Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

[tinman]

That can be done by biasing the coil with a little DC voltage before moving the magnet past it.

No-nothing other than magnets on a rotor, and a coil-->although you may use a biasing !magnet! if you wish.

[tinman]

I have one SS version to offer here, and you are close. Mine uses another coil yes, but it doesn't require another power source.

Your ssg rotor is an electro-mechanical energy transfer (bi-directional) and storage device. My offering does without the mechanical bit which is replaced by a resonant LC tank circuit. The bi-directional transfer bit is accomplished via transformer coupling to/from the pulse coil.

Schematic: As I don't know the specifics of your circuit and setup, I made educated guesses on values that I thought would work. With some tweaking it seems to come close. I have two of these running at the same time, one with R5=12 Ohms (with rotor), and one with R5= 12Giga-Ohms (without rotor). This way I can compare the two scenarios simultaneously as you will see.

First two scope shots: Collector voltage with and without rotor.

3rd scope shot: Pulse coil current with and without rotor. Current with rotor clearly shown to be less (Red). The purple trace is the rotor current shown in phase with pulse coil current during ON time. The rotor returns some stored energy back to the pulse coil reducing the current required of the battery.

4th scope shot: If you could scope across the coil voltage (which you can not but I can because the inductance and coil resistance are separate in my circuit), you would see the increased voltage with the rotor.

The Pin difference between the two scenarios is only about 10% less with the rotor. I'm sure with tweaking and non-linear cores (these are ideal air core), someone could make the effect more pronounced. That someone won't be myself. The effect has been verified AFAIAC, and confirms my explanation offered earlier. My Conclusion? Nothing extraordinary going on here.

So Brad, grab a MOT and have a stab at making this SS version if you are so inclined.

Thanks for doing the test Poynt,but you have shown opposite to what i have shown,and your test dose not represent my results.

Below are your two scope shots from your test.
Scope shot one shows !with the rotor!,that it is clear that the P/out ,or dissipated power across the 200 ohm resistor is less that the dissipated power shown in scope shot two (without the rotor)across that same resistor. So all you achieved was to decrease the P/in,and at the same time,decrease the P/out.

So now look at my two scope shots below yours. Here it is very clear that when the rotor is in play,the P/in is decreased,but the P/out is increased--as can be seen by the width of the kickback spike. So you show a decrease in P/in !and! P/out with the rotor,and an increase in P/in !and! P/out without the rotor. I show a decrease in P/in ,and an increase in P/out with the rotor,and an increase in P/in and a decrease in P/out without the rotor. So you have shown the exact opposite to what i have.


Brad

[poynt99]

As I said Brad, the simulation could use some fine tuning to not only increase the effect, but maintain or increase the flyback power as well. I just don't have the will nor desire to do so. But I am confident it can be done.

[gotoluc]

Since your trace has not started from, nor returned to, the channel's zero volt baseline, it seems that you aren't showing the entire pulse shape on your screenshot. So how are we to "guess" anything from this partial information?

Nope, entire wave form shape is there.

Luc

[tinman]

Nope, entire wave form shape is there.

Luc

Yes,the entire wave form is there-one complete cycle.

Now all you have to do is get the entire wave form above the zero volt line without the use of rectifiers