Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The bistander thread

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

  • Originally posted by bistander View Post

    The coil(s) and core(s) are separate aspects to or subsystems of the generator (or motor). Each is responsible for different behavior, or effects. Early on, when we were discussing cogging, you kept referring to coils when it is only cores which cause cogging and coils have no influence. Similarly coils have no influence on core losses, or magnetic drag, only the core(s) and magnets do.

    Regards,
    bi
    I respectfully disagree with that. Watch the debunker video again. A single strand coil unloaded resulted in a specific amp draw and a specific rpm. When he replaced it with a Tesla wound coil on the exact same core, unloaded, the amp draw was higher and the rpm lower. It wasn't the core that was responsible for this, but the change in the configuration of the windings. It is the exact same MASS of wire, but there are different results. I am really trying to understand WHY. Not that it matters to what I am doing, because I deal with the effect, but I AM curious. Or did I get it all wrong?
    “Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.”
    —Bernhard Haisch, Astrophysicist

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Turion View Post

      I respectfully disagree with that. Watch the debunker video again. A single strand coil unloaded resulted in a specific amp draw and a specific rpm. When he replaced it with a Tesla wound coil on the exact same core, unloaded, the amp draw was higher and the rpm lower. It wasn't the core that was responsible for this, but the change in the configuration of the windings. It is the exact same MASS of wire, but there are different results. I am really trying to understand WHY. Not that it matters to what I am doing, because I deal with the effect, but I AM curious. Or did I get it all wrong?
      Turion,

      Thanks for the respectful reply. You say "It wasn't the core that was responsible for this, but the change in the configuration of the windings."

      I have never said otherwise. Where do you think I have disagreed with the bifilar coil being responsible for extra loss ( higher current in the motor and lower speed) while on the core unconnected from the load (apparent no-load) compared to a monofilar coil of equal mass unloaded? That is exactly what I've been saying from the start. Such that speed-up-under-load is really just returning to "normal" after having the apparent no-load determentaly affected by the reactance imparted by the bifilar winding. As you describe your experience going from the 3-1000 ft strands to the 6 strands, it appears to support the bebunker video spot-on.

      I think finally we are in agreement. That is why I wanted to differentiate between core and coil. Coils don't affect cogging or magnetic drag; cores don't affect speed-up-under-load (much). Yes, the permeability would no doubt affect the resonant frequency, but the primary driver of the effect is the capacitive coupling between the strands of the bifilar wind.

      Regards,
      bi

      Comment


      • FINALLY? I have always known that this was the issue with the coils. I saw it as soon as I started adding multiple coils to the machine and had to come up with a solution. That solution was magnetic neutralization. The increased amp draw of the motor and the reduction of RPM that are caused by these kinds of coils are neutralized by the offsetting magnets when they are properly adjusted. With no coils of ANY KIND in the machine it draws 7 amps. With 12 coils of the Tesla style (and their cores) in place it will draw over 27 amps and slow DOWN. (Without the adjustment of the magnets) Now standard coils will NOT cause the machine to draw that many amps or slow down AS MUCH, but it DOESN'T REALLY MATTER, because when the magnets are adjusted, the amp draw is reduced to between the original 7 amps and 9 amps, and the RPM goes back UP. Then when the coils are put under load, there is no change in either the RPM or the amp draw of the motor. It is still running on between 320-400 watts. And for every coil added you get an output of around 150 watts.

        Look at it this way. If this were a normal machine and it cost you 400 watts to run it without any coils in it, how many coils would it take to go OU? Based on the coil output, the "simple" math says three coils. But that is NOT what happens. For every coil added there is an INCREASE in the amp draw of the motor, and that amp draw is not linear. It follows a curve where each succeeding coil has a more negative effect than the previous one. And for each coil added there is a reduction in RPM of the motor which affects the output of EVERY COIL on the machine. And this reduction of RPM is not linear either. It follows the same curve as the amp draw. So by the time you get your third coil in the machine the OUTPUT of the individual coils has dropped and the TOTAL OUTPUT is below the necessary 400 watts to go OU, and you NEVER catch up to the curve. By the time the 12th coil is added, you are drawing 27 amps and your motor is smoking.

        With this machine it costs you the 400 watts to run the machine. Now start adding coils and using offsetting magnets and there is NO increase in amp draw and NO decrease in RPM. Put those coils under load and there is NO reduction in RPM and NO increase in motor amp draw. Your coil output NEVER goes down. It always remains the same. No matter HOW many coils you add as long as you take advantage of the magnetic neutralization.

        YES, the iron cores of my machine heat up and that is an issue that may well submarine the whole project, but there are core materials out there that do NOT heat up as much. I will find them. By the way, all those numbers are an EXAMPLE. My new rotor with more magnets will change all my numbers, but I have already seen what is possible and am just improving on it.
        Last edited by Turion; 04-06-2021, 11:32 PM.
        “Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.”
        —Bernhard Haisch, Astrophysicist

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Turion View Post
          FINALLY? I have always known that this was the issue with the coils. I saw it as soon as I started adding multiple coils to the machine and had to come up with a solution. That solution was magnetic neutralization. The increased amp draw of the motor and the reduction of RPM that are caused by these kinds of coils are neutralized by the offsetting magnets when they are properly adjusted. With no coils of ANY KIND in the machine it draws 7 amps. With 12 coils of the Tesla style (and their cores) in place it will draw over 27 amps and slow DOWN. (Without the adjustment of the magnets) Now standard coils will NOT cause the machine to draw that many amps or slow down AS MUCH, but it DOESN'T REALLY MATTER, because when the magnets are adjusted, the amp draw is reduced to between the original 7 amps and 9 amps, and the RPM goes back UP. Then when the coils are put under load, there is no change in either the RPM or the amp draw of the motor. It is still running on between 320-400 watts. And for every coil added you get an output of around 150 watts.

          Look at it this way. If this were a normal machine and it cost you 400 watts to run it without any coils in it, how many coils would it take to go OU? Based on the coil output, the "simple" math says three coils. But that is NOT what happens. For every coil added there is an INCREASE in the amp draw of the motor, and that amp draw is not linear. It follows a curve where each succeeding coil has a more negative effect than the previous one. And for each coil added there is a reduction in RPM of the motor which affects the output of EVERY COIL on the machine. And this reduction of RPM is not linear either. It follows the same curve as the amp draw. So by the time you get your third coil in the machine the OUTPUT of the individual coils has dropped and the TOTAL OUTPUT is below the necessary 400 watts to go OU, and you NEVER catch up to the curve. By the time the 12th coil is added, you are drawing 27 amps and your motor is smoking.

          With this machine it costs you the 400 watts to run the machine. Now start adding coils and using offsetting magnets and there is NO increase in amp draw and NO decrease in RPM. Put those coils under load and there is NO reduction in RPM and NO increase in motor amp draw. Your coil output NEVER goes down. It always remains the same. No matter HOW many coils you add as long as you take advantage of the magnetic neutralization.

          YES, the iron cores of my machine heat up and that is an issue that may well submarine the whole project, but there are core materials out there that do NOT heat up as much. I will find them. By the way, all those numbers are an EXAMPLE. My new rotor with more magnets will change all my numbers, but I have already seen what is possible and am just improving on it.
          Well Turion,

          I thought you'd finally figured out what effects to attribute to the core(s) and to the coil(s), but I guess not.

          ​​​​​​Maybe Mr. pmgriphone can help, or just wait until July. It's all irrelevant to power at load anyway.

          ​​​​​​Using conventional generator theory (proven theory), in a generator with your AF, PM topology, would have input power (via shaft) increase with each core added due to core loss, often called magnetic drag. Adding conventional coils, open circuit (unloaded) to those cores will not cause increased loading of the shaft, so no increase power from the prime mover. The unloaded conventional PMSG has no-load losses consisting of friction, windage, and core loss, but no copper loss as net armature current is zero and any incidental reactive or stray currents in the coils are insignificant.

          When you replace the monofilar coils with bifilar coils, each coil added may increase the machine's no-load power. Demonstrations have indicated that conditions causing extra power dissipation in the bifilar coils subsides when loaded.

          Regards,
          bi

          Comment


          • Farms are dangerous places. Yesterday one of my brothers had an accident in the cow yard. He managed to phone for help. The emergency services said they would be as quick as possible but had another farm accident in the same area. Anyway they got hěm to the hospital and his leg is broken. He was supposed to have an operation today but it was not possible so hopefully they will do it tomorrow. As for the other poor fellow, he was killed when he fell into a machine.

            Comment


            • Quantum,
              So sorry to hear about your brother and the other guy. I know how it feels to have a family member in pain. And I know how it feels to lose one. I wish you the best.

              bi. You are entitled to your opinion. I know which effects are caused by coils and which effects are caused by cores. But on my machine they are a unit, so I use the term coil because I cannot very well put the core in the machine without the coil. It wouldn't do much good as a generator now would it? And yes, we will see after the conference.
              “Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.”
              —Bernhard Haisch, Astrophysicist

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Turion View Post
                ...
                bi. You are entitled to your opinion. I know which effects are caused by coils and which effects are caused by cores. But on my machine they are a unit, so I use the term coil because I cannot very well put the core in the machine without the coil. It wouldn't do much good as a generator now would it? And yes, we will see after the conference.
                Turion,

                Look at the resulting data from the debunker.
                Resized pictures - 1 ​​​​​

                It is obvious that, compared to the monofilar coil, the bifilar coil caused 169 watts additional to a single core and coil. That is quite high, say compared to 300 watts claimed system input under load. That 169 watts is all converted to heat in the coil assembly. Because the 169 watts is not present under exact same condition using same core with the monofilar coil, that 169 watts is logically coming from the bifilar coil.

                Question: how much does the core loss (how many watts) contribute to your heating issue? If you were able to totally eliminate core loss, would you still overheat the coil core assembly?

                Under load, the coil loss (I2R) is easy to figure. But I get the impression that it heats up before load is applied. Can you enlighten us as to how you know how much heat comes from the core and coil separately? Manufacturers or supply houses have data sheets available for the core material. All you need is the induction, frequency and volume to figure the loss wattage. Ever done that?

                Regards,
                bi

                Comment


                • As I have shared before. This is inaccurate data for one simple reason. He is not running the so called "speed up under load coil" at its "neutral", "null," or "no speed up under load" frequency where it outputs the MOST power and has the LEAST effect on anything. What he is showing is like you putting a pig on your back and me claiming I can run faster than you. You could probably run faster than me ANYWAY, but hopefully you get the point.

                  You're comparing apples to pineapples.

                  As to heat. My problems with heat in the iron cores were exactly the same when I was running three strands of 1,000 feet in parallel. No wires connected in series. Simply three long wires in parallel. I can get speed up under load with THAT configuration, 6 magnets on the rotor, and 2800 RPM. So the heat issue is not caused by the "bifilar" coils connected in series as you assume, but by the iron being constantly bombarded by the magnetic field. I'm not saying they are not PART of it, but I saw it as an issue well BEFORE I changed the configuration of the wires.

                  And if I had a coil exactly like the single strand coil he uses in the video, I could get IT to speed up under load also, either by adding more magnets to my rotor or by increasing the RPM. If you do the math, the RPM he is spinning THAT rotor at would require me to spin MY rotor at 3,965 RPM to get "speed up under load" with that bifilar coil. So a single strand coil might well take close to 8,000 RPM to get the "speed up under load" effect on my machine with such a coil. Not practical.

                  I will look for practical solutions once the conference is over, I'm done with my house, and I have the rest of my life to work on My Land Cruiser and my energy projects. A simple solution would be to use single strand coils, spin at a high rpm and take the output to a step down transformer. There are more ways than one to skin this cat.
                  Last edited by Turion; 04-07-2021, 09:46 PM.
                  “Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.”
                  —Bernhard Haisch, Astrophysicist

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Turion View Post
                    As I have shared before. This is inaccurate data for one simple reason. He is not running the so called "speed up under load coil" at its "neutral", "null," or "no speed up under load" frequency where it outputs the MOST power and has the LEAST effect on anything. That's like you putting a pig on your back and me claiming I can run faster than you. You could probably run faster than me ANYWAY, but hopefully you get the point.

                    You're comparing apples to pineapples.
                    Turion,

                    I never said the debunker was using your exact method. And besides, see the title of the debunker clip, he is debunking Thane Heins and demonstrating the behavior of a bifilar coil vs a monofilar coil. It appears to be accurate data for his experiment, which he defines and executes very well on the video.

                    My point is: How do you know the cause of the thermal issue is due to core material? And if mitigation of core loss can solve the issue? I don't need answers from you, although it'd be nice, I'm giving you something to think about when testing those cores. Even though you say your coil doesn't speed-up-under-load, I think the multifilar coil on the core will make it difficult to clearly see changes in watts loss between different core materials.

                    IIRC, in the debunker video, when he shows how he switches coils, he mentioned doing core only testing. He had a pretty versatile set up. bi

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by bistander View Post

                      Turion,

                      I never said the debunker was using your exact method. And besides, see the title of the debunker clip, he is debunking Thane Heins and demonstrating the behavior of a bifilar coil vs a monofilar coil. It appears to be accurate data for his experiment, which he defines and executes very well on the video.
                      I see, so as long as I define my testing as measuring the gas mileage of two vehicles, it is ok to measure the gas mileage of one constantly traveling downhill while I measure the gas mileage of the other one constantly going uphill and that's a fair comparison in your book. Got it. The multi-strand coil is designed to operate at a SPECIFIC frequency and he is not operating it at that frequency. I don't consider that an "accurate" test.

                      Originally posted by bistander View Post

                      My point is: How do you know the cause of the thermal issue is due to core material? And if mitigation of core loss can solve the issue? I don't need answers from you, although it'd be nice, I'm giving you something to think about when testing those cores. Even though you say your coil doesn't speed-up-under-load, I think the multifilar coil on the core will make it difficult to clearly see changes in watts loss between different core materials.

                      IIRC, in the debunker video, when he shows how he switches coils, he mentioned doing core only testing. He had a pretty versatile set up. bi
                      I don't intend to test my cores for heat with the coils on them. I am doing one test for coil output with the different cores in place in the SAME coil, to compare outputs, and then testing the core material with the rotor simply turning at the correct rpm past the core material in different test bobbins for an extended period of time. Just the bobbin. No wire on it. The way the coil is wired won't figure into the heat test at at all.
                      Last edited by Turion; 04-07-2021, 11:04 PM.
                      “Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.”
                      —Bernhard Haisch, Astrophysicist

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Turion View Post

                        I see, so as long as I define my testing as measuring the gas mileage of two vehicles, it is ok to measure the gas mileage of one constantly traveling downhill while I measure the gas mileage of the other one constantly going uphill and that's a fair comparison in your book. Got it. The multi-strand coil is designed to operate at a SPECIFIC frequency and he is not operating it at that frequency. I don't consider that an "accurate" test.
                        What frequency was his coil designed to operate? I though he wound the bifilar coil and swept through speeds until he found RPM to give a suitable frequency such that the coil would cause the speed-up-under-load effect, thereby matching the frequency to the coil design. That is what he was looking to test. He found it, tested it, then tested an equivalent monofilar coil under the same conditions. Recorded and presented the data. I don't see anything inaccurate about it.


                        Originally posted by Turion View Post
                        I don't intend to test my cores for heat with the coils on them. I am doing one test for coil output with the different cores in place in the SAME coil, to compare outputs, and then testing the core material with the rotor simply turning at the correct rpm past the core material in different test bobbins for an extended period of time. Just the bobbin. No wire on it. The way the coil is wired won't figure into the heat test at at all.
                        Cool. Have you measured any core by itself yet?
                        bi

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by bistander View Post

                          What frequency was his coil designed to operate? I though he wound the bifilar coil and swept through speeds until he found RPM to give a suitable frequency such that the coil would cause the speed-up-under-load effect, thereby matching the frequency to the coil design. That is what he was looking to test. He found it, tested it, then tested an equivalent monofilar coil under the same conditions. Recorded and presented the data. I don't see anything inaccurate about it.
                          bi
                          Except that the speed up under load coil is obviously SPEEDING UP THE MOTOR. He SHOWS the increase in RPM's from the "speed up under load coil", so it is not operating at the "Null point where, under load, it neither speeds up nor slows down the motor. That is what I have said all along. Therefore it is NOT giving its max output as a generator coil and it is INTERACTING in a negative way, which he shows, FAR MORE than at the proper frequency.

                          EVERY COIL has a specific frequency dependent on core material, number of magnets on the rotor, RPM of the rotor, size of the wire, length of the wire, number of strands in parallel and connected in series. That is ALSO what I have said all along. MANY, MANY times. HE indeed swept through the frequencies until the motor sped up under load, and measured at THAT frequency. Which is the WRONG ONE. He SHOULD have measured at the frequency where it did NOT speed the motor up under load nor did it slow the motor down under load. THAT is the frequency he should have tested at and he did not. I have said this from the first time you brought up that video. I could not have been more clear. I have said the same thing three different times in the last few posts. I have to repeat the same things over and over and over. That was NOT AN ACCURATE TEST of the potential of that coil as compared to a standard coil. It was DESIGNED to make that coil look bad, not to search for the TRUTH about that coil.

                          Originally posted by bistander View Post
                          Cool. Have you measured any core by itself yet?
                          bi
                          No. I have a single coil all set up to test the output. It is the standard coil with the iron core that I have been using. I have been waiting for the one amp AC in line panel meter I ordered so I can get the most accurate reading of output amperage at the correct RPM, and I have NOT established what the RPM is for these coils with the new rotor for the "Null" frequency. I have hopes that I may be able to put more strands in parallel. Six would be nice, but four would be an improvement. I also have a tach on order that uses a hall sensor so I will have a more accurate measurement of RPM than the little hand held laser tach I have been using. Working tonight on putting the permalloy coil together. Working with that wire is a pain in the butt.

                          “Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers.”
                          —Bernhard Haisch, Astrophysicist

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Turion View Post

                            Except that the speed up under load coil is obviously SPEEDING UP THE MOTOR. He SHOWS the increase in RPM's from the "speed up under load coil", so it is not operating at the "Null point where, under load, it neither speeds up nor slows down the motor. That is what I have said all along. Therefore it is NOT giving its max output as a generator coil and it is INTERACTING in a negative way, which he shows, FAR MORE than at the proper frequency.

                            EVERY COIL has a specific frequency dependent on core material, number of magnets on the rotor, RPM of the rotor, size of the wire, length of the wire, number of strands in parallel and connected in series. That is ALSO what I have said all along. MANY, MANY times. HE indeed swept through the frequencies until the motor sped up under load, and measured at THAT frequency. Which is the WRONG ONE. He SHOULD have measured at the frequency where it did NOT speed the motor up under load nor did it slow the motor down under load. THAT is the frequency he should have tested at and he did not. I have said this from the first time you brought up that video. I could not have been more clear. I have said the same thing three different times in the last few posts. I have to repeat the same things over and over and over. That was NOT AN ACCURATE TEST of the potential of that coil as compared to a standard coil. It was DESIGNED to make that coil look bad, not to search for the TRUTH about that coil.



                            No. I have a single coil all set up to test the output. It is the standard coil with the iron core that I have been using. I have been waiting for the one amp AC in line panel meter I ordered so I can get the most accurate reading of output amperage at the correct RPM, and I have NOT established what the RPM is for these coils with the new rotor for the "Null" frequency. I have hopes that I may be able to put more strands in parallel. Six would be nice, but four would be an improvement. I also have a tach on order that uses a hall sensor so I will have a more accurate measurement of RPM than the little hand held laser tach I have been using. Working tonight on putting the permalloy coil together. Working with that wire is a pain in the butt.
                            Turion,

                            This is all superfluous as is doesn't affect the armature at load anyway. But, the debunker video is accurate for what it is. It was shot in 2013. The earliest I recall you posting about speed-up-under-load and coil winding/testing on this board was 2015. At that time, 2013, the video was attempting to gather data to help understand what was really happening when the speed-up-under-load occurs. It accomplished that. Just because you don't want your coils to speed-up-under-load doesn't mean that video was inaccurate. Back in 2013 Thane Heins was touting regenerative acceleration which is essentially speed-up-under-load, is it not. The video was made to debunk Thane Heins' claim by showing the bifilar coil, at load, was no better than the standard monofilar coil under the same load and same conditions.

                            It'd be nice to see an accurate A vs B comparison test under the same load and conditions for the Turion coil vs an equivalent conventional coil.

                            Regards,
                            bi

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Quantum_well View Post
                              Farms are dangerous places. Yesterday one of my brothers had an accident in the cow yard. He managed to phone for help. The emergency services said they would be as quick as possible but had another farm accident in the same area. Anyway they got hěm to the hospital and his leg is broken. He was supposed to have an operation today but it was not possible so hopefully they will do it tomorrow. As for the other poor fellow, he was killed when he fell into a machine.
                              What news, Se ,. May his brother recover soon, may he be in good health

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by bistander View Post

                                Turion,

                                This is all superfluous as is doesn't affect the armature

                                debunker video is accurate for what it is. It was shot in 2013.

                                Thane Heins' claim by showing the bifilar coil, at load, was no better than the standard monofilar coil under the same load and same conditions.


                                Regards,
                                bi
                                Always talking and always wrong. Build one? Is that to much to ask? Then you can be the big wig. For now you are the guy being paid to make a mess.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X