My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines

[bistander]

So why are you a just a by-stander?

Hi sampojo,

Why are you just a pojo? What's in a name anyhow? I guess I didn't (or don't) intend to actively participate, just observe, but then I saw an opportunity to help, so I thought. I have a lot of experience and knowledge in the field of electric machinery and energy conversion and storage. In some cases my helpful comments are not well received. Oh well.

Keep on truckin'

bi

[sampojo]

point-counter point post 7874 & 7876

Quote:
Originally Posted by sampojo View Post 7874
Pnn = 0.36*(Pns)

Pnn = 2.778Pns


How do you simply apply the reciprocal? Looks like bad math to me.

I was transitioning between looking at power consumed to power produced without clarifying my assumptions. See my blue appended write-up in the original post. I will try to clarify below also.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sampojo View Post
Power delivered is assumed constant and approximately equal for the N-S and N-N motors as videos have shown, with max rpms at no load as the test point, at a given voltage (12v for my case).

So at no load, by definition, efficiency is zero because there is no output power (no load). All the input power is lost in the motor. So the motor with 40% more power is actually 40% worse.

I am using performance equivalence points of max rpms for my RC asym reproductions to translate the formulas. This equivalence then allows us to state that the NN motor used 40% less power to achieve it. It is then assumed that the behavior in regards to current draw and power consumption holds across the rpm and load curves. The only place where work is done in these examples is of course where Ufo's imperial lighted the floods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sampojo View Post
Pnn = (Inn**2)*R


The power delivered or converted by the motor can not be described by an IČR figure. That would describe only the loss in the motor due to winding resistance. So the motor with the larger number which you calculated would be the worst. This actually is in line with using no load data as you did. The derivation is based on faulty premise and loaded with error. I'd not draw any conclusions from it.

bi

We know Ufo's Imperial power delivery number, which is an N-S system. We know the power consumption numbers between my two RS asym motors Pnn and Pns. I only am assuming that Power consumption behavior may be proportional and translatable to the power delivery side of the equation without knowing what the performance ratio is for my RS QuadPentium Bent-Y 10 pole N-S rotor and my Unipolar N-N 10-pole rotor. And then I generalize further to apply it to any N-S vs N-N unipolar winding.

Given that an edison motor can't be 100% efficient, my point is to show that, with what current and power readings we do have, it looks like a little bit of a power explosion may be possible with the unipolar windings when you realize Power is proportional to current squared. Of course the assumptions about performance ratios and power curves are a leap, but they seem plausible to me. As yet no one has the resources to answer them better than Ufo has so far. Even if the N-S Imperial is 90% efficient, what is going to happen when the motor uses 40% less current? The 2.78 factor may be applied. I think this is very motivating. So why are you a just a by-stander?

[bistander]

Bistander,

First, John Stone did not "questioned" me just like that, directly. He just asked me in order to clear doubts for other skeptics not to be holding from that possibility...like you have been doing so far.

On my answer I just made it clear and calmly the way I was hooking up the DC Clamp meter, by stating it was in the common end and not in one of the "Y" terminals...so I was not exactly "jumping" like you've said.

The common end is attached directly to the negative battery terminal post. There is no common wire for you to clamp around.

JohnStone said this:

You clamped one only. Is there a second GND line in parallel.

And when I examine the video, I can see the other line. It goes from the second switch to the knife switch on the negative terminal, so bypasses the clamp meter. Look at frame 0:30 and again at 1:28.

You can see it clamped on to one of the two black wires. The other wire is right there by your thumb. That is why the current fell to half when switch 2 was thrown.

I look forward to more tests from you. Remember: Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Hello Ufo,

It is not only that but the original video shows you clearly clamping the meter onto only one of the two wires going to the two switches from the knife switch on battery negative. I suspect this is why JohnStone questioned it.

Bistander,

First, John Stone did not "questioned" me just like that, directly. He just asked me in order to clear doubts for other skeptics not to be holding from that possibility...like you have been doing so far.

On my answer I just made it clear and calmly the way I was hooking up the DC Clamp meter, by stating it was in the common end and not in one of the "Y" terminals...so I was not exactly "jumping" like you've said.

Also, in the video, it takes about 3 or 4 seconds for the meter to settle in at 43.9A changing very little; only 2 or 3 tenths of a Amp.

I don't know why it was such a high no load reading back then. I believe you said something about a bad bearing in the generator. Even that doesn't seem like a 40+ Amp load. But it was what the meter read.

I don't know either, it could have been many things that triggered those 44 amps, however, now it did not do it.

I am not about to wind a motor like that to repeat your test. I have over the years run dozens of motor-generator tests and rotary converter tests. 63% efficiency on a 36V, 1kW system is much more likely than 124%. If you knew what you were doing and saw 124% efficiency, why didn't you go to extraordinary measures to verify that? How about rerunning the test several times? With a different load amount? In front of an eye witness? I know if I ever demonstrated 124% efficiency on my bench, the experiment would stay intact and unaltered until I was able to get an expert to witness it.

That is your way of thinking...mainly the ones in bold letters above, but not necessarily the way I think.

I am not after just a "debatable" 25% in excess...and I was not happy with that particular test, as I wrote there as well to one of the members.

For me to see a "wrestling fight" between two nice sized machines in order to see which one wins is not the answer we are all looking for...it does not lies there at all.

All my recent research and development confirms with facts I was right by NOT following that path.

I am not going to convince you and you're not going to change my mind regarding that test unless you demonstrate 124% legitimately. So just end it here.

bi

You will be convinced very soon Bistander, believe me, I guarantee that.


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

It can NOT "confirm" your "Theory" because the meter showed a random 43.9 amps at start up...it could be due to many issues and YOU should know better than that.

Hello Ufo,

It is not only that but the original video shows you clearly clamping the meter onto only one of the two wires going to the two switches from the knife switch on battery negative. I suspect this is why JohnStone questioned it.

Also, in the video, it takes about 3 or 4 seconds for the meter to settle in at 43.9A changing very little; only 2 or 3 tenths of a Amp.

I don't know why it was such a high no load reading back then. I believe you said something about a bad bearing in the generator. Even that doesn't seem like a 40+ Amp load. But it was what the meter read.

I am not about to wind a motor like that to repeat your test. I have over the years run dozens of motor-generator tests and rotary converter tests. 63% efficiency on a 36V, 1kW system is much more likely than 124%. If you knew what you were doing and saw 124% efficiency, why didn't you go to extraordinary measures to verify that? How about rerunning the test several times? With a different load amount? In front of an eye witness? I know if I ever demonstrated 124% efficiency on my bench, the experiment would stay intact and unaltered until I was able to get an expert to witness it.

I am not going to convince you and you're not going to change my mind regarding that test unless you demonstrate 124% legitimately. So just end it here.

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Thank you for running that test and posting the video. It confirms my theory that the original test ammeter was placed incorrectly. In your most recent test above you did have it placed correctly and it read the entire battery current for both cases. And the current was nearly equal for both cases; 16 to 18 Amperes. However, in the original test, the current dropped to less than one half when you flipped switch 2 to bring in the other brush set; from 44 to 18 Amperes. You had the motor coupled to the alternator and I assume that accounts for the much higher current draw compared to this no load test. It also seems as though you now trust the current reading at the negative battery terminal.

Here are the ammeter readings from the original test:

The Meter WAS placed on previous video the same exact way it was NOW placed and shown on today's video.

The Main Motor Amp consumption with ALL FOUR GATES ON is around 17 to 18 Amps as you have seen on BOTH videos.

It can NOT "confirm" your "Theory" because the meter showed a random 43.9 amps at start up...it could be due to many issues and YOU should know better than that.

If I hook the meter (DC Clamp) to each individual Two Gates on each switch, it will read NOT EXACTLY A 50-50 % perfect and IDEAL read out...it may show 12 A on one switch negative cable while 6 Amps on the other cable that goes to the hook up bus bar...wanna see that?

The facts were shown clearly...That Motor is exactly the same as the one shown on original video...and shows exactly the same amp draw NOW as on previous video...same deal.

If I add up the Generator with the two 500 Watts lamps, it would show exactly the same increase...to around 24-25 amps from 17-18 with no load.

The second point is also very important...and that is that by adding the other 'half' of motoring circuit (meaning Two More Gates ON) the Amp draw is about NOTHING to consider of much increase with just Two Gates ON. HOWEVER, RPM'S and TORQUE DO INCREASE A LOT when switch 2 is ON.

It could be clearly observed that DC Clamp keeps jumping up and down in values...that is because the circuits keep opening/closing, so there is NOT a CONSTANT Amp draw detected by a meter designed to capture steady amp population, just because the DC Amps these machines output/reflect are PULSED, NOT LINEAR.

There are not any tools that I know off to measure with exactitude Pulsed Amps.

This OEM Motor is designed to draw 100 Amps at 24V delivering 2500 RPM's...Is written at its spec's sheet.

Final conclusion is that this type N/S Imperial Asymmetric Motor consumes at no load around 17 amps with all 4 gates On. So, obviously by hooking lesser gates would consume less amps.

And, no matter where I hook that meter now, I can not read a 43.9 amp draw...

The All North Imperials will show MUCH LESS Amp draw than what you have seen above...and then some more less.

I would like to end this discussion here...I showed you what this motor consumes with One switch On and with Two Switches On by placing the meter exactly where I did originally with same batteries.

I do NOT have the time, nor the room, nor the desire to start hooking up again, generator head plus lamps in a solid steel rack at this point to repeat -just for your viewing- this old testing.

If you really want to argue seriously about this test then do it the way it is done...by demonstrating it yourself with facts is NOT the way I have shown...so make/wind an Imperial the same way I did (all tutorial videos are still there) , buy a Mecc Alte Brushless Gen head 6K (all spec's are also written on this thread) and hook two five hundred watts incandescent lamps on like I did. Oh, and do not forget the Chicago Energy Meter.

Anything else outside a real proof is pure "theorizing" which is words blown by the wind....nonsense, meaning NADA.

This is it, end of it.

Over


Ufopolitics

EDIT 1: You know better than I do that this brushless generators almost have zero drag when no load is applied to them, only mechanical bearings drag, so it is just impossible motor will show 43.9 amps because of being connected to the shaft of an unloaded generator head.

[bistander]

Bistander,

By the way...You "sound" so familiar...I would say you are one of the known old conservatives Skeptics from the "Tea Party" on this Forum...behind a "new identity"...but, besides that and related to your comment (which by the way, you have already made here previously)...:

I explained in detail that testing when it was done, with diagrams back and forth...if no one replicated it that is NOT my problem, however, the best way to refuse or accept a shown test is by reproduction/replication on its exact form to my original shown. No words nor viewing a thousand times that video could accept just your "Final Verdict" on this.

Your complete ignorance about Asymmetrical Motors demonstrate clearly with your own wordings in your writing above.

You have posted the same BS before...am tired of this...so I have done a video JUST NOW, with the same exact connections I had done on that previous Testing First Video...just for your mouth to shut up once and for all ...take your time and WATCH IT or "Study it" whatever you like:

SHOWING IMPERIAL N/S AMP DRAW...AGAIN!

Even after a very long time ago, motor does exactly the same thing...consumes about same Amperage readings...except I do not have motor hooked to generator nor bolted to the steel stand, just loose and batteries were seating for months and not charged for this test...still, that make absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in reading amps before load, this discussion was about taking the DC Clamp meter readings on the wrong spot (wire) when turning Switch One and then Switch Two.

I had to leave all I was doing to recreate this set up again...dust motor off...and hook everything so your "Honor" have the opportunity to see the way it was done before, and that there was NOT ANY FRAUD, ANY SCAM, ANY HOAX...JUST THE TRUTH ABOUT THIS MACHINES.

I am too busy at this time working on something very new and very different for everyone to enjoy and use...that this stuff (Motors) comes to a second plane of attention...and you will have the pleasure to see it very soon whenever I am done...right now, if I show you the Machines am working on...well, first, you will not understand how they could possibly generate any power, based on your "Classic" Physics/Electricity/Electromagnetism knowledge...HOWEVER, they all do it...


@ ALL: I understand many think this thread is dead...BUT IT IS NOT!

I am still pending to show the IMPERIAL(S) WIRED with the ALL NORTH CONFIGURATION, am very well aware of that!

But time will come for that as well...


Thanks for your patience and take care you all guys.


Ufopolitics

Thank you for running that test and posting the video. It confirms my theory that the original test ammeter was placed incorrectly. In your most recent test above you did have it placed correctly and it read the entire battery current for both cases. And the current was nearly equal for both cases; 16 to 18 Amperes. However, in the original test, the current dropped to less than one half when you flipped switch 2 to bring in the other brush set; from 44 to 18 Amperes. You had the motor coupled to the alternator and I assume that accounts for the much higher current draw compared to this no load test. It also seems as though you now trust the current reading at the negative battery terminal.

Here are the ammeter readings from the original test:

Readings from latest test:

Battery Amps WITH LOAD INPUT SWITCH ON:



Battery Amps WITH LOAD INPUT AND OUTPUT SWITCHES ON:

[wantomake]

Many thanks

Thanks to you,
Ufopolitics, I've read and watched all the post here. I enjoyed replicating your motor and learned much.
I look forward to your new project.

God's speed old friend,
wantomake

[Ufopolitics]

Still here...

Hi sampojo,

I have looked (studied, actually) that post and video. I am convinced that he clamps the ammeter onto just one of the two wires coming off the knife switch on the battery negative post. So he reads 43.9A on switch one (one set of brushes). Then when he throws switch two it cuts in the second set of brushes through a wire which bypasses the ammeter. The result is about half of the current is conducted around the clamp meter and not read. The reading is about 18A. He leaves the meter there, reading about half of the battery current. Then when he turns on the load lights, the meter reads 23.45A but the battery current is really double that figure. So instead of 124%, it is really about 63% efficient.

JohnStone brings up the concern of clamping onto only one of the two negative leads in post #3160. Ufopolitics blows him off in post #3163 however goes on to say His reason was quite different and, imo, stunning. He says:



Anybody who believes that about electric circuits loses all credibility dealing with testing, instrumentation and data collection.

I have been searching for a valid load test of one of these motors which shows efficiency. I have found a few and they fall short of 100% by quite a bit and I doubt come up to the level of the Edison motor, as you call it (the OEM motor). I would really like to see you build a new motor and test it against a control unit (unmodified original equipment manufactured motor). Please keep us posted.

Thanks,

bi

Bistander,

By the way...You "sound" so familiar...I would say you are one of the known old conservatives Skeptics from the "Tea Party" on this Forum...behind a "new identity"...but, besides that and related to your comment (which by the way, you have already made here previously)...:

I explained in detail that testing when it was done, with diagrams back and forth...if no one replicated it that is NOT my problem, however, the best way to refuse or accept a shown test is by reproduction/replication on its exact form to my original shown. No words nor viewing a thousand times that video could accept just your "Final Verdict" on this.

Your complete ignorance about Asymmetrical Motors demonstrate clearly with your own wordings in your writing above.

You have posted the same BS before...am tired of this...so I have done a video JUST NOW, with the same exact connections I had done on that previous Testing First Video...just for your mouth to shut up once and for all ...take your time and WATCH IT or "Study it" whatever you like:

SHOWING IMPERIAL N/S AMP DRAW...AGAIN!

Even after a very long time ago, motor does exactly the same thing...consumes about same Amperage readings...except I do not have motor hooked to generator nor bolted to the steel stand, just loose and batteries were seating for months and not charged for this test...still, that make absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in reading amps before load, this discussion was about taking the DC Clamp meter readings on the wrong spot (wire) when turning Switch One and then Switch Two.

I had to leave all I was doing to recreate this set up again...dust motor off...and hook everything so your "Honor" have the opportunity to see the way it was done before, and that there was NOT ANY FRAUD, ANY SCAM, ANY HOAX...JUST THE TRUTH ABOUT THIS MACHINES.

I am too busy at this time working on something very new and very different for everyone to enjoy and use...that this stuff (Motors) comes to a second plane of attention...and you will have the pleasure to see it very soon whenever I am done...right now, if I show you the Machines am working on...well, first, you will not understand how they could possibly generate any power, based on your "Classic" Physics/Electricity/Electromagnetism knowledge...HOWEVER, they all do it...


@ ALL: I understand many think this thread is dead...BUT IT IS NOT!

I am still pending to show the IMPERIAL(S) WIRED with the ALL NORTH CONFIGURATION, am very well aware of that!

And I will be VERY PLEASED to show the HUGE difference in overall performance they can do versus the previous N/S Motor you just have seen on that video above...

But time will come for that as well...


Thanks for your patience and take care you all guys.


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Pnn = 0.36*(Pns)

Pnn = 2.778Pns

How do you simply apply the reciprocal? Looks like bad math to me.

Power delivered is assumed constant and approximately equal for the N-s and N-N motors as videos have shown, with max rpms at no load as the test point, at a given voltage (12v for my case)

So at no load, by definition, efficiency is zero because there is no output power (no load). All the input power is lost in the motor. So the motor with 40% more power is actually 40% worse.

Pnn = (Inn**2)*R

The power delivered or converted by the motor can not be described by an IČR figure. That would describe only the loss in the motor due to winding resistance. So the motor with the larger number which you calculated would be the worst. This actually is in line with using no load data as you did. The derivation is based on faulty premise and loaded with error. I'd not draw any conclusions from it.

bi

[bistander]

No excess power

In post 3132, Ufo's Imperial showed 25% excess power generation on his Imperial using his first recommended N-S style of winding.

Hi sampojo,

I have looked at (studied, actually) that post and video. I am convinced that he clamps the ammeter onto just one of the two wires coming off the knife switch on the battery negative post. So he reads 43.9A on switch one (one set of brushes). Then when he throws switch two it cuts in the second set of brushes through a wire which bypasses the ammeter. The result is about half of the current is conducted around the clamp meter and not read. The reading is about 18A. He leaves the meter there, reading about half of the battery current. Then when he turns on the load lights, the meter reads 23.45A but the battery current is really double that figure. So instead of 124%, it is really about 63% efficient.

JohnStone brings up the concern of clamping onto only one of the two negative leads in post #3160. Ufopolitics blows him off in post #3163 however goes on to say

it results in a different readout..than the one I was measuring all this time...so...all tests thrown out to garbage can.

His reason was quite different and, imo, stunning. He says:

I have been measuring Amperage on NEGATIVE POLE OF BATTERY....AND THAT IS VERY WRONG!!!...

NEVER, EVER, DC AMPERAGE GETS MEASURED ON THE NEGATIVE SIDE POLE OF LOAD...AS THIS CURRENT...IS...NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS...THAN THE MANIFESTED CURRENT BACK TO BATTERY FROM MY MACHINE (THE EXCESS, THE RESIDUAL)...SINCE...CURRENT "MANIFESTS"...NEVER TRAVELS LIKE VOLTAGE DOES...WELL, IT MANIFESTS AS INPUT AS MY MOTOR REQUEST IT ONLY AT POSITIVE TERMINAL OF BATTERIES...NEVER AT NEGATIVE!!

Ufopolitics

Anybody who believes that about electric circuits loses all credibility dealing with testing, instrumentation and data collection.

I have been searching for a valid load test of one of these motors which shows efficiency. I have found a few and they fall short of 100% by quite a bit and I doubt come up to the level of the Edison motor, as you call it (the OEM motor). I would really like to see you build a new motor and test it against a control unit (unmodified original equipment manufactured motor). Please keep us posted.

Thanks,

bi

[sampojo]

power savings projection over edison motor designs

In post 3132, Ufo's Imperial showed 25% excess power generation on his Imperial using his first recommended N-S style of winding. His N-N style winding shows a 40% drop in current demand for roughly the same performance, as I showed in post 7861 and Ufo demonstrated that performance in several of his videos with hobby RS motors. Power delivered is assumed constant and approximately equal for the N-s and N-N motors as videos have shown, with max rpms at no load as the test point, at a given voltage (12v for my case)

therefore

Pe = Power consumed Edison
Pns = Power consumed Asym N-S style
Pnn = Power consumed Asym N-N Style

Pns => 1.25Pe (equal to or greater than since edison motor efficiency is
totally dependent on rpm and CEMF and just left at 100%
for argument's sake) The 25% number comes from 200 extra
watts shown in the power meters that are assumed to not
be present if an edison motor was used. Tesla AC induction
motor and generators are known to be around 90% efficient,
I believe...

Inn = Current draw N-N asym motor
Ins = Current draw N-S asym motor

Inn = (1-0.40)*Ins = 0.60*Ins

Pnn = (Inn**2)*R

Pns = (Ins**2)*R Assume motors are designed the same, Rnn=Rns=R

Pnn/Pns = (Inn**2)/(Ins**2) R cancels

Pnn/Pns = [(0.60*Ins)**2]/(Ins*2) Ins cancels, multiply thru with Pns

Pnn = 0.36*(Pns)

Pnn = 2.778Pns or the NS winding consumes 2.778 times as much power! EDIT (oops THIS is wrong as bistander pointed out)

should have been

Pns = 2.778Pnn NS winding used nearly 3times the power to generate equivalent work, ~30000rpm no load @ 12v


Substituting in the top equation

Pnn/2.778 = 1.25Pe (wrong) comparison of power consumed vs power produced also?

Pnn = 3.47 * Pe ??

Needs rethinking!!! sorry about that

Try this: At 100% efficiency assumption the Edison motor would require 25% more power to equal the Pns work.
Then substitute the VERIFIED power consumed comparison of Pns to Pnn since they are at the same work production level. Since
we assume Pe has 100% efficiency to err on the safe side for comparison purposes, we can interchange Pwork and Pconsumed in the equation, and essentially say it would take a 25% power consumption increase in the Pe (1.25*Pe) to get it to the Pns performance, yielding:

Power consumption to get the same work
Pns = .8*Pe

Substitute Pns to Pnn comparisons at power consumption side of the equation

2.78*Pnn = .8*Pe
Pnn = 0.29 * Pe Power consumed by Pnn less than 1/3 the Pe?

HMMMM....

Incidentally the inverse of .29 is 3.47, same as before....

Did I switch from power output to power consumed before and was unclear? maybe...
Does this mean that the unipolar design could multiply power out by 3.5 times? maybe...

[sampojo]

RC modelling

Planning some tesla motor redesigns of RC cars and aircraft electric motor powerplants. I am betting on 50% increase in range/time aloft and will be able to test it out and prove performance against the stock power plant. I have bought two car kits and am going out for my model aircraft next.

[sampojo]

Dad Hav's magent trick

Hello Sam,
It sounds like you're trying to put poles together using the same polarity magnets. This can be really difficult as you say but there is an easy trick. If you can get two of them close enough together to slide a third over the two they will stay side by side ...
John

Just repaired a cracked magnet with this trick, building up a Plastic Weld (This stuff seems harder than epoxy when it dries!) bridge on the exposed end to hold it down on my mini-AC generator rotor. easy peasy cracked end slipped right in with the extra magnet on top!

Thanks John

[sampojo]

GChilders and Ufo teaming up on his Imperials

PM let me know that having a tough slough of it. Garry got 3 Imperial Ufo kits and they all had unmagetized stators!!! He ended up buying some used ones for parts. Guess it was easier than dealing with Imperial?

Good luck Garry!