Roto Verter

[theremart]

If I lived by Peter

Well, he would have no rest from questions Well, it is sorta like that now

Yes I live in Fort Wayne, IN, Not sure where Peter is, but would love to have him do the measurements.

Thanks for your well thought out reply Peter, we have the same goals of finding the best and simplest methods of increasing efficiency, and getting the most for the energy put in, and having a common way to express that.

Mart

[ashtweth]

Hi all,

Okay, sorry. I haven't had time to keep up ATM. Now peter thanks for the comments i happen to like you too. How ever in this practice we are yet to have a research center with qualified validated results, This is what i am pushing for. The engineers who put the comps data together have done it by their lab and meters and tests. I am working towards a more formal presentation, yes i said i would clean it up for YOU. But i cannot produce this over night. I understand what your saying and have always moved towards it, hence why you have what you have in the comps so far

The Drill and water pump is sufficient to suffice for now by showing the DRAW comparisons with the NORMAL 3/4 HP motors. Dont forget to add in a higher rated motor run at 1/4 of the voltage with a Freq Gen and tune the caps if the load changes then you have the non waste full and or energy saving RV.(Not just a Variac run Drill).

The advanced circuits are being up graded/Tested. Don't forget what RV mode is in with a Frequency Gen. You are leaving it out. Also there are many different ways the RV is different (in practice not principle)to your variac way, when you load your Drill with 1/4 of your voltage, you DONT TUNE IT WITH CAPS UNDER CONSTANT LOAD CONDITIONS. The RV energy saving = 1/4 frequency driven and tuned with caps CONSTANTLY to the needs of the load.

The Advanced RLC way is different ofcause. This is the Rv energy saving way, you call it not wasting energy and is fine, we call it more efficient, but who cares about semantics Peter . We are a forums of tinkers and not at the noble prize place yet . Adding the caps to the needs of the load and frequency driving a higher rated motor to the RV comp author engineers, is impedance matching, matching the source to the needs of the load, and the advanced circuits are about that. Again i stated in the early posts not to let this [Jargon] GET to you, just if you need to understand it, then ask away, and l clean up a version for YOU.

The Engineers who have done it can tell you it saves ALLOT of energy that's enough for me to publish what there is in the compilations. Again If we had your drill under a variac, with just adjusting the voltage that would be fine but is not RV mode.With the RV, we would run a bigger motor at 1/4 of the voltage, Freq drive it and tune it TO THE NEEDS OF THE LOAD , at every load we do. Slightly different.

I am sorry we don't have a research center with grants and equipment yet tailored specifically for alternative and suppressed energy . I am putting together demos with our press and grant, sponsors for this to happen(under my non profit org i work for).Yes mart if your near peter you could take him an RV to do the research i have asked Koneheadx to work with peter and show him.

Also for Peter since i was being BARKED at

>Do the science correctly, and you will see what it is. Then report the experimental results to the rest of us, in a language we understand. Then we will know the facts as well.

What we have done can be verified by any one given our tools, We don't have a university lab to do this at this time, so this is not needed constructive criticism at this time (i am aware of this) we are all aware of what can convince skeptics who don't build, perhaps you should build it your self and experiment :").

Trafo = transformers, a FAQ is available in the EVGRAY forum showing these terms.
Plus a "single phase SCh in the energy saving comp" = we have a single phase RV SCHematic in the energy saving compilation

Ash

Ps, and ye i am aware peter probabaly is foaming at the mouth and steam is coming out of his ears at this time., but be kind to your students and fans , its the best they can do for now)

[Aaron]

reluctance motor

Check out the Johann Grander thread. It is on a reluctance motor. I knew people who visited him in Austria and said they saw a giant version that runs itself and generates enough power to power the entire village. I don't know how accurate that is.

[sykavy]

Sykavy,

Excellent!! The first link is relevant here and in the EMS forum. There is a lot to learn here for beginners as far as how the different GEOMETRIES affect the behavior of different motors. This is a primary theme in my EMS DVD.

The second link seems to be limited to Members Only. I do not encourage pirating restricted material, so i guess the rest of us can't view this, but at least you can see that Switched Reluctance Motors are very powerful and rising in popularity.

Thanks for the links.

Peter

Sorry I posted it at school so maybe I have access that others dont but here are some relevant quotes from The American Society of Mechanical Engineers in Febuary 1998 (blue are quotes):

"Locomotives in the early 19th century were the first machines to use variable-switched-reluctance (VSR) motors. "They did not perform satisfactorily," said George Holling, president of Advanced Motion Controls (AMC) in Princeton, Wis., "and they soon faded into obscurity."


But with the advent of new and better switching controls they are making a come back:

"The Department of Defense has pursued VSR-motor applications aggressively. The motors are now used in such military applications as generators for turbine engines and pump motors for jet fighters. Military planners and researchers liked the technology mainly because of their high reliability...."


"A four-phase, 1/2-horsepower variable-switched-reluctance motor, used in applications such as electric motor scooters and industrial fans, can run at more than 90-percent efficiency"

"A barrier to the rapid commercialization of VSR motors has been that few engineers are trained to perform the exacting and specialized design the technology requires."


They said that SR motors are durable, reliable, and could be improved with time.

"With the appropriate switching and energization of the stator coils, the rotor can be encouraged to rotate at any desired speed and torque.... It can maintain higher torque and efficiency over broader speed ranges than is possible with other advanced variable-speed systems....The optimal waveforms needed to excite a VSR motor...are typically the result of a fixed voltage applied to the motor coils at predetermined rotor angles. Such waveforms can be achieved at virtually any speed....


There are other pros and cons but efficiency is not one of them. By recycling the counter emf what was a draw back in typical AC/DC motors can be used as an added benefit in SR motors.

"VSR motors are not without their drawbacks, however. The most significant downside is the acoustic noise and large vibrations often caused by the motor's high pulsating magnetic flux."

"Another limitation is torque ripple. It can be difficult to give VSR motors a smooth torque profile...If torque ripple is of primary concern, the best alternative might be a permanent magnet motor instead."



"VSR motors work with relatively small air gaps. If the shaft is off-center, unbalanced tangential forces come into play, so shafts and bearing systems generally need to be of a higher quality than with other motors. Various motor designers are working on designs to widen the air gap."

"The adoption and proliferation of VSR motors is about 15 years behind brushless motors," said Dan Jones, a Thousand Oaks, Calif., consultant to the motion-control industry. "However, it appears that they are experiencing the same acceleration curve as permanent magnet motor. Although they will never be ideally suited for all applications, they are emerging as a viable competitor to ac induction motors and permanent magnet motors."

Those were some main points from the article.

PS here is something interesting the writer described the rotor with teeth. Teeth could make for stronger torque.
"Basically, the motor is a rotor and stator with a coil winding in the stator. The rotor, which consists of a laminated permeable material with teeth, is a passive device with no coil winding or permanent magnets."

[Peter Lindemann]

Members Only

I think this is relevant to this thread. Peter's motor is related to Switch Reluctant Motors

Reluctance motor : AC MOTORS

And The American Society of Mechanical Engineers sings its praises.(below link)
The rise of VSR motors
So Peter isn't just chasing a pipe dream it also has a history and present day applications, though his motor may have slight differences.( I'm not so knowledgeable about these differences, but I know there is a relationship in principle)

Sykavy,

Excellent!! The first link is relevant here and in the EMS forum. There is a lot to learn here for beginners as far as how the different GEOMETRIES affect the behavior of different motors. This is a primary theme in my EMS DVD.

The second link seems to be limited to Members Only. I do not encourage pirating restricted material, so i guess the rest of us can't view this, but at least you can see that Switched Reluctance Motors are very powerful and rising in popularity.

Thanks for the links.

Peter

[sykavy]

I think this is relevant to this thread. Peter's motor is related to Switch Reluctant Motors

Reluctance motor : AC MOTORS

And The American Society of Mechanical Engineers sings its praises.(below link)
The rise of VSR motors
So Peter isn't just chasing a pipe dream it also has a history and present day applications, though his motor may have slight differences.( I'm not so knowledgeable about these differences, but I know there is a relationship in principle)

[Peter Lindemann]

Clear Understanding

I agree with you Peter, we need to get real measurements to get a good handle of what is happening. I would really like to see you bring your measuring devices to bear on the RV. Or, we should find an industry standard measuring device for torque / HP, and apply it to the RV.

I believe Ash has in some since demonstrated some of this because he has shown the RV can do the same tasks of other motors at a given rating ( drill thru wood metal etc. )

To me the real science is does my electric bill go down? Or, did I spend so much in chasing free energy that it would of been cheaper just to pay for extra electricity. How long does it take for the RV to pay for itself.

I am still counting the cost of the benefits of the RV, verses what other avenues present.

I am wondering, if I go to the next level, ( get an inverter made ) would I be any futher ahead than if I simply bought a DC motor, converted it to Peter's motor design, and ran it. This would have the advantage of not needing an inverter, but has the disadvantage of trying to work on the rotor and getting it machined just right.

I like Peter's motors, but it is an unproven field for me, I have no measured results of a specific motor off the shelf I can compare to. I do see the demonstrated motors in the videos, but I don't have an exact of a motor that is recommended for this task, so I will have to do some digging to find it, and explore myself. On the other hand the RV has specific motors tried and pioneered.

To Peter's point, I agree we need a real test of what the RV can do, and I think a test with various types of RV, those with the frequency generated inverter, those plugged into the wall. Etc...

I would like to see the same with Peter's motors, that is done with the RV. Specific models that have been converted, and a webpage that shows the steps to get there, like now exists with the RV.

Just some thoughts...


mart

Mart,

I agree with most of what you say. "My" motor ideas are still in their formative stage of development. When more refined designs are worked out, they will have to be subjected to all of the scientific standards required to determine their overall COP. The units I have demonstrated in the YouTube clips show a "window of opportunity" for high COP operation, but do not demonstrate high COP operation. The motor Jetijs is building should solve many of the issues of high torque production and efficient energy recovery. If it works out, we will be able to get some firm measurements on his motor.

But the RV has been around for a long time and many claims have been made for its performance. So let's look at the RV situation. You say "I believe Ash has in some since demonstrated some of this because he has shown the RV can do the same tasks of other motors at a given rating ( drill thru wood metal etc. )" This is true. But I have a drill press that draws about 500 watts doing nothing. Left running for 15 minutes, the motor gets really hot. This drill press motor is wasting 95% of the electricity going into it. I have proved to myself, that if I just dial down the applied voltage with a VARIAC, the motor will still perform all of its work requirements on 60 volts. Cutting the voltage in half also cuts the current in half, so the total power is cut by 75%. Now, the motor is only drawing 125 watts, it runs cool, and still drills anything I ask it to. This is before Power Factor Correction, which can even save more. This is before re-lubricating the bearings, which can lower the input even more.

The point here is that these are power management techniques. The questions are: 1) Does it save money? YES, 2) Does the RV optimize all of these savings methods? YES, 3) Is there still sufficient mechanical energy produced to operate the drill and perform all of its necessary functions? YES, 4) Has the "efficiency" (ratio of input electrical energy to output mechanical energy) of the motor increased? I don't think so. 5) Has every drop of wasted energy been eliminated? YES. Is this method of energy savings worth doing? YES.

Is the RV method a "Free Energy" method? Here is where the definition of words is extremely important. In ECONOMIC terms, the RV definitely provides significant energy savings, and ANYTIME you can produce the same amount of useful work for less input, you have freed yourself of the economic burden of purchasing that amount of energy. This IS free energy in economic terms. But in terms of PHYSICS, does the machine produce more energy than it consumes, or operate at a COP>1? The answer is........ in the dynamometer tests that have not been run yet! I believe the answer will be NO, for the reasons I have stated before.

The bottom line is that lowering bearing friction and Power Factor Correcting your various tools and appliances is WELL WORTH DOING, and can save you lot's of money over their useful life. IF you have appliances that have large 3-phase motors in them, converting them to the RotoVerter wiring scheme may well be worth doing. But the economics of replacing all single-phase motors with large 3-phase motors that are wired this way, and remounting them in your appliances MAY NOT be worth all of the time, money and effort simply for the energy saved. It IS worth doing as an EXPERIMENT, to learn about it. If the issue here is economics, and not physics, then the path that saves the most money is the best path.

Peter

[theremart]

RE: Do the Science

I agree with you Peter, we need to get real measurements to get a good handle of what is happening. I would really like to see you bring your measuring devices to bear on the RV. Or, we should find an industry standard measuring device for torque / HP, and apply it to the RV.

I believe Ash has in some since demonstrated some of this because he has shown the RV can do the same tasks of other motors at a given rating ( drill thru wood metal etc. )

To me the real science is does my electric bill go down? Or, did I spend so much in chasing free energy that it would of been cheaper just to pay for extra electricity. How long does it take for the RV to pay for itself.

I am still counting the cost of the benefits of the RV, verses what other avenues present.

I am wondering, if I go to the next level, ( get an inverter made ) would I be any futher ahead than if I simply bought a DC motor, converted it to Peter's motor design, and ran it. This would have the advantage of not needing an inverter, but has the disadvantage of trying to work on the rotor and getting it machined just right.

I like Peter's motors, but it is an unproven field for me, I have no measured results of a specific motor off the shelf I can compare to. I do see the demonstrated motors in the videos, but I don't have an exact of a motor that is recommended for this task, so I will have to do some digging to find it, and explore myself. On the other hand the RV has specific motors tried and pioneered.

To Peter's point, I agree we need a real test of what the RV can do, and I think a test with various types of RV, those with the frequency generated inverter, those plugged into the wall. Etc...

I would like to see the same with Peter's motors, that is done with the RV. Specific models that have been converted, and a webpage that shows the steps to get there, like now exists with the RV.

Just some thoughts...


mart

[Peter Lindemann]

Speak English, Please

HI Peter , Aaron et all.

Whoops, sorry i meant to say PF correcting through the RV method is superior, meaning PF correcting for energy savings , but i got an awesome education from Peter just then so what can i

Yup sure, also the mechanical Dyno tests would be good, we will have a Drill and water pump to do some comparisons for Peter, Dont forget taking Freq driven RV mode into account.

Now Aaron i think you need a Trafo and to run it at 1/4 of the rated voltage for RV mode, we have a single phase Sch in the energy saving comp, am not too sure what yr asking, are you asking how to run that in RV mode? sorry guys have been busy working and had a few late nights

Ash,

I like you. You seem like a smart guy. You are considered the "RV Master" in this forum. So, I say this with all due respect.

A "drill and water pump" comparison is NOT a dynamometer test. A dynamometer is a CALIBRATED, scientific instrument that produces a measurement in KNOWN UNITS. Why do you RV guys insist on all of this "scotch tape and bubble gum" pseudo-science? Measure the d*** torque of the RV with a dynamometer, and quit fooling around! You will SEE for yourself that the COP>1, the mythology will be put to rest, and EVERYBODY can move on.

Also, I have already discussed the problem of the RV literature using JARGON. You have said you would clean it up. But right here, you continue the practice. There are less than 100 people on the planet who know what a TRAFO is, and only the Lord himself knows what you mean by "we have a single phase Sch in the energy saving comp".

Ash, if I am not getting through to you, then I hope I am getting through to the others who are reading this forum. Science is a discipline. Its various parts include: 1) the proposal of a hypothesis. This proposal must be defined in a language of commonly used terms whose definitions are shared by everybody. 2) An experiment is then conducted, based on the hypothesis, and the results of this experiment are PUBLISHED. 3) Dis-interested third parties read this account, and then become interested in the experiment. 4) Some of these third parties then try to duplicate the experiment, and PUBLISH their experimental results, as well.

The RotoVerter has sort of been through this process, but not really. The hypothesis is that "wiring a 3-phase motor by the method proposed creates superior motor efficiency". Many tests have been run showing energy savings and many people have duplicated the experiments, but in all of this time, no one has published QUANTIFIED EVIDENCE that the efficiency of the motor (conversion of electrical input to mechanical output) is actually increased. From what I have seen, all you have proved is that most induction motor applications WASTE a lot of energy needlessly. You have NOT proved your method is more efficient, it is simply LESS WASTEFUL!

This is a very useful finding, but it does NOT support the original hypothesis!

Do the science correctly, and you will see what it is. Then report the experimental results to the rest of us, in a language we understand. Then we will know the facts as well.

Peter

[ashtweth]

HI Peter , Aaron et all.

Whoops, sorry i meant to say PF correcting through the RV method is superior, meaning PF correcting for energy savings , but i got an awesome education from Peter just then so what can i

Yup sure, also the mechanical Dyno tests would be good, we will have a Drill and water pump to do some comparisons for Peter, Dont forget taking Freq driven RV mode into account.

Now Aaron i think you need a Trafo and to run it at 1/4 of the rated voltage for RV mode, we have a single phase Sch in the energy saving comp, am not too sure what yr asking, are you asking how to run that in RV mode? sorry guys have been busy working and had a few late nights

[Peter Lindemann]

That Is Correct

OK thanx, but there are circuits out there, which are trying to extract useful energy from alternator side as well as from prime mover.In case of prime mover there has to be real power, since its doing real work.Correct me if i am wrong, but in prime mover we have both, real power which turns the shaft as well as reactive power-LC resonance, which we are trying to capture without affecting real power consuption and LC resonance.
In case of alternator, we have just LC resonce, which we are trying to catch without affecting it.

Thanx

aladinlamp,

You are right. Some of the experimenters are reporting on their attempts to harvest energy from the reactive power circulating in the LC tank on the Prime Mover side as well. Since the motor requires both Real Power and Reactive Power to operate, a certain amount of Reactive Power is available for this purpose. This is also an interesting line of research. Some of these circuits are pretty clever, and I look forward to learning more about this work.

The underlying principle here, aladinlamp, is that ANYWHERE you have an LC tank with Reactive Power circulating in it, you can attempt these methods. Some are even doing it with just a transformer and a capacitor. These experiments are sometimes called the "Transverter".

If you look here: http://www.tesla.hu/tesla/articles/18930200/fig01.gif Tesla is showing the basic methodology. The first drawing on the left (Ib) shows resonating the AC power in a capacitor directly from the generator and drawing off voltage peaks through the spark-gap and dumping this to a second stage load consisting of light bulbs and motors. In the next drawing, (IIb) Tesla shows the same basic process, but resonating a local transformer with a capacitor on the secondary. In fact, in the body of the article where he describes these circuits, he states that example IIb is the most practical and cost effective method of the six examples.

These circuits were not design by Tesla to "convert Reactive Power back to Real Power". Strictly speaking, they were designed for the purpose of manipulating Reactive Power for the release of Radiant Energy. The QUALITY of the energy coming off the back end of these circuits is fundamentally different than the "normal electricity" used in the LC tank. That is what makes "closing the loop" so difficult. Tesla never showed how to do this (that I am aware of), but we all suspect he figured it out, and used it to power the Pierce Arrow car in the 1920's.

Peter

[aladinlamp]

aladinlamp,

In all of the literature I have seen, the RV Alternator is set up to produce reactive power, which is voltage and current OUT OF PHASE with each other. The coil of the alternator (L) and the capacitor load (C) produce an LC resonant tank circuit where energy freely oscillates back and forth. Since there are no Watts of Real Power present, this energy oscillation does not produce a mechanical load on the Prime Mover. Then, using various circuits, they work toward converting some of this energy back to a useful form in a way that does not dampen out the resonant behavior of the LC tank circuit.

I hope this helps you understand this aspect of the RV method.

Peter

OK thanx, but there are circuits out there, which are trying to extract useful energy from alternator side as well as from prime mover.In case of prime mover there has to be real power, since its doing real work.Correct me if i am wrong, but in prime mover we have both, real power which turns the shaft as well as reactive power-LC resonance, which we are trying to capture without affecting real power consuption and LC resonance.
In case of alternator, we have just LC resonce, which we are trying to catch without affecting it.

Thanx

[Peter Lindemann]

RV Alternator

Hi


on RV alternator side, are we trying to align voltage with current to phase without reflecting to prime mover ?

OR

are we trying to extract usable energy, while voltage and current is off phase(virtual power,reactive power) without reflecting to prime mover ??

Thanx

aladinlamp,

In all of the literature I have seen, the RV Alternator is set up to produce reactive power, which is voltage and current OUT OF PHASE with each other. The coil of the alternator (L) and the capacitor load (C) produce an LC resonant tank circuit where energy freely oscillates back and forth. Since there are no Watts of Real Power present, this energy oscillation does not produce a mechanical load on the Prime Mover. Then, using various circuits, they work toward converting some of this energy back to a useful form in a way that does not dampen out the resonant behavior of the LC tank circuit.

I hope this helps you understand this aspect of the RV method.

Peter

[aladinlamp]

Hi


on RV alternator side, are we trying to align voltage with current to phase without reflecting to prime mover ?

OR

are we trying to extract usable energy, while voltage and current is off phase(virtual power,reactive power) without reflecting to prime mover ??

Thanx

[Jetijs]

Thats great, Peter
Now I understand. Thank you.
And thank you aladinlamp for your link, I found it interesting and useful
Jetijs