Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?

[tinman]

 author=Dbowling link=topic=17587.msg524666#msg524666 date=1533698326]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzkQ57f3Gdo

This generator will put out between 1600-1800 watts. My bigger machine will put out between 1800-2000 watts. Input to this machine, run by an MY1020 rewound razor scooter motor is less than 300 watts. Of that 300 watts, the 3 Battery circuit that no one believes works can recover about 70%.

So to be clear--
Output minimum is 1600 watts
Input using the Matt wound motor is 300 watt's max.
If we use the 3BGS ,we can reduce that 300 watt input by 70%,and so our total input becomes just 90 watts.
So 90 watts in,and 1600 watts out,for a COP of 1777%

Second, wind the coils according to what Tesla described in his patent. (for this sized rotor with the magnets I have described in the video) 12 strands of #23 each 253 feet in length in parallel. Then connect groups of four strands in series. You will end up with 3 wires.

Ah yes,i knew Tesla would have to come into it sooner or later 

That particular coil will speed up under load at 2200 rpm.

Any coil when loaded will speed up under load if the RPMs are correct.
What you fail to understand is !why! you get the speed up under load effect,even though you answer the question your self a little further down the page.

The only issue now is HEAT. The constant change of flux in the iron generates heat,

And there you go--the reason for !speed up under load!
Lets see--
-->No load on the coil,no current flowing through the coil,means no magnetic field produced by the coil that is of the same polarity as the magnet approaching it. Flux through the core of the coil is of the !!opposite!! polarity to that of the approaching magnet-eddy current heat high
-->load across the coil,current flowing through the coil,means a magnetic field produced by the coil that is of the !!same!! polarity of that of the approaching magnet-eddy current heat low
Wonder why you have the speed up under load effect? 

You can run it with a stock motor if you want. You just won't be able to recover much of the input energy. Still, the COP is pretty high.

Well as we all know,the stock motor is far more efficient than the Matt wound bathroom heater--i mean motor ,but lets say the stock motor uses twice as much power as the !Matt! motor at 600 watts. The generator puts out a minimum of 1600 watts,so we should have 1000 watts to spare--correct?

and if you run the generator for more than an hour, you will melt the insulation off the wires in the coils and now you have close to $900 worth of paperweights.

Hang on a minute 
Quote:  12 strands of #23 each 253 feet in length in parallel. Then connect groups of four strands in series. You will end up with 3 wires
So each of the 3 wires is made from 4 lots of 23 gauge wire-being American,i would say 23 AWG-correct?.
The maximum current value for this gauge wire in this situation is 4.7 amps,and there is 4 strands to each of the 3 in total wires,which gives a current value total of 18.8 amps for each of the 3 litz wires. This means that each coil can handle 56 amps of current.
To get 1600 watts at 56 amps,your output voltage is only 28.57V/RMS 
Hmmmm--sum-ting-wong

This means the rewound motor must run on 24 volts to achieve the proper rpm.  Thats it.

Hey 
Hang on a minute here
Quote: First, build the generator EXACTLY as I have described.Wind the coils according to what Tesla described in his patent. (for this sized rotor with the magnets I have described in the video) 12 strands of #23 each 253 feet in length in parallel. Then connect groups of four strands in series. You will end up with 3 wires.That particular coil will speed up under load at 2200 rpm
The !Matt! motor needs 24 volts to run at 2200RPM?
Your mate Matt said his modded motor ran at 4500RPM at 12 volts
Your video states within the first 12 seconds that the generator will speed up under load,and has no !!magnetic drag!!--so why the hell is the motor needing 24 volts to reach 2200 RPM?
Sum-ting-else-wong.

I would suggest building a small machine with only a couple coils, one on each side of a rotor, and then the opposing magnets. It will prove to you whether I am full of crap or not.

Get the buckets and shovel.

But really, this is NOT rocket science.

You got that right--rocket science is easy.
It's just the ejection of mass at velocity.
Your science makes no sense at all.


Brad

[Dbowling]

Tin Man,
Either the concept I have shown for reduction of magnetic lock works or it does not. I have built several very expensive machines that show me it works. If you choose not to use the concept, that's your choice. That is all I wanted to share. The rest we can argue about when I have a machine running and can post video of inputs and outputs. I have several versions and they are all different, so the numbers are different, and without my notebooks, which are in storage, I could easily confuse different numbers from different machines. To me, reducing the amp draw of the motor unloaded from over 30 amps to less than 12 for my big machine was a major breakthrough, and THOSE are the numbers that stick in my head. But my big machine has 12 coils and 6 rotor magnets so the six magnets are ALWAYS locked on coils and you are ALWAYS trying to break the attraction of all six magnets at once. The smaller machine that I recommended probably has way less amp draw. Why is there any amp draw? Probably because there is STILL some magnetic cogging. But since I can now run the motor without burning it up and generate power with the generator, to me that is as cog free as I am likely to get mechanically, and is incredibly significant. Sorry you do not find this information valuable and would rather nit pick my numbers when I have ALREADY stated that I would rather wait until the thing is running on my bench again to even discuss inputs and outputs. When it is, I will be happy to run every single test YOU PERSONALLY would like to have run. Is that a deal? oh, and i won't talk about it until then either, if that makes you happy. One last thing. Any time I talk about this machine, it was running on a stock motor. In the beginning I was using the modified motor, but I kept burning up motors because of amp draw, and it was really frustrating to get a motor, take it apart and rewind it, and then burn it up a day or so later. So I have been using stock motors for quite a while and have burnt up MANY of them also. It doesn't hurt quite as bad, but it still hurts. It's just that I have done MANY experiments with Matt's motor, and I know what can be recovered, so I apply that information in my discussions even though I am NOT currently using the motor. Remember, I DID in the beginning and that is where I get my recovery data.

[tinman]

Tin Man,
Either the concept I have shown for reduction of magnetic lock works or it does not. I have built several very expensive machines that show me it works. If you choose not to use the concept, that's your choice. That is all I wanted to share. The rest we can argue about when I have a machine running and can post video of inputs and outputs. I have several versions and they are all different, so the numbers are different, and without my notebooks, which are in storage, I could easily confuse different numbers from different machines. To me, reducing the amp draw of the motor unloaded from over 30 amps to less than 12 for my big machine was a major breakthrough, and THOSE are the numbers that stick in my head. But my big machine has 12 coils and 6 rotor magnets so the six magnets are ALWAYS locked on coils and you are ALWAYS trying to break the attraction of all six magnets at once. The smaller machine that I recommended probably has way less amp draw. Why is there any amp draw? Probably because there is STILL some magnetic cogging. But since I can now run the motor without burning it up and generate power with the generator, to me that is as cog free as I am likely to get mechanically, and is incredibly significant. Sorry you do not find this information valuable and would rather nit pick my numbers when I have ALREADY stated that I would rather wait until the thing is running on my bench again to even discuss inputs and outputs. When it is, I will be happy to run every single test YOU PERSONALLY would like to have run. Is that a deal? oh, and i won't talk about it until then either, if that makes you happy. One last thing. Any time I talk about this machine, it was running on a stock motor. In the beginning I was using the modified motor, but I kept burning up motors because of amp draw, and it was really frustrating to get a motor, take it apart and rewind it, and then burn it up a day or so later. So I have been using stock motors for quite a while and have burnt up MANY of them also. It doesn't hurt quite as bad, but it still hurts. It's just that I have done MANY experiments with Matt's motor, and I know what can be recovered, so I apply that information in my discussions even though I am NOT currently using the motor. Remember, I DID in the beginning and that is where I get my recovery data.

You have a deal there Dave for sure.

And yes,reducing magnetic cogging is a clear advantage in any machine of this type,as energy is lost through vibration. If you remove this loss,then you gain that loss in output.

I do believe there is a gain to be had when transferring energy from point A to point B,and have that energy do useful work on it's journey--no argument there.
But what im interested in is this 300 watts in--1600 watts out 


Brad

[TinselKoala]

300 watts in and 1600 watts out... but still can't sustain self-running?   

Somebody needs to hire a consultant.   

[Dbowling]

TinselKoala,
I never stated that the machine could not sustain self running. I stated that I have never TRIED. I was always focused on four things
1. Reduced amp draw of the motor from generator coils that speed the motor up under load
2. Increased production of the generator when the motor DOES speed up under load
3. Watts into the motor
4. Watts out to the load from the generator.


My assumption was that if all those factors got to where I wanted them, a self runner was inevitable.