Motor Generators

[Turion]

I didn't suggest building a $600 Tesla Switch. I suggested building THIS one that I showed. As basic, as simple, and as inexpensive as you can get. You know that is what I suggested. Again you try and twist my words, and do a really crappy job of it. I said I would build one TOO, AGAIN, and I am working on it tonight.

I knew you wouldn't accept the challenge. LOL. You don't have anything you have built to show. Just YouTube videos of other people's work.

I have said MANY TIMES NOW (ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION?) that the Tesla Switch is COP 1 at BEST. Once you learn how to build one and get it to perform at COP 1, you can move onto the next step. THAT is learning how to use the LOAD to go COP>1. It is the LOAD that determines whether you are a success or a failure. But until you build a switch that works, there is NO next step. No "extra" to be had.

I replicated Matt's two coil motor setup that keeps the batteries charged and the motor running. In THAT case the "extra" is the mechanical energy you produce with the motor while the batteries remain charged.

[BroMikey]

build it inefficiently if you want to.

That's your problem, not mine.

how about it big man? You up for it? Because i sure am.[/b]

better yet you post a circuit and show it running that gets 70% recovery like have stated for years, while you have us building inferior stuff.

If you don't get something working, i predict you will be viewed as a hot air machine. That is why you hate youtube, people show results, most of who you view as dishonest

i know you need this so have fun, your time is coming to a close. I don't need your challenge to prove who is the bigger man and all of that. You have a way of playing tricks on the people thinking you are trying to help. There are other projects, we don't need a cop one tesla switch.

Maybe other will ubderstand you better and build it for $400-$600 i don't have that kind of cash to build another dead end project.

Now if you can do it that is great, but for the last 15 years it was you who have made all these boasts, not me.

[Turion]

...only 28.2 watts out of 100 is recovered BECAUSE OF THE INEFFICIENCY OF WHAT'S SHOWN. Build it inefficiently if you want to. That wouldn't be my choice. Once again you are taking comments I made about a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE and applying them to everything. That's YOUR problem, not mine.

I have reed switches, coil, rotor and transistors. Will have to pick up two more batteries in town tomorrow. All my batteries are in use for other projects at the moment. And I have over 30 batteries. Have to go in to get groceries, and run other errands. I will also try running this with 9 volt rechargables. This means I won't have it running until sometime tomorrow or very early Wednesday morning, since I will be up all night again tomorrow night.

I notice you didn't respond to my challenge, so I will repost it here:

I'll make a deal with you. I won't post about a SINGLE THING from this point on that I do not have up and running on my bench. If you do the same. This means no YouTube videos, no Thane propaganda unless you have it running to show a working model and show us data. How about it big man? You up for it? Because I sure am.

[BroMikey]

I never said the best recovery you can get from the 3BGS is 25% nor did anybody who knows ANYTHING about it. If only 25% of the energy that leaves the two batteries in series

EXPENSIVE versions. The one I have running on my bench probably cost between $400-600.

Now some things I CAN show running, show input data and output data,

You want direction?

No I don't want direction but someone will.

..... only 28.2 watts out of 100 is recovered because of the inefficiency of what is shown.

How much CAN BE recovered?

Never said otherwise.


But learning how to do this is a process.

YES, I agree, there is nothing exciting here.

Recovering 28.2 watts to reuse out of 100 is a little better than 25% extra to contribute to extended run time.

[Turion]

Build what? The data keeps changing, this picture? Last week it was 70% recovery on the 3bgs then you and your idol changed it to 25% is the best we can do after stating for years 70% recovery

I never said the best recovery you can get from the 3BGS is 25% nor did anybody who knows ANYTHING about it. If only 25% of the energy that leaves the two batteries in series went THROUGH the load to the charge battery, it wouldn't work at all. You get better than 50% of the voltage (24+ volts) and all of the amps, because amps are the same EVERYWHERE in the circuit. Plus if you run the boost module through a load ALSO to the charge battery you recover some more. You have to rotate the batteries and all you will get is extended run times, but that alone proves the point. Just like with the Tesla switch. As ALWAYS, the LOAD determines the success or failure.

This week we are to build a T switch COP 1 WITH A WIDE VARIETY OF WILD OUT OF THE BLUE CHANGES.

Not "out of the blue changes" just options. I showed three or four ways to build it, not "changes" to an original design. And you choose to apply SPECIFIC STATEMENTS I made about SPECIFIC options I posted to ALL the options I posted, which is par for the course for someone who never pays attention in the first place.

Dont run it fast you say.

Which applies to ONE mechanical version, which only needs to be rotated every 20 minutes. If the mechanical switch is used for a DIFFERENT VERSION and you try to run it fast, the contacts will overheat.

or long citing possible lithium battery may overload. The standard information concerning this subject states 12v batteries will become 36v batteries with no harm done.

I never said you couldn't run lithium "long citing possible lithium battery may overload." If you actually READ the article I linked to it discussed lithium accepting HUGE amps, but NOT high voltage like lead acid. I never USED the word overload. Not ever. Get your facts straight.

Nobody has a clue which way to go. Then you pop in and suggest we go for it. Go for what, that picture ?

I showed 3 or 4 versions of the Tesla switch hoping one would interest people enough to BUILD it and once they see it will work, move forward with more advanced, EXPENSIVE versions. The one I have running on my bench probably cost between $400-600. You going to follow directions and build THAT one? Probably not. But you could build one of the far less expensive ones. I need to build a model of EVERYTHING I post about to prove it works?

I'll make a deal with you. I won't post about a SINGLE THING from this point on that I do not have up and running on my bench. If you do the same. This means no YouTube videos, no Thane propaganda unless you have it running to show a working model and show us data. How about it big man? You up for it? Because I sure am.

Now some things I CAN show running, show input data and output data, but I will not show the schematic for how it works, because I am not ready to show that yet. Especially to people who have not built a basic model to prove they understand the concepts.

You want direction? Build the simple setup from your post above with four batteries and a rotor. It runs fine on lead acid batteries that are in good shape. If your batteries are lithium and have built in BMS they won't overcharge, and all that system does is keep the motor running anyway. Unless of course you modify it. But let's not talk about that yet. Build it first. I will build one later today or tonight while I am dog watching if I run out of time today. Not rocket science by any means. Oh, I have to make sure I have reed switches to build one. I don't use them much, so may have to order some if I don't have any. That may delay me a couple days, but I THINK I remember ordering some a while back. Going to check now. For a long term run I would replace the reed switch with my magnetic automobile points switch anyway. Reed switches wear out after a while.

[BroMikey]

Keep waiting. Or actually BUILD something. Your choice. LOL.

Build what? The data keeps changing, this picture? Last week it was 70% recovery on the 3bgs then you and your idol changed it to 25% is the best we can do after stating for years 70% recovery

This week we are to build a T switch COP 1 WITH A WIDE VARIETY OF WILD OUT OF THE BLUE CHANGES. Dont run it fast you say or long citing possible lithium battery may overload. The standard information concerning this subject states 12v batteries will become 36v batteries with no harm done.

Electrodyne stated 100hz minimum and 800hz is dangerous. You like 60hz. Where is the demo? Of your alternate twist version you expect everyone to build without any direction? Let's see your batteries coming to life cop 1

Nobody has a clue which way to go. Then you pop in and suggest we go for it. Go for what, that picture ?

[Turion]

Keep waiting. Or actually BUILD something. Your choice. LOL.

[BroMikey]

Here is the simplest Tesla Switch design I have ever built....... you have to build it and believe it can work. Otherwise you are a waste of time.
]

Show us. We are still waiting on the generator with all of the same big talk. Its no wonder you can't keep a following the way you demean innocent bistanders. Show us tough guy. Anything
Its you who has wasted lots of time. COP 1

you call everyone a waste of your time and you can't make it work either and show it off. you need to be taught proper manners. In school science class the teacher led the way doing a demo for all the students. well how about a demo before you attack us?

its a pretty picture but there ain't nothin like the real thing......

[Turion]

The top drawing is the way the magnets were in the WHITE machine. I" x 1" magnets with a bit of rotor plastic between them.
The bottom way is how the magnets were in the FIRST rotor I put in the BLACK machine.
I also thought the small magnet between the other two could be the problem because it was a "change".
The LAST rotor I put in the Black machine (with only 20 magnets instead of 24) did NOT use two magnets back to back as the two pictures above show. The rotor was only 1" thick and I used 1" magnets, so both ends of the magnet were flush with the outside edge of the rotor. Magnets were secured by epoxy and non-magnetic set screws. North magnet on one side of the rotor and South magnet on the other, just like in the FIRST drawing you show. Still no luck. Which is why I think the steel plate on top to mount the motor to is the issue. But, testing will help determine the problem.



Here is the simplest Tesla Switch design I have ever built. This is Matt's design and uses a simple rotor (motor) to do the switching. It had SIX magnets on the rotor, not the FOUR shown in the drawing. There are quite a FEW improvements that can be made to this simple design to increase the torque of the motor and the input to the charge batteries, but first you have to build it and believe it can work. Otherwise you are a waste of time.


SImple Tesla Switch motor.png

[BroMikey]

Magnets with gaps or other magnets in between change everything. The one large magnet with no gap has an even bigger field that these. You must have a record of the evolution.

[BroMikey]

The old WHITE machine started out with six of the 3" magnets with 3" between each one. The last rotor I had in it had 12 of the 1" x 1" magnets ... It had no sleeves around those magnets and worked fine. It was outputting 130V per coil


It is my suspicion that the large steel plate on top of the BLACK machine ....I am in no hurry to get drug back into that one.

THEY ARE LOST WITHOUT YOU.

But you fail to understand that your old magnet arrangement had a pinched up field restricting and moving the bloch wall. But I did not know you had that good of a result. Please include all data concerning the magnet mess you had and I can post a possible field view for the center magnets pinching off the big outside ones.

That is not whaT YOU HAVE NOW SO ALL OF THE DATA IS IMPORTANT, NOT JUST THE NUMBER OF POLES BUT HOW EACH OF THOSE POLES HAD 3 MAGNETS AND SO FORTH.

[Turion]

The old WHITE machine started out with six of the 3" magnets with 3" between each one. The last rotor I had in it had 12 of the 1" x 1" magnets and it is the one in a LOT of the videos I have posted from Greyland's shop. It had no sleeves around those magnets and worked fine. It was outputting 130V per coil pair at a little over 2 amps per pair at 2800 RPM with the OLD CORE MATERIAL, and about 85-90 % of that with the NEW core material. Voltage was close to the same, but amps went down.

I had high hopes that the new BLACK machine, running at a higher rpm with TWICE the magnets would put out more power. It did not. When I put in a NEW rotor with only 20 magnets instead of 24 to give more space between magnets, I saw no improvement. When I removed HALF the magnets in THAT rotor, bringing the total down to 10, which is CLOSER to the original machine's 12 magnets, it still did not achieve even CLOSE to the output per coil pair seen on the OLD machine with the NEW core material.

It is my suspicion that the large steel plate on top of the BLACK machine to which the motor is mounted that is less than 3/4" above the rotor is causing the problem. We will find out as testing progresses. If that turns out to be the problem, we can go to a direct drive (vs belt drive) motor like the WHITE machine has, and I still have the old 24 magnet rotor I can put back in. But we want to get it outputting first. Testing the old and new coils on the old machine is the first step. They are working on it. Unlike me, they both have full time jobs and small children, so time is a premium. I have my own projects, so I am in no hurry to get drug back into that one.

[BroMikey]

HOW to machine a thin sleeve

[BroMikey]

The old machine had no sleeves on the magnets on the rotor or the opposition magnets and I never had a problem. I will see what they say after they get finished testing. Testing BEFORE sleeves are put in will allow for a comparison without and with sleeves, if that is what we decide to do. Haven't heard anything. Was out of town all day and got home late.

I was referring to the flop machine, I thought the old machine was done. The old machine had no issues other than coil heating. Not sure what you call new and old but the machine with 1" magnets is not old to me. Those magnets have a much different field pattern than the pancake magnets and they are not 3" apart or 5" apart center to center.

The old magnets never overlapped fields. The new rotor magnet fields all overlap severely bleeding into one big magnet get it right and your machine will be the best one

Each magnet should have it's own life and sphere of operation with no outside influence. If your boys can stand 3 or 4 of those magnets on a table top the same spacing as the rotor and they don't move then I would say forget the sleeves.

But they can't without loosing a finger. So instead put a 1/4" of tape on one and push it close to it's position spacing on the rotor and watch it flip over at 2"

[Turion]

The old machine had no sleeves on the magnets on the rotor or the opposition magnets and I never had a problem. I will see what they say after they get finished testing. Testing BEFORE sleeves are put in will allow for a comparison without and with sleeves, if that is what we decide to do. Haven't heard anything. Was out of town all day and got home late.