Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

[MileHigh]

You have completely lost the plot MH.

I give you 1 opportunity here to tell me how you would like me to tune the pulse width to optimum coil performance before the rotor is bought into play-I will follow your instructions to the letter. We will calculate that efficiency before and then after the rotor is bought into play. When I once again show that the rotor with the magnets increases the efficiency above your  optimum efficiency, you are then to explain as to how that happened.

Start with a pulse width of zero and the slowly increase the pulse width so that the maximum current at the end of the pulse hits 500 mV, 1V and 1.5V as per the attached diagram and calculate the three efficiencies.

My one concern is your core material and how much hysteresis losses there might be.  I don't know what the material is and what the losses might be.  By trying three pulse widths I am hoping that I have my bases covered.  I am assuming that very short pulses may be more affected by hysteresis losses.  Likewise there is a chance that the longer pulse width that you are using to drive the rotor will be minimally affected by the hysteresis losses.  Somebody like Verpies or TK would probably have a handle on that issue.

You may have to switch over to a digital multimeter if the scope can't make a reliable measurement on the input current for the short pulse widths.  If that happens then you need to keep a level playing field by also using a digital multimeter for the input current when you are driving the rotor with a longer pulse width.  This all goes back to Poynt99's excellent videos that show how accurate digital multimeters can be in cases like this.  You are already using a digital multimeter to measure the output current so you should be fine there.

On your end you have to follow the plot.  I gave you a lot of information in this thread explaining the how, what, and why of what you are observing and measuring you have not commented on any of it, and for all I know you have ignored it and/or not understood it.  That is not acceptable and you have to do better than that.  Also, you have not put forth any kind of technical argument to make your case and that is something that you need to do.  As you know TK often states that you have to do real experiments and not just make observations.  Right now all that you are doing is making observations.

MileHigh

[tinman]

MileHigh

Start with a pulse width of zero and the slowly increase the pulse width so that the maximum current at the end of the pulse hits 500 mV, 1V and 1.5V as per the attached diagram and calculate the three efficiencies.

I will do better than that. I will start at the 500mV(mA) mark,and increase the pulse width until we hit the 750mV mark,and i will go up in 250mV increments,as that was what i was going to do anyway. So i will double the precision you ask for.

My one concern is your core material and how much hysteresis losses there might be.  I don't know what the material is and what the losses might be.  By trying three pulse widths I am hoping that I have my bases covered.  I am assuming that very short pulses may be more affected by hysteresis losses.  Likewise there is a chance that the longer pulse width that you are using to drive the rotor will be minimally affected by the hysteresis losses.  Somebody like Verpies or TK would probably have a handle on that issue.

As i stated in the video in question,that coil is the first one i ever built--way back in 1999. The core material is the larger gauge soft iron wire they used in coat hangers back in those days. Each cut length was dipped into a pot of varnish,and allowed to dry. They are then glued into the former with two pack epoxy.

You may have to switch over to a digital multimeter if the scope can't make a reliable measurement on the input current for the short pulse widths.  If that happens then you need to keep a level playing field by also using a digital multimeter for the input current when you are driving the rotor with a longer pulse width.

that is also the other thing i was going to do,and i will be adding 3 of those large caps between the battery and DMM to smooth out any pulses of current.

This all goes back to Poynt99's excellent videos that show how accurate digital multimeters can be in cases like this.  You are already using a digital multimeter to measure the output current so you should be fine there.

You get no argument from me there,and i have stated many times that DMMs do a very good job at smoothing out the pulses.

On your end you have to follow the plot.  I gave you a lot of information in this thread explaining the how, what, and why of what you are observing and measuring you have not commented on any of it, and for all I know you have ignored it and/or not understood it.

I have done nothing but comment on your assumptions MH,and i am trying to tell you that you have it ass about. Everything you said to try and explain what was going on,was incorrect,as it was based around the assumption that i tuned the coil while the rotor was running,which you later found out was incorrect.

That is not acceptable and you have to do better than that.  Also, you have not put forth any kind of technical argument to make your case and that is something that you need to do.  As you know TK often states that you have to do real experiments and not just make observations.  Right now all that you are doing is making observations.

The only reason that you dont see what you deem a technical argument MH,is because what is happening here(in the DUT) dose not fit what you accept as reality. Reality is on the bench MH,not in the laws of days gone by.

In fact MH, thinking about it some more,i am going to increase the stepped increments even more,so as we can be 100% certain that we dont miss some sort of sweet spot in the coil. I will start from a 1% duty cycle,and raise it by 1% increments until we hit your 1.5 amps-which would be 1.5 v peak over the CVR. That is the best i can do. All we have to find during this test is an efficiency that exceeds that of what we had with the rotor,and that efficiency was 41.22%

So this is the bench mark your test has to show or beat MH-->41.22%,as this is the best electrical P/in to P/out i have achieved so far with the rotor in play. I will of course run that test again using the DMMs amp meter,so as to keep it all far and square.

It is my wedding anniversary today,and my wife and myself are going out to dinner in about an hour. BUT,even though i have work tomorrow,i will be burning the midnight oil to get this video up tonight for you. In return,all i ask is that you open your eyes,and try to put away what you believe is real,and see that permanent magnets can do useful work,and in this system(the DUT) they do that by reducing the P/in while the P/out remains the same.

My argument will not sit with you MH,as it go's against what you believe. You are also under the assumption that what you see me post is all that i have done. Well im sorry MH,but i have gone much further than what you have seen,but as i got to see first hand,if you just throw it all out there at once,then you get called all sorts of thing's. So from now on,it is bit by bit,and the first thing to prove is that the magnets are actually doing useful work.

You may be now figuring out what the ! accurate power measurements in pulsed systems harder than you think! thread was all about. I already knew how to measure power accurately,as poynt taught me this long ago--i could even dig up the thread if need be,but im sure poynt will vouch for this. But wasnt it funny to see that some of the best of them had to go away and think about it for a while,and figure out what was going on. That very thread was a lead up to this thread,and to make sure we all had the same idea on how to accurately measure P/in and P/out.

So long story short MH,i knew i was going to meet opposition from guys like your self,when i made the claim that permanent magnets can do useful work. I have had this planed out for some time,and i have carried out the very test you put forward above many time's-->and yes,i already know the outcome. Do you really think that this presentation(the DUT,and the results that go with it) was thought up over night. No,there have been many late nights over many years building up to this moment--the moment you see permanent magnets doing useful work. What you see here is only the beginning,as i have gone as far as thermal test data on the inductors core it self--just so as it cant be said that the thermal energy is being transformed into electrical energy.


So we shall see soon enough.


Brad.

[tinman]

...and how are your scope probes connected to this circuit ?

For example:
Ch1 --> point B
G1   --> point C
Ch2 --> GND
G2   --> point C

That is not my circuit.

Circuit and scope connections below.

Brad

[MileHigh]

Brad:

I am assuming that you are going to place a miltimeter across the CSR to measure voltage to measure the average current draw from the source battery.

It's purely a question of personal taste but I think my preference would be to put the CSR above the transistor and then have the scope and function generator ground be the same as the source battery ground.  Then have a "floating" multimeter across the CSR.

That way the scope, function generator, and the battery array share the same ground and they don't "bounce" relative to each other like you have in your existing schematic.  The way it is set up right now you can have a teenie amount of AC coupling between the battery array and the scope + fucntion generator.  You are also putting what amounts to an AC load on the top of the CSR because it has to make the whole scope and function generator "bounce" relative to the batteries.  Presumably the batteries will be AC coupled to the floor or table, a kind of virtual AC ground reference.  There is probably a slim possibility that the small amount of AC coupling will affect your results.  I can't tell you for sure because I have never done that.

MileHigh

[verpies]

That is not my circuit.
Circuit and scope connections below.

If the FG's ground was at the circuit ground thene CSR at the emitter would weaken the turn-ON of the transistor because it would decrease the base-emitter voltage, but since you have the FG's ground at the top of the CSR, then that problem is mitigated.  You FG is "shaking" at little by the CSR's V_DROP, though.

The other difference I see is that you substituted a battery for the previous 100Ω resistor across the recovery cap.
Moving the diode on the other side of the cap does not make much difference.

You recovery circuit still will not operate at full efficiency because C2 is not empty before each "flyback" pulse.  It just sits at the voltage of the battery.
Only an empty capacitor can absorb the "flyback" pulse with the most efficiency.

P.S.
Maybe you do not have a stiffening capacitor C1 but you should in a pulsed circuit.  It should be connected with thick short wires to the point where the CSR connects to the circuit's ground and to the positive side of the coil.