View Single Post
 
Old 06-03-2009, 09:47 PM
Armagdn03's Avatar
Armagdn03 Armagdn03 is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 912
A continuation from another thread.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Armagdn03 View Post
I rarely, post..... and Personally im no motor builder, but I think something is being missed by most on this thread.

I have read several people ask about generators, however the motor in its present incarnation is not all it could be, this is most likely to get the home experimenter comfortable with the basics before moving on.

Take for example an AC generator, with field windings, and permanent magnets on the rotor. The field windings could easily be wound into an LC circuit making the motor supposedly run on reactive power. However, what is not immediately obvious is that the rotation of the rotor will impart upon the filed windings an EMF from the magnets directly related to its rotational speed and the number of poles on the rotor. This counter emf per lenz law will create a frequency within the LC at varying speeds (depending on rev-up, down, loading, etc) which will not match its resonant frequency, hence hindering the resonant rise, Q, and overal efficiency of the motor. However if you had a lenz less motor, the result would be a rotation caused by the driving circuit independent of a generated EMF due to the rotation of the rotor. Such a motor could be run by a resonant circuit, returning all power given to it back to the source, in this case, the source might locally constitute a capacitor with an impedance matching the drive coils for a particular frequency. This tank circuit would be allowed to oscillate freely, without having to worry about any stray emf frequencies created by the rotor.

This cannot be easily applied in its present form to the current motor as it stands. The rotation of the current model is dependent on the position of the rotor with respect to the pole projections of the stator. This means that frequency of operation within the drive coils is dependent on rotor speed, meaning it too is tied down to rev-ups, downs, variable loading etc. In order to reach a reactive state at a particular frequency, the rotor would have to spin at a very specific speed.

Also noted, is that the inductive properties of this motor change constantly! which is terrible for such a design. Hence the fact that it is a variable reluctance motor. This property too is detrimental to reactive conditions.

BUT! it has one of the problems solved, and clever geometries and tricks can solve other problems. Such as reactive rotors (Tesla has patented them) constant reluctance rotors (would need a simulated rotating field, where poles switch at a phase less than 180 degrees) and other ideas come to mind.

What you were all given is gold, but it is far from where it could be, and I get a sneaking suspicion that the only thing that is holding Dr Lindeman back from advancing ideas publicly at this point is the overall comprehension, i.e. no point in leaving people behind at this point.

Get clever with similar concepts and you can apply it all to solid state as well, leaving behind the need for kinetic power supplies.
(like I said im no motor builder........ )

And thank you Dr. Lindeman for your work teaching, and taking the time help people out. I have given you an unfair shake in the past.
and the response....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Lindemann View Post
Dear Armagdn03,

Thank you for your kind and insightful remarks. With regard to your post about the Jim Murray Generator design, I have known Jim Murray for 20 years and we published this patent in Borderland Magazine back in the 1980's. All of the people I worked with in Santa Barbara, including Mike Knox, Eric Dollard, and Chris Carson, met with Jim Murray a number of times after I moved away in 1992. Jim and Eric subsequently solved the solid-state method for converting reactive power back to real power using Jim's methods applied to Eric's FOUR QUADRANT THEORY of electric waves. All of these things you mention have already been accomplished.

While Jim has built working models of this generator, getting all of the electrical and physical resonances in phase is tricky. The machine does NOT exhibit drag free operation until these conditions are all balanced and synchronized. Still and all, it does PROVE that electric motors and generators are NOT converting mechanical energy into electrical energy. The First Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to properly built motors and generators. For those of us who know the truth, this is not a problem.

As you have correctly stated, there is little purpose showing more precise theory in a forum like this when the model building difficulty only gets worse than what has already been shown. I will tell you plainly, however, that the CONSTANT RELUCTANCE MOTOR is the ticket and special geometries are the method of accomplishment. When the reluctance does not change at all during the power stroke, then the inductance of the circuit remains relatively constant as well. This allows for the design of a true, constant speed, synchronous motor that produces maximum mechanical power on 95% reactive power and about 5% real power. This allows a COP=20 operation as technically feasible.

For those who are interested, here is a link to a rare film of Jim Murray speaking on the history of his work. Most of the concepts are quite beyond the beginner level, and the cinematography is D-, but the information is A+++.

Enjoy.

Jim Murray

Peter


I am very surprised nobody posted this sooner. This is a good starting spot, however you can do away with many diodes, along with allowing the resistive element to be separated from the inductive element resulting in greater amp draw in shorter time periods. (ie reducing the L/R time constant) which will result in an increase in energy output vs time. In such a scheme, the inductor charges at a low resistance, and discharges at a high resistance. Proportions are important.

It is harder to see how increase in frequency literally translates to an increase in energy, however circuits such as these make it very apparent.

What you have essentially created is a "one way" tank circuit, And points directly to the physical reason as to why capacitance reduces Q in a circuit, and Inductance Increases it. (notice how all the big boys in the Tesla Coil clubs space their secondary windings)

Here again it is stated that keeping inductance's stable (capacitance's as well) is important otherwise you will experience bifurcations of the oscillatory currents. Unless you are injecting energy directly into the system parametrically through this method (in which case exact frequency is important), it is generally detrimental. This applies to all forms of transducers in this category.


What you have been shown is essentially half of what is needed in order to have complete the energy cycle ending in the same form of power out you put in. i.e electrical - electrical, or mechanical to mechanical.

The second half of the system is the easy part, and constitutes general transducers transforming energy back to its original form. What you end with is an oscillation between forms of energy, (as in electrical, mechanical, back to electrical, back to mechanical etc.)

Im actually kind of disappointed Dr. Lindeman had to point out the similarities, its more fun when the cat lets itself out of the bag. and people connect the dots on their own, but its all good.

Take care all, and may you all realize your potential. (as if its finite, ha ha ha)

P.S,
__________________