My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines

[Ufopolitics]

Imperial P56 All N Asymmetric Winding Possibilities_1

Hello to All,

Previously I have shown a possibility of overlapping the Pairs in the All North Imperial shown below:

[IMG][/IMG]

This 'Overlapping' of the All North Pairs were seen working fine before in the AN1 Model smaller Radio Shack Five Poles, done by Garry Childers, by doing this we are bringing to a more compact formation of All Four Coils Bisectors taking place when we are firing Two Pairs.

[IMG][/IMG]

We see above a frame from the video of the Five Pole 3D Model, it is noticed that each Coil in the Pair is sharing One(1) Common Pole, meaning, overlapping by one pole. That was the AN1 Configuration.

However, when applying this concept from a five pole rotor and two stators to a 28 pole rotor and four stators...we have much more possibilities to play with searching for better Gaps to time machine, looking for that 'Sweet Spot' reducing Amps draw, without sacrificing Top Performances from RPM's and Torque.

In above Diagram of Imperial, each Coil in the Pair is wrapped around Five Poles, as there are Three (3) common poles 'Shared' between both coils in the Pair, and we understand this is "modifiable", by interlacing/overlapping coils either closer together or further apart, in order to expand or contract all four bisectors, by having either more common coils or less common coils.

So, We can have up to Four (4) Common Poles in the Pair (very compact Bisectors, Widest margin to set timing) or up to just One (1) Common Pole (Max Expanded Arrangement of Bisectors, Narrowest Margin to set Timing).

However, We must understand that by narrowing Bisectors (more shared or common poles) We are reducing the Throw Out Angles which would cause a reduction in overall speed or RPM's...and a Gain in Torque...BUT, again, We have quite some probabilities to test there.

This is it, for the All North Imperial Overlapped Coils in the Pair ...However, I will show in a continued post, another way to wind the All North, not overlapped, which is simpler to do...You guys decide which way to test first.


Regards to All


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Imperial P56 All N Asymmetric Winding Possibilities_2

Ok, so We also have this "Fixed" Method, (separated, not overlapped) coils, by wrapping every Four (4) Poles Coils in the Pair:

[IMG][/IMG]

So, on this Method We MUST TEST FIRST before engaging into Full Winding, by checking IF P2 and P16 (Leaving Pairs according to Rotation) get FULLY Disconnected BEFORE even reaching each related Coil#1 Bisector NOT TO ALIGN with South Bisector Stator!!!

That is the reason of magenta 'enclosed region' for CRITICAL TIMING SETTING

I have set Coil#1 in each Pair for being the one closer to Commutator Element to be connected to, as this would be the First Coil We start winding from each Pair.


NOW, IF WE DO NOT FULLY DISCONNECT P2 & P16 BEFORE IT REACHES SOUTH STATOR BISECTOR...WE MUST DISREGARD THIS METHOD AND SWITCH BACK TO PREVIOUS OVERLAPPED METHOD, WHICH OFFERS MORE ADJUSTMENTS.


I will try sometime this week or next to do this simple testing...not sure, because I have not assembled yet rotor with commutators, nor check for free rotation on casing...therefore, can not guarantee I could make test within that frame of time...so, if any of you having an Imperial wants to check it out, please do that huge favor to our whole Team here...to either consider this type or disregard it as a NOT WORKING METHOD.

The purpose of this Two continuing Posts is to decide the perfect setting from the BEST METHOD for our excellent Imperial Machine...in order that it could be tested against each application we choose to do.

Is understood that those who want to use Imperial as a Prime Mover for a Generator Head...must consider a Winding Set up within the Narrower Margins from first post (Part 1), since the required Speed Range is going to be FIXED between 3600-4200 RPM's, but, with very High Torque Output, required at Heavier Loading/Close to limits output at Generator Head terminals.

As for those looking to install Imperial in any kind of Electric Vehicle, including Motorcycles...the 'opposite' applies, meaning Wider spreading of Bisectors between Two Pairs should be considered.

I particularly feel more comfortable with First Method, since it is really "Flexible" for each application required, the 'odd part' is that we must test room capacity when overlapping coils and see how many turns could fit at the time to finish ending Pairs...have to realize by overlapping we are creating more 'bulge' of copper which tends to reduce space.

I know it is quite some "adventure project" we are getting involved here...but hey, I believe it is worth pursuing what we are all searching for in the end of all this "saga"...


Regards to All


Ufopolitics

[GChilders]

Posting a video???? It has already been done!!!!

@Midaz and UFO
Those numbers are off of the video I already posted "The Battle of the Windings- The Timing contest". Look it up for yourself. These numbers are off of the clamp ammeter that I used for all of tests. All that I can say is I ran this timing test on both the AN1 and the AN2 numerous times because I couldn't believe it myself. Look up all of the numbers posted in those charts and you will see them as clear as day on the video. Science fiction I suppose it is if you cannot trust the meters but wouldn't that apply to all meters. They simply sample the current. Wow I did not think that you would doubt it. Well if that is the response I get from the people actually involved in this technology I can only imagine what others are thinking. I did not cherry pick the results by the way I ran all of these tests in the same order that they appear. All that I did was cut the middle 10 second section out of each run let the chips fall where they may. Read the numbers off of the meters for yourself. If you wish run the tests yourself, build a model with adjustable timing and see what you come up with yourself. Read em and weep as they say the same set up was used on all of the windings. The same length of copper used on all of them. The only difference is the two commutators for the asymmetric motors, the ability to fine tune the brush position, and the windings themselves.

Cheers

Garry

[Midaztouch]

@Midaz and UFO
Those numbers are off of the video I already posted "The Battle of the Windings- The Timing contest". Look it up for yourself. These numbers are off of the clamp ammeter that I used for all of tests. All that I can say is I ran this timing test on both the AN1 and the AN2 numerous times because I couldn't believe it myself. Look up all of the numbers posted in those charts and you will see them as clear as day on the video. Science fiction I suppose it is if you cannot trust the meters but wouldn't that apply to all meters. They simply sample the current. Wow I did not think that you would doubt it. Well if that is the response I get from the people actually involved in this technology I can only imagine what others are thinking. I did not cherry pick the results by the way I ran all of these tests in the same order that they appear. All that I did was cut the middle 10 second section out of each run let the chips fall where they may. Read the numbers off of the meters for yourself. If you wish run the tests yourself, build a model with adjustable timing and see what you come up with yourself. Read em and weep as they say the same set up was used on all of the windings. The same length of copper used on all of them. The only difference is the two commutators for the asymmetric motors, the ability to fine tune the brush position, and the windings themselves.

Cheers

Garry

Garry

You have been around here only for a few months. So maybe you don't know... It's like standard procedure to ask you for a complete video showing both motors reaching those super low AMPS in one vid.

If the skeptics ask you, They ain't nice! With "PROVE IT!!!" in giant bold red letters and them talking their BS.

Since you know the settings, do a continuous vid showing with both motors, one after the other, duplicating your, "TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE", timing .08 amps results. Connect and disconnect your AN1 and AN2 three times. That will clear the air for sure

No excuses, do it for your team. You have the spot light.

Good Luck

Midaz

You must be able to duplicate your results on command or you will be labeled as a "FRAUD". No one is exempt!
That's the magic of Energetic Forum.

[GChilders]

The uncut too good to be true Videos

@Midaz
I do not know what is going to be proven by this. Here is the uncut run of the AN1 Timing Setting One. This has all three tests rolled into one. First I switch on the motor brush pair and then run it for 30 seconds. Then I switch off the motor brush pair and switch on the generator brush pair for 30 seconds. Then I switch the motor brush pair back on and this is the test for both brush pairs. After about 30 seconds I switch the camera off. Hopefully it will give you what you want. Although it has been my experience that once someone's mind is made up they won't believe no matter how many times or ways you prove it to them.

Here is the AN1 TS2
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9mp7yxkmsj...ng2CW.wmv?dl=0
Here is the AN2 TS1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eekonalyvv...ng1CW.wmv?dl=0

Let me correct you on how long I have been actively involved in this thread. I started following this thread in November 2012. At first I was skeptical as I read the thread. I decided to order my first 4 goldmine motors in January 2013 and went to Radio Shack and purchased the wire to rewind the rotors. I had my first two replications done by the end of the week following receiving my goldmine motors. I was working at the time and this was just a hobby that I followed with some interest. These two replications were pitiful, I just wired the end caps together with bailing wire.
I have posted pictures of my builds although video documentation is a new venture for me. I was actively building the John Stone Monster Drives when CornBoy got his personal tutelage from Sir John Stone I built my first two at the same time. I have developed software for the Arduino for a test bed. After it was said to be too complex and Dana was having problems with the motor revving I decided to build two more replications, The NSRS wind and then a Y wind 4 Rotor extremely long model of the goldmine. A very difficult and trying replication. All of my replications have been successful and all have had more torque than the standard goldmine. Recently I built all of the Rotors for "The Battle of the Windings" to put to rest the nonsense that I have been hearing from people on this thread since I first started reading it. I myself am certain of the results that I am posting. I have no axe to grind in this competition. I am still learning even from you believe it or not. I have no problem with your winding I think it is viable. I will be applying even more stringent testing to the Imperial when I put both the AN1 and AN2 windings in it. I have decided that both of these rotors are worthy of pursuit. May the best winding win.

Cheers

Garry

[HuntingRoss]

Timing 4 pole Pairs

At risk of isolating myself still further.

There are the 'fine' points for consideration and there are the 'broad strokes' of understanding...this is the 'blunt' end of a triangle where general principles live...the sharp end is the 'finer' points.

When designing the timing of a motor the general principles include understanding the geometry of the motor configuration. In this case 28 poles = (360/28)° per pole. The brush will most likely be, or near to be, the full width of the commutator segment. The commutator segment will be (360/28)° wide. To avoid messy fine detail I will call this width 1/28 or more simply angle A.

The 'ON' time for timing our coils can be considered in TWO ways...they are identical expressions of the same thing, simply stated in different ways.

ONE.1 - P1C2 bisector must be past the North Stator bisector according to rotation as P1 comm just enters the brush. I'll call this angle X.
ONE.2 - P2C1 bisector must be before the South Stator bisector according to rotation when the P2 comm just leaves the brush. I'll call this angle Y.

Method ONE therefore considers Coil Pairs P1 and P2 'ON' time from the point of P1 connection upto the point at which P2 has swept off the brush. The sweep angle for P2 is sA. This is the point at which the trailing edge of P2 leaves the brush.

The angle between P1C2 and P2C1 is defined by the geometry of the wind. I'll call this angle Z.

TWO.1 - P1C2 bisector must be past the North Stator bisector according to rotation as P1 comm just enters the brush. I'll call this angle X.
TWO.2 - P1C1 bisector must be before the South Stator bisector according to rotation when the P1 comm just leaves the brush. I'll call this angle Y.

Method TWO therefore ONLY considers Coil Pair P1 'ON' time from the point of P1 connection upto the point at which P1 has swept off the brush. The sweep angle for P1 is 2sA. This is the angle between the leading edge of P1 entering the brush and the point at which the trailing edge of P1 leaves the brush.

The angle between P1C2 and P1C1 is defined by the geometry of the wind. I'll call this angle W.

The 3 periods of one Coil Pair, method TWO is (just connecting, fully connected, just disconnecting) which is the exactly the same as expressing the connection of P1 (just connecting) and the passage of P2 (fully connected, just disconnected). Or more simply, P1 (just connecting), P2 (fully connected) and P3 (just disconnected).

To express these TWO methods as simple formulae -

W = 4A
Z = 5A
sA = A

ONE. X + Z + sA + Y = 7A
TWO. X + W + 2sA + Y = 7A

Substituting for W, sA and Z

X + 5A + A + Y = X + 4A + 2A + Y = 7A = 90°

Considering the effect of P2 is just understanding the effect of P1, (1/28)° in the future. Understanding that P3 has just disconnected is just understanding the future of P1 (2/28)° in the future.

All that is required to understand the 'OFF' time is to appreciate that every coil group is connected to its comm segment for just under 2 pole angles. In this case (2/28)° past the P1C1 'ON' position.

This has been presented in 'broad strokes'. The finer detail should also consider that brush width affects 'ON' time. The narrower the brush width the shorter the 'ON' time. Another major consideration is the geometry on the face of the brush. A new brush will not hug the comm for it's full width which has the same affect as narrowing the brush. The seating of a brush will affect the timing of a motor as the brush becomes a closer fit to the comm segments.

Unless I have made a SERIOUS error. There appears to be a fundamental flaw in the timing of '4 pole pairs' geometry. Lapping pairs is the only solution I see to '4 pole pairs' motors.

Good Hunting

mark

[Midaztouch]

@Midaz
I do not know what is going to be proven by this. Here is the uncut run of the AN1 Timing Setting One. This has all three tests rolled into one. First I switch on the motor brush pair and then run it for 30 seconds. Then I switch off the motor brush pair and switch on the generator brush pair for 30 seconds. Then I switch the motor brush pair back on and this is the test for both brush pairs. After about 30 seconds I switch the camera off. Hopefully it will give you what you want. Although it has been my experience that once someone's mind is made up they won't believe no matter how many times or ways you prove it to them.

Here is the AN1 TS2
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9mp7yxkmsj...ng2CW.wmv?dl=0
Here is the AN2 TS1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eekonalyvv...ng1CW.wmv?dl=0

Let me correct you on how long I have been actively involved in this thread. I started following this thread in November 2012. At first I was skeptical as I read the thread. I decided to order my first 4 goldmine motors in January 2013 and went to Radio Shack and purchased the wire to rewind the rotors. I had my first two replications done by the end of the week following receiving my goldmine motors. I was working at the time and this was just a hobby that I followed with some interest. These two replications were pitiful, I just wired the end caps together with bailing wire.
I have posted pictures of my builds although video documentation is a new venture for me. I was actively building the John Stone Monster Drives when CornBoy got his personal tutelage from Sir John Stone I built my first two at the same time. I have developed software for the Arduino for a test bed. After it was said to be too complex and Dana was having problems with the motor revving I decided to build two more replications, The NSRS wind and then a Y wind 4 Rotor extremely long model of the goldmine. A very difficult and trying replication. All of my replications have been successful and all have had more torque than the standard goldmine. Recently I built all of the Rotors for "The Battle of the Windings" to put to rest the nonsense that I have been hearing from people on this thread since I first started reading it. I myself am certain of the results that I am posting. I have no axe to grind in this competition. I am still learning even from you believe it or not. I have no problem with your winding I think it is viable. I will be applying even more stringent testing to the Imperial when I put both the AN1 and AN2 windings in it. I have decided that both of these rotors are worthy of pursuit. May the best winding win.

Cheers

Garry

Are you kidding me!? I want to believe you but... You have to do a side by side with you connecting and disconnecting motors in the video.

The RPMs jumped over a 1000rmps in BOTH vid's and the amps meter doesn't fluctuate a lot !?
.08 - .09 readings... That is major, incredible, fantastic and out of this world! Prove it without a shadow of a doubt!

Furthermore, you did the quad blink program and no one could get it to work. When they asked for your help, you disappeared! All your work is suspect to me so far. NG!.. If you smell smoke there's usually a fire!

Midaz

Grown men believe in UFOs. Small children believe in flying unicorns.

[sampojo]

motor temperature of Garry's Goldmines

I would be very curious about the running temperature of the Goldmines AN-1 or 2. If you think the motors can sustain continuous operation type tests where they come up to a stable temperature without burning up, I would like to ask if you can work it in, to take the temperature of an OEM, an AN running at the next best (higher amp) setting and the low amp setting, and see there differences.

If it is running on more radiant energy at the low amp setting, it would be "cold" electricity. So not only would it be running cooler due to lower amps, but be cooled by the cold electricity too. I think the electricity's cold effect is because it is taking electrical energy from the environment, which manifests as a temperature reduction. Maybe there is a surprise to be found here.

My QUP-10 motor runs a little hot, started some tuning tests, break-in runs, etc. And it feels very hot holding it in my hand. I take its temperature on the body, says 99 deg. What? thats just body temperature, how could that feel hot? fingers temp says 96 before I touch it. Nerves must be feeling the higher heat content of the metal. Brushes at 128. shaft/bearing 110. All these must be OK for a motor, not hurt the magnets? hopefully Back at it by the weekend...

@Ufo: Re: Post 7576 AN-1 & AN-2 comparison is PERFECTO. I had totally missed AN-2's performance on the video. Didn't see it until the spreadsheets were posted.

[bistander]

Coil sides cancel

Ok, so We also have this "Fixed" Method, (separated, not overlapped) coils, by wrapping every Four (4) Poles Coils in the Pair:

[IMG][/IMG]

So, on this Method We MUST TEST FIRST before engaging into Full Winding, by checking IF P2 and P16 (Leaving Pairs according to Rotation) get FULLY Disconnected BEFORE even reaching each related Coil#1 Bisector NOT TO ALIGN with South Bisector Stator!!!

I have seen where UFO does not believe in magnetic circuits and as such, I doubt he recognizes Ampere's Law as valid because the left side of the equation is a magnetic circuit. So this addresses others who may consider this coil configuration.

The way I understand the diagram and surrounding description, 2 coils wound in the same direction are placed in between comm segments to form an armature "element". These 2 coils are in series with each other and each spans 4 armature teeth with a side of each coil sharing a common armature slot. That is shown in the diagram as a slot labelled P1 for the dark blue coil pair on the left. Slot P1 is at about the 9:00 o'clock position. Side 1 of the lower dark blue coil of the pair is 4 slots counterclockwise from P1 and side 2 of the upper dark blue coil of the pair is 4 slots clockwise from P1. So side 2 from the lower coil shares slot P1 with side 1 of the upper coil of the dark blue pair. These 2 coil sides have equal and opposite direction current flowing in them. Therefore they cancel out. Those 2 coils sides contribute no torque production. All they do is add heat and drop voltage.

It is much better to use a single coil with its 2 sides 8 slots apart. Less copper will be needed for the same torque production and higher generated voltage will be seen due to reduced coil resistance. Better still, save a bit more copper and increase torque a tad by making the single coil span only 7 slots. Over corded coils are rarely a good idea.

So as UFO says, in red, test it out. Compare the coil pair to a single coil of twice the span, same turns, same timing.

[Midaztouch]

I have seen where UFO does not believe in magnetic circuits and as such, I doubt he recognizes Ampere's Law as valid because the left side of the equation is a magnetic circuit. So this addresses others who may consider this coil configuration.

The way I understand the diagram and surrounding description, 2 coils wound in the same direction are placed in between comm segments to form an armature "element". These 2 coils are in series with each other and each spans 4 armature teeth with a side of each coil sharing a common armature slot. That is shown in the diagram as a slot labelled P1 for the dark blue coil pair on the left. Slot P1 is at about the 9:00 o'clock position. Side 1 of the lower dark blue coil of the pair is 4 slots counterclockwise from P1 and side 2 of the upper dark blue coil of the pair is 4 slots clockwise from P1. So side 2 from the lower coil shares slot P1 with side 1 of the upper coil of the dark blue pair. These 2 coil sides have equal and opposite direction current flowing in them. Therefore they cancel out. Those 2 coils sides contribute no torque production. All they do is add heat and drop voltage.

It is much better to use a single coil with its 2 sides 8 slots apart. Less copper will be needed for the same torque production and higher generated voltage will be seen due to reduced coil resistance. Better still, save a bit more copper and increase torque a tad by making the single coil span only 7 slots. Over corded coils are rarely a good idea.

So as UFO says, in red, test it out. Compare the coil pair to a single coil of twice the span, same turns, same timing.

Just to expand a little on bistanders thoughts.

A1MoGen = Singular Coils, you get less voltage drop also.



Quick up date on the A1MoGen EV build with battery configurations.
(Front sprocket on the A1Mogen must be aligned with the rear sprocket for perfect chain alignment... after spring vacation.)
[VIDEO]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fVPJpfpG968[/VIDEO]

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

[JC4me]

Hello to All,

Previously I have shown a possibility of overlapping the Pairs in the All North Imperial shown below:

[IMG][/IMG]

This 'Overlapping' of the All North Pairs were seen working fine before in the AN1 Model smaller Radio Shack Five Poles, done by Garry Childers, by doing this we are bringing to a more compact formation of All Four Coils Bisectors taking place when we are firing Two Pairs.

[IMG][/IMG]

We see above a frame from the video of the Five Pole 3D Model, it is noticed that each Coil in the Pair is sharing One(1) Common Pole, meaning, overlapping by one pole. That was the AN1 Configuration.

However, when applying this concept from a five pole rotor and two stators to a 28 pole rotor and four stators...we have much more possibilities to play with searching for better Gaps to time machine, looking for that 'Sweet Spot' reducing Amps draw, without sacrificing Top Performances from RPM's and Torque.

In above Diagram of Imperial, each Coil in the Pair is wrapped around Five Poles, as there are Three (3) common poles 'Shared' between both coils in the Pair, and we understand this is "modifiable", by interlacing/overlapping coils either closer together or further apart, in order to expand or contract all four bisectors, by having either more common coils or less common coils.

So, We can have up to Four (4) Common Poles in the Pair (very compact Bisectors, Widest margin to set timing) or up to just One (1) Common Pole (Max Expanded Arrangement of Bisectors, Narrowest Margin to set Timing).

However, We must understand that by narrowing Bisectors (more shared or common poles) We are reducing the Throw Out Angles which would cause a reduction in overall speed or RPM's...and a Gain in Torque...BUT, again, We have quite some probabilities to test there.

This is it, for the All North Imperial Overlapped Coils in the Pair ...However, I will show in a continued post, another way to wind the All North, not overlapped, which is simpler to do...You guys decide which way to test first.


Regards to All


Ufopolitics

Thanks UFO and Gary and Richard,
This Imperial 28 poles with 5 pole groups and 3 overlap, could this be called 28-5AN3, or just AN3?

"This is it" - the best all-North for generator or fixed RPM applications is what i derived, and the next second post is a Beta trial for better electric vehicle, maybe testing would show, if someone does it soon, i read.

I've watched the Winding Tutorial videos 1-3. Please tell me why did you route wires at top Commutator across two adjacent segments? I am stumped. Thanks for warning not to wind anything yet, and that all-North is best, and 28-5AN3 best for Imperial with fixed RPM's.

I called Imperial today when Dyann did not reply; she is out of office and checking e-mail, but the other lady there knew not about the "UFO Kit". I could have provided all the part numbers, but just asked her to see if Dyann could help take this kit order this week, and today is Friday now.

I chose this Imperial wind because UFO kindly advised it as easiest per available in pieces as a kit. This huge motor i might never be able to use well, so i assume a generator load, or a Bedini 1984 Free Energy Generator type setup. Still worth it just to learn this easier. I suppose i could try the Beta wind. I'm already thinking i should wind at least two, and have one stock to show how much it sucks. Must throttle down spending.

and

PS - I am stuck trying to self-run a Window Motor with Lockridge style coil orientation, almost ready to try generator coil shorting and un-shorting to charge Cap's faster to sustain the battery better with the famed electron current / ion current hysteresis. Hopefully before adding an energizer on the output shaft. If anyone JB Planetary Motor / 1984FEG savvy, please PM me. If you can think of a way to Asymm a Window Motor, besides abandoning bi-polar switching as i already have, let me know. I saw the Asymm Brushless vid, and so maybe there is an asymmetric Window Motor way.

Thanks again,

-Ward

[Ufopolitics]

The Real Cancellation of Magnetic Fields...

I have seen where UFO does not believe in magnetic circuits and as such, I doubt he recognizes Ampere's Law as valid because the left side of the equation is a magnetic circuit. So this addresses others who may consider this coil configuration.

Bistander,

You are completely bounded to the 'Old School" friend...Your based info from the wrong sources that have been established for over 200 years, and I understand it...all I ask is a little "Open Mind" here...

FIRST, I DO BELIEVE IN MAGNETIC CIRCUITS, BUT, NOT ACCORDING TO THE OLD ESTABLISHED "DATA", since this "Data" WAS and still IS WRONG!

I will start teaching (or at least "trying to") and show this stuff from the basic, simple data we had WRONG for so long.

You (as million people out there) are 'bound' to the wrong magnetic field model:

[IMG][/IMG]

Above: Magnetic Field seen through iron particles and a piece of paper, 'denoting' the Field Configuration, therefore, the Model was translated into:

[IMG][/IMG]

So, this two images above represent the "Magnetic Circuit" as we all have observed for 224 years...IGNORING "BLOCH", DOMAIN OR DIELECTRIC WALLS...

But, even more errors were added besides the wrong 'lines of force' formation by iron filings...Oh no!...but they further on 'concluded' without any substantial proof that the FLOW will take place FROM NORTH TO SOUTH...as seen the arrows above following a ONE WAY direction...

This concept when translated into 'typical' electric circuits will mean that North is the "Source" while South is the "Drain"...Or even say North is Positive (+) and South is Negative (-) right?...right...so then...explain to me why we still have a very solid repulsion field between two South Poles?...

We shouldn't have "any flow" at all, between two Drain sides without any "Source" being involved.

Even more simple...Two Negative charged end terminals will NOT do absolutely NADA...not even a very dim spark when making contact...

Then, concluding Two South Poles should do as well...absolutely nada, no attraction nor repulsion either...(according to 'stated' direction of flow)

We all know this 'no field interaction' between two South poles never takes place...Two South Poles will repel as stronger as Two North Poles...it is a FACT!

However...We all accepted this very wrong THEORIES.

Now, please, allow me to "ENLIGHTEN" your mind, by Enlightening the Real Magnetic Field Spectrum:

When magnets are screened under a Magnetic Viewing Film...then the whole "picture" changes COMPLETELY

[IMG][/IMG]

In above Image we see CLEARLY how North and South Poles are NOT CONNECTED AT ALL!!, They just travel back to the MAIN SOURCE OF ANY MAGNET...The Dielectric Plane.

Therefore, North Polarization is a Completely Independent Circuit from South Pole.

This could also be demonstrated from FERROCELL Viewing...

[IMG][/IMG]

And by Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Screening:

[IMG][/IMG]

SAME THING, BUT BETTER, I mean much better way to analyze a Magnetic Field from Polarized Light Divergence...and not from iron particles which magnetize just like the magnet is oriented...then, absolutely clear they are gonna form "bridges" between.

All of this SOPHISTICATED MODERN METHODS demonstrate that North and South are TWO COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT "CIRCUITS", ONLY "connected' to the center "counter-space" plane that exist in every single magnetic field out there.

Now, do you understand all of the above??!!...because if you don't...then you will never accept the way magnetic 'circuits' really work...THEREFORE...You will NEVER be able to understand all this New Technology.

And... I will be completely wasting my Time...

The way I understand the diagram and surrounding description, 2 coils wound in the same direction are placed in between comm segments to form an armature "element". These 2 coils are in series with each other and each spans 4 armature teeth with a side of each coil sharing a common armature slot. That is shown in the diagram as a slot labelled P1 for the dark blue coil pair on the left. Slot P1 is at about the 9:00 o'clock position. Side 1 of the lower dark blue coil of the pair is 4 slots counterclockwise from P1 and side 2 of the upper dark blue coil of the pair is 4 slots clockwise from P1. So side 2 from the lower coil shares slot P1 with side 1 of the upper coil of the dark blue pair. These 2 coil sides have equal and opposite direction current flowing in them. Therefore they cancel out. Those 2 coils sides contribute no torque production. All they do is add heat and drop voltage.

It is much better to use a single coil with its 2 sides 8 slots apart. Less copper will be needed for the same torque production and higher generated voltage will be seen due to reduced coil resistance. Better still, save a bit more copper and increase torque a tad by making the single coil span only 7 slots. Over corded coils are rarely a good idea.

So as UFO says, in red, test it out. Compare the coil pair to a single coil of twice the span, same turns, same timing.

The "way you understand" how this Two Coils standing next to each others, running opposite side "flow":

These 2 coil sides have equal and opposite direction current flowing in them. Therefore they cancel out. Those 2 coils sides contribute no torque production. All they do is add heat and drop voltage.

Negative, I can proof this Method Works perfectly fine, anytime...then, would that change the way you "think" about this "Old School"?!

This Two Coils are Projecting Both a North INDEPENDENT FIELD Towards the interacting area to Stators, and the Fact that just in a very small portion (side as you cite) of its structure they have "Opposite Current Flows", do not mean the WHOLE Coil is just going to cancel to Zero.

In order for Two Coils to Zero Out or "Cancel" their Magnetic Fields:

[IMG][/IMG]

On above Img, we see first on LEFT a Coil Circuit (C1) energized according to terminals shown, and magnetizing an Iron Cylinder, then producing a Magnetic Field and each respective INDEPENDENT Vectors of Force...One for N, and other for South.

Well, on RIGHT IMG, the same exact Coil (C1) plus another one, (C2) identical in feeding source, EXCEPT, it is reversed Spatially or Geometrically therefore generating Identical in strength, BUT Opposite Directions Vectors of Force.

Magnetic Field is then "KILLED" gone, history...cancelled to an exact ZERO.

But, in order for this to Occur...there must be some critical properties that must be present.

1- Both Coils must be Projecting completely Opposite Vectors of Force (B-Fields) coming out from THE CENTER OF COILS.

2-Both Coils MUST BE SHARING the SAME EXACT FERROMAGNETIC CORE. Meaning Both Fields must be generated WITHIN THE SAME EXACT 3D GEOMETRY. (in order that Dielectric Planes are set identically at Center of Geometry)

Anything "outside" this Two required Statements above, including to even 'distort' the opposite projecting Angles from both Vectors of Force will result in a Non Zero, nor cancelling of both forces.

We have been doing this "fooling" of cancellation between two independent circuit coils on this Thread back and forth, and all along ALL the Asymmetric Models shown to work BEAUTIFULLY!!

We have "BENT" Magnetic Fields Vectors of Force to avoid Cancellation by exactly a perfect "U TURN" at 180º, 90º, 45º etc,etc...right at, or before the Shafts of each Asymmetric displayed rotor here.

You just have not 'noticed' those facts...

Keep "trying" to understand this New Technology...you still have a looong way to go...and wish you the best of luck!...

Just at least try to be a little "Open Minded" believe me...it will help a lot!

OH!...and if you have the time...please allow me to HIGHLY recommend to go to:

UNCOVERING THE MISSING SECRETS OF MAGNETISM

Please, download the FREE E-BOOK, from Ken Wheeler and do me a big favor...read it.

Then come back here again to discuss...so we are -at least- on 'similar' levels of understanding.


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

This Two Coils are Projecting Both a North INDEPENDENT FIELD Towards the interacting area to Stators, and the Fact that just in a very small portion (side as you cite) of its structure they have "Opposite Current Flows", do not mean the WHOLE Coil is just going to cancel to Zero.

In order for Two Coils to Zero Out or "Cancel" their Magnetic Fields:

Hello UFO,

I knew I would not convince you. That is why I addressed those who would be attempting such a winding. And I suggested they give it a try.

I did not say the two coils would cancel, but rather that the two coil sides in the common slot would cancel. This equates the 2 coil pair magnetically to a single coil of twice the span. Equal magnetic properties using less copper and being more efficient.

It is not the coils (in their entirety) which produce torque and generate voltage in the dynamo, but rather the coil sides. That is the portion of the coil which is perpendicular to the flux and perpendicular to the motion. In the radial gap motor like we have here, that means that only sections of the coils which are parallel to the shaft do anything constructive. The rest of the coil, commonly called end-turns, is useless magnetically and only needed to complete the electric circuit.

When you have 2 coils which have 4 coil sides and it is obvious that 2 of those coil sides cancel each other out, it is a no brainer to eliminate those 2 coil sides and go with a single coil of twice the span.

Maybe your pretty pictures and interesting patterns relate to some phenomena of which I am unaware. However my education and understanding of the principles, like you say, are shared by millions and have provided the foundation for an electric machine industry which has illuminated and powered the world for over a century with exceptional efficiency. I'll stick with what I know works.

As for this coil question: Easy enough to find out. Somebody winding one of these cores up, please check it out.

bi

[Ufopolitics]

At risk of isolating myself still further.

There are the 'fine' points for consideration and there are the 'broad strokes' of understanding...this is the 'blunt' end of a triangle where general principles live...the sharp end is the 'finer' points.

When designing the timing of a motor the general principles include understanding the geometry of the motor configuration. In this case 28 poles = (360/28)° per pole. The brush will most likely be, or near to be, the full width of the commutator segment. The commutator segment will be (360/28)° wide. To avoid messy fine detail I will call this width 1/28 or more simply angle A.

The 'ON' time for timing our coils can be considered in TWO ways...they are identical expressions of the same thing, simply stated in different ways.

ONE.1 - P1C2 bisector must be past the North Stator bisector according to rotation as P1 comm just enters the brush. I'll call this angle X.
ONE.2 - P2C1 bisector must be before the South Stator bisector according to rotation when the P2 comm just leaves the brush. I'll call this angle Y.

Method ONE therefore considers Coil Pairs P1 and P2 'ON' time from the point of P1 connection upto the point at which P2 has swept off the brush. The sweep angle for P2 is sA. This is the point at which the trailing edge of P2 leaves the brush.

The angle between P1C2 and P2C1 is defined by the geometry of the wind. I'll call this angle Z.

TWO.1 - P1C2 bisector must be past the North Stator bisector according to rotation as P1 comm just enters the brush. I'll call this angle X.
TWO.2 - P1C1 bisector must be before the South Stator bisector according to rotation when the P1 comm just leaves the brush. I'll call this angle Y.

Method TWO therefore ONLY considers Coil Pair P1 'ON' time from the point of P1 connection upto the point at which P1 has swept off the brush. The sweep angle for P1 is 2sA. This is the angle between the leading edge of P1 entering the brush and the point at which the trailing edge of P1 leaves the brush.

The angle between P1C2 and P1C1 is defined by the geometry of the wind. I'll call this angle W.

The 3 periods of one Coil Pair, method TWO is (just connecting, fully connected, just disconnecting) which is the exactly the same as expressing the connection of P1 (just connecting) and the passage of P2 (fully connected, just disconnected). Or more simply, P1 (just connecting), P2 (fully connected) and P3 (just disconnected).

To express these TWO methods as simple formulae -

W = 4A
Z = 5A
sA = A

ONE. X + Z + sA + Y = 7A
TWO. X + W + 2sA + Y = 7A

Substituting for W, sA and Z

X + 5A + A + Y = X + 4A + 2A + Y = 7A = 90°

Considering the effect of P2 is just understanding the effect of P1, (1/28)° in the future. Understanding that P3 has just disconnected is just understanding the future of P1 (2/28)° in the future.

All that is required to understand the 'OFF' time is to appreciate that every coil group is connected to its comm segment for just under 2 pole angles. In this case (2/28)° past the P1C1 'ON' position.

This has been presented in 'broad strokes'. The finer detail should also consider that brush width affects 'ON' time. The narrower the brush width the shorter the 'ON' time. Another major consideration is the geometry on the face of the brush. A new brush will not hug the comm for it's full width which has the same affect as narrowing the brush. The seating of a brush will affect the timing of a motor as the brush becomes a closer fit to the comm segments.

Unless I have made a SERIOUS error. There appears to be a fundamental flaw in the timing of '4 pole pairs' geometry. Lapping pairs is the only solution I see to '4 pole pairs' motors.

Good Hunting

mark

[IMG][/IMG]


[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

That was absolutely all I needed to say or write here...


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Hello UFO,

I knew I would not convince you.

...I was thinking the same exact thing...I would not convince you, no matter my "pretty images"...

That is why I addressed those who would be attempting such a winding. And I suggested they give it a try.

Now, that is wrong Bistander, you have absolutely no right to "influence" others from My Thread here, with your old, ancient science laws...let them experience by themselves...they have been doing it before without you here...trying to "warn" about old concepts.

I did not say the two coils would cancel, but rather that the two coil sides in the common slot would cancel. This equates the 2 coil pair magnetically to a single coil of twice the span. Equal magnetic properties using less copper and being more efficient.

So...let me see if I understand you...You are saying just "That Portion" of each coils would cancel...right?...cancel what to zero?

1- Magnetic Field?

2-Electric Fields?

3-Current flowing through that particular end?

It is not the coils (in their entirety) which produce torque and generate voltage in the dynamo, but rather the coil sides. That is the portion of the coil which is perpendicular to the flux and perpendicular to the motion. In the radial gap motor like we have here, that means that only sections of the coils which are parallel to the shaft do anything constructive. The rest of the coil, commonly called end-turns, is useless magnetically and only needed to complete the electric circuit.

The wrong Concepts again...and again...plus I see you have even some "confused theories" there...what the old physics refers to as "productive side of coils" (Vertical running wires) Relates to Energy Generation (Induction) NOT Motoring Action, not Coils generating A Magnetic Field.

When you have 2 coils which have 4 coil sides and it is obvious that 2 of those coil sides cancel each other out, it is a no brainer to eliminate those 2 coil sides and go with a single coil of twice the span.

Precisely, a Single Coil would have much less "span angle" or as I call it Throw Out Angle. You can not just use one single coil and wrap it around EIGHT POLES of that Rotor, it is too wide of a semi air core, half and half steel and air design.

Maybe your pretty pictures and interesting patterns relate to some phenomena of which I am unaware. However my education and understanding of the principles, like you say, are shared by millions

Unfortunately so....and it is sadly true...

...and have provided the foundation for an electric machine industry which has illuminated and powered the world for over a century with exceptional efficiency. I'll stick with what I know works.

As for this coil question: Easy enough to find out. Somebody winding one of these cores up, please check it out.

bi

Yes, have "provided" the foundation for an electric machine industry...yes...but based on what kind of "PRIME MOVER" has been required for so long to just "TURN" those Generators built for over two Centuries?

Unfortunately, many Generator Designs have being conceived during all this long time...however, all based on the same old, methods...same old concepts.

They all still, require the "herculean" farting machines to run them all...what a wasted time!!!

Efficiency?...please...show me FIRST the "efficiency" of an ICE (Internal Combustion Engine)...and yes, of course... go to the "latest, state of the art" machines...to find out...be my guest...


Anyways...is over...keep thinking the way you are...just get ready for what is coming soon......cause you are one who are not going to be able to discern it...am sure of that as I am writing here now!

But read well my final words below:

...CONFORMISM AND ACCEPTANCE ABOUT ALL THE ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC RULES FOR SO LONG, HAVE BEEN OUR WORST ENEMY FOR ADVANCE, FOR THRIVING, FOR EVOLUTION...

You are a clear example of such Conformism and Acceptance about the "established sciences"...reflected clearly in your last words..


Take care


Ufopolitics