Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Motor Generators

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by Turion View Post

    I know there are dozens of materials ... But I don't have the money to test them all.

    now that I have magnets that are outputting the same as my original magnets,

    I can get on with that.

    These new coils put out less power for the same number of turns. But I will have 24 magnets on the rotor instead of 6

    By the way, Bob French has been running a dual rotor machine for three days now,

    ..'' primary source battery, is holding and the second battery in the circuit, which is the charge battery, has gone up above 14 volts.

    It also uses induction to capture energy in a secondary coil that is charging a third battery.

    We are so happy'''

    And then I have my setup with no moving parts..

    So how do we run between potentials LIKE the 3 battery system without wasting the energy "charging" the 3rd battery,
    Wow that sounds good Dave. I hope it works out for you without spending to much. I agree there must be a limit on material costs. Not bad progress.

    Not saying you need the the nano ribbon cores but you would have to buy 1" tape making blocks then grind off the corners and have them turned on a lathe. That seems like too much trouble.

    I think your old iron cores were 1000, the 96 fe-si 3% is 7000 for 60hz and the 97 fe-si 4% is 40,000 crazy swing for a 1% change. fe-cobalt is 10,000 which is replaced by the new nano ribbon but I sure don't know anymore.

    The permalloys are far higher and I can see why they give low amps. Sorry. Somebody knows what is best but it ain't me.
    Last edited by BroMikey; 04-26-2022, 10:41 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    I said I was using the best material I COULD FIND AND HAVE TESTED. So there absolutely IS such a thing. It's the material I found and had tested, just like I said. That doesn't mean there aren't other things that are better, but I haven't FOUND anything and HAD IT TESTED.

    I know there are dozens of materials with a permeability between 10,000 and 200,000. I never said there weren't. But I don't have the money to test them all. Do YOU? As for the amorphous nanocrystaline material. I have not been able to find a source for cores made of that material that would fit in a standard coil bobbin. We tried. To buy the tape and wind all the coils out of it would be a horrible job, and I have no reason to bother with that. I am building a prototype to prove the things I said are true. Now that I have magnets that are outputting the same as my original magnets, I can get on with that. I don't need "maximum output" to prove my point. All I need is to get the machine up and running. I will leave all those improvements to someone else.

    The original machine using iron cores had a specific output. These new coils put out less power for the same number of turns. But I will have 24 magnets on the rotor instead of 6. I have a couple of OTHER options right now, and I will see what works out. I can use a 1" diameter core and make my coil 1 1/4" longer. Or I can leave the core at 3/4 diameter and lengthen it. This might get me enough of an increase in number of turns with the wire closer to the core that the output of the coil is greater. I will find out when the machine is all back together and I can try a couple different coil configurations. Making a longer core with the 3/4 x 3/4 magnets didn't get me any increase, but these new magnets have almost double the pulling power of the ones I was using, so THAT should make a difference.

    By the way, Bob French has been running a dual rotor machine for three days now, using the circuit we have been working with. Battery number one, the primary source battery, is holding and the second battery in the circuit, which is the charge battery, has gone up above 14 volts. It also uses induction to capture energy in a secondary coil that is charging a third battery. We are so happy with the performance of the "toy" we built that we have invested in a large prototype that is currently in the machine shop. Its will be a 36 coil machine rather than a three coil machine.

    And then I have my setup with no moving parts. I have been working on this for years, but finally figured out some things. I realized the failure of the 3 battery system was not that it didn't charge battery 3. Because it does. And you do recover some of the input energy. It was just that it took far MORE energy to charge battery 3 than actually winds up IN THE BATTERY, (impedance is a killer) and even though you can run a load between the positives, you pull far too much out of batteries one and two to do it. So how do we run between potentials LIKE the 3 battery system without wasting the energy "charging" the 3rd battery, and still recover some of what we put in. When I figured THAT out, it all began to get very, very interesting. How long it will run, I have no idea. But the next few weeks will be loads of fun for me.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    what we need is called a medium frequency core material. 1k-2k
    The target is power. See this short paper. china calls it amorphous nanocrystalline 1k-107
    https://www.academia.edu/44282591/A_...EMENT_ANALYSIS

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Real world data collection

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Let me further explain the B/H relationship and the number scale for permeability. Designers spend a portion of their lives learning how to fit everything active into this narrow window.

    Chromium, mg copper and many other refined metals of varying proportions are mixed with iron to produce a set permeability number for it.

    It needs to be specific, not a one size fits all proposition.


    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by Turion View Post
    I am not using the "old" permalloy. old or new there are dozens of values in between 10,000 to 200,000. I guess you missed that again
    I always wonder if you heard me the first time when you ignore key statement. Ignorance is bliss.


    I am using the best material no such one of a kind stuff I could find and have tested.

    Like I said, if you have a material you have tested, I am not a coil/core designer

    The best I got with the magnets I have is 90 volts..,,

    ..,, only 29% of what I will get with the NEW magnets

    (which is what the testing showed)

    it is worth the time and energy to replace the rotor, which is what I am going to do.
    Okay I thought you said the new system will only put out 1/3 (29%) as much as the iron did.

    One more thing you should know. Iron mixed with silicon (electrical grade steel) has a permeability number of 7000 and you had only iron without silicon. Maybe iron has no number because it becomes magnetized. THIs 7000 number is many times used for 60hz.

    I am not a core and coil designer and until Thane employed a company (other than your retiring friend) to design and build he was stuck at 1 amp. It wasn't until he used a certain set of specific calculations for the proper curve for that inductance at that frequency that his coils put out 5 times that amount or 5 amps. That's right a carefully designed coil and core operating inside the curve window took a special person to make it happen for Thane. He also pointed out that that company could do a precision winding, not that sloppy backyard stuff looking like a ball of yarn where all your calculations go out the back door.

    You my dear Sir like Thane and all the rest are shooting in the dark for the right everything.
    But you have another cement project? That's nice. Obsolete you say? Iron is, I know that.

    It sounds like you are doing the best you can, good luck with that.
    Last edited by BroMikey; 04-26-2022, 01:02 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    I am not using the "old" permalloy. I am using the best material I could find and have tested. Like I said, if you have a material you have tested, let me know what it is. Just telling me it is "out there" really doesn't help much. If a new core material comes available, I will test it.

    The best I got with the magnets I have is 90 volts DC across the load and I forget the amperage. That was with my big rotor. If that is truly only 29% of what I will get with the NEW magnets (which is what the testing showed) it is worth the time and energy to replace the rotor, which is what I am going to do. New magnets will be here Thursday. New rotor the first of next week.

    Meanwhile I have two other projects I am working on.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Hi Dave I know I am pizzing you off but dude think about this chart. It would be easier if I just shut up and go away but I know to much to abandon you.

    Look at this permeability chart for iron and some others. Just Permalloy alone has dozens of values in the form of a number. Thane abandoned the old permalloy a while back.

    29% of 1200watts is very low. You are saying that the new machine will produce 400w with 12 coils?







    ...

    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    bro,

    If you have TESTED core materials and know what the right core material is that will put out lots of power without heating up, please share. If you haven't tested it yourself, don't bother. I don't need speculation, I need facts. Speculation is kinda like wishing and hoping. Until you see it on the bench, it is not rally a fact. The coils I am using have permalloy cores. It is the best material I have found so for for both power production and running long term. It will give me a working prototype, and that is all I care about. I got EXACTLY the data I wanted, comparing four of the original magnets against four of the ones I am using right now. It shows me that these magnets give me around 29% of the output that the 2" diameter magnets on the OLD machine put out. A full size rotor was not necessary to figure that out, only the SAME number of magnets on the SAME size rotor. I was also able to test against 4 of the 1' x 1" magnets and compare the results of all of them Obviously a larger rotor with more magnets will change the output. Any idiot knows that. But it would change the output for ALL the different magnets, so it is not necessary. Rotors the same size with only ONE magnet each would have given me the data to make the same comparison, but I have other uses for these rotors, so I had them made to hold four magnets.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by alexelectric View Post
    https://youtu.be/s9c0CoyR2iM

    A personal suggestion, Mr. Dave, I think he would have made a replica of this generator that worked for him,
    he must test the same size rotor yes

    Leave a comment:


  • alexelectric
    replied
    https://youtu.be/s9c0CoyR2iM

    A personal suggestion, Mr. Dave, I think he would have made a replica of this generator that worked for him, with the safest and strongest material like the one he did later, the heating of the core would have resulted with some cooling, something provisional for that would allow more time of operation.

    I observe that it changes options and results, and it is adjusting and looking for new operating conditions.

    It takes time to find the right materials to get the desired results.

    Thank you for everything you share with us Mr. Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by Turion View Post
    Original cores were iron. It heats up after 30 minutes

    I won't know until it is up and running with the new coil material and the new magnets.
    Yes I know but using the right core will give you more power as the old iron without the heat. Use the old cores to see what this new test jig produces. It will be no heat and 70watts because you are making tests with a rotor that does not simulate a 24 magnet rotor at 3 times the speed for magnets whipping by cores. AT a 4" dia magnet rotor @3000rpm's the magnet is traveling 3100 feet per minute but at the 11" dia 8600 feet per minute almost 3x more feet.

    You must know there is a difference, you can not ignore. WRite it on the board 20 times or you are kicked out of class till further notice
    Last edited by BroMikey; 04-25-2022, 04:43 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    BTW hoping is a lot like wishing, my Dad use to say, when I would hope or make a wish "wish in one hand and zhit in the other to see which hand fills up the quickest"

    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    Original cores were iron. It heats up after 30 minutes and melts the coating off the wires, shorting out the coil. So while those coils will put out EXACLY what I claimed they would, they cannot be used long term. The new coils can. And the machine will put out what it puts out. I won't know until it is up and running with the new coil material and the new magnets.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by Turion View Post
    Here is the data testing different magnets. I have four of each magnet on the rotors. My original magnets were 1/4” x 2” and produced 50.3 volts at .01 amps with a 45 watt load on my test coil.

    The 3/4 x 3/4 magnets I am currently using produced only 14.9 volts and didn’t budge the 2 amp meter. Think that could be my problem? I THINK SO.

    3/4 diameter by 1” produced 27.8 volts and barely budged the amp meter.

    1” x 1” produced 50.3 volts at a tiny bit more than .01 amps, so better than the original magnets.

    This is what I will be going with, and 24 of them on the rotor rather than the 6 I had of the 2” magnets on the original rotor. Hopefully the output will make up for the decrease in production of the coils with this new core material that does not heat up.
    looks like the cores only produce a fraction of the power of the original iron cores. Not the right material? THE old one's gave 200w plus sumpin is bad bad wrong with that core
    Last edited by BroMikey; 04-25-2022, 01:44 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X