weakened (nearly to zero at greater distances).

What do you think "boosted" and "weakened" mean in the above quote?  They are just euphemisms for vector addition and vector subtraction.  Your link is at too much of an entry level to use the proper terminology.  Look at the three screen captures I attached.

So, what happens when two like poles face each other?  Does common sense get thrown out the window and instead the magnetic fields are "diverted" and "compressed?"  Or is it something like as long as the poles are not facing each other, then there is vector addition, but when the poles are facing each other there is "diversion and compression?"  If that's true, when does that transition from vector addition to "diversion and compression" take place?  At what angle between the facing poles?  At what distance?  At what strength?

Do you see the trap that you seem to be falling into?  There is vector addition - period.  Like I already told you the net magnetic field after the vector addition is only creating the appearance, or let's say "illusion" of "diversion and compression."

MileHigh

[gyulasun]

Hi Brad,

Here is my answer to your second question, I qoute your question:

"Then there is the second thing to consider.
If we have two identical electromagnets/inductors as in Luc's setup, does 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 ?"

Answer:  The paralled bucking coils have a residual inductance value which is less than any of the individual coils and additionally depends on the air gap between the facing cores too (the smaller the gap, the lower the resulting inductance is).

So the residual inductance as Luc measured was changing roughly between 1.2 mH and 2.4 mH as it moves in the gap between the ON and OFF moments.  The latter value (2.4 mH) is to be considered for estimating the inductive kickback energy I think.

In the not bucking mode, even if the gap is the same as in the bucking mode, the resulting inductance of the coils would still be higher than the 2.4 mH at switch-off,  so higher inductance would result in higher stored hence collapsing energy (assuming identical input currents for both cases). 
So in brief, the inductors in bucking mode affect (reduce) the amount of inductive kickback versus the non bucking inductors I think.

Gyula

[tinman]

Hi Brad,

Here is my answer to your second question, I qoute your question:

"Then there is the second thing to consider.
If we have two identical electromagnets/inductors as in Luc's setup, does 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 ?"

Answer:  The paralled bucking coils have a residual inductance value which is less than any of the individual coils and additionally depends on the air gap between the facing cores too (the smaller the gap, the lower the resulting inductance is).

So the residual inductance as Luc measured was changing roughly between 1.2 mH and 2.4 mH as it moves in the gap between the ON and OFF moments.  The latter value (2.4 mH) is to be considered for estimating the inductive kickback energy I think.

In the not bucking mode, even if the gap is the same as in the bucking mode, the resulting inductance of the coils would still be higher than the 2.4 mH at switch-off,  so higher inductance would result in higher stored hence collapsing energy (assuming identical input currents for both cases). 
So in brief, the inductors in bucking mode affect (reduce) the amount of inductive kickback versus the non bucking inductors I think.

Gyula

OK,so piece by piece we put this together.
If we have put in the same amount of energy in each case,but we capture less electrical energy out from the bucking coil's-where did that lost energy go?-it cant just disappear.  I also stated that two magnets in a bucking configuration triples the pull force of that of 1 magnet on a magnetic material that is close by. Is it conceivable that this lost inductive kickback energy from the bucking coils was transformed into mechanical energy by way of a larger/stronger magnetic field produced by the bucking coils?.

The good news is,i have all the equipment to conduct a controlled test,where as we can put to rest once and for all if a bucking magnetic field is more efficient than that of a standard magnetic field.

My only concern with such a setup where soft iron laminates are used,is the chance that the core will slowly become magnetized it self. So throughout the test, i will switch polarities every so often to try and reduce the residual magnetism in the cores.

My setup will be smaller than Luc's MOT core setup,as i do not have two MOT's the same size. I do how ever have bulk amount of surplus transformers that have the bridged E core transformer inside them. It will be an all day project,but set up right,we will be able to carry out many controlled tests to see which gives us our best bang for buck-so to speak. I guess the best way to do this would be to design some sort of pulse motor based around the E core transformer setup,and use a small generator as the bearing for the rotor. This way we can apply a known load across the generator,and carry out the many tests to obtain the best results.

Ok,enough said--time to go build.


Brad

[shylo]

Get rid of all steel

artv