Mark M. Hendershot Material

I've been studying the material on Lester Hendershot who
also experimented with re-wiring motors for his kids.

Mark M. Hendershot has a paper you can find on the web with
a crude schematic of the "toy" design Lester had come up with.
The notes are very difficult to read. The diagram is not
complete enough. These look like notes that Lester may have
been working on as part of a patent application.

Lester used "honeycomb" coils, which offer a high-Q.
One wired CW, another wired CCW, with an electro-magnet
device between them. To the right is another coil
that lives over an inner coil with a magnet inside.
With this arrangement he could power a little toy air plane
w/o a battery.
Fascinating.
Those who looked at it also made the observation that he
had wound his electro-magnets and coils "differently".

Thanks, that is very interesting. I see your coilpacitor video too, keep working on it . I read Lester Hendershot book and the coil look very similar to Prof Seike caudeceus version of coil. This remind me of Aromaz who mention getting energy from radioactive using coil is used by many people in the past.


But I have some problem implementing cross hatch:
The motor is small, not many electronic can be added and not many places to wind differently, see attachment. I have to use the smallest diode I can find to fit them in.

From what I learn, powering radiant coil (one with conflicting wiring direction) with normal DC current will make the core confuse and generate awesome heat. It won't make a good electro magnet which is what I need. After I reduce the conflicting current direction from the original messy winding, the motor now run cooler.

I think for getting coil collapse current, ordered coil winding with core is better. But for transmitting or capturing radiant, for getting less induction, for getting more voltage potential, conflicting winding is better.

Hi sucahyo,

Have you tried winding your coils bifilar? I get a lot more punch with the bifilar on my various motor replications than regular wound.

Take care,

Michel

some ideas

Here is another consideration.

It is well known when making Tesla coils that the total wire-length matters.
The height of the coil matters. Geometry and time matter.

So let us suppose you have a rough idea of the RPMs you want this little motor to run most efficiently to. Perhaps if the total length of the wire was "tuned" so to speak so that the magnetic field could PULSE at that frequency w/o wasting current by holding the current too long, that would be good.

Certainly if the RPMs are slow, the wire would need to be very very long to be a full wave length. But you can reduce the wire length by any harmonic multiple. Power-of-two harmonics are a good choice.

Another idea. The permeability matters. A coils permeability can be altered by placing feromagnetic, diamagnetic or paramagnetic material nearby -- to "tune".
If your motor was placed in a copper cylinder, for example, the diamagnetic cylinder would ALTER the permeability the motor would see.
Put it in a steal cylinder, it would change again.

I was just reading about magnetic amplifiers and how if you can change
the inductance, you can change the power GAIN in an LR circuit.

Secordary wire to be 144in lenght with a 22.5mm inch, we have been mislead about the lenght of the inch the primary needs to be the same weight as the secordary.
weights and linear dimensions are interchangeable the being said everthin goes!
185000 miles per second (speed of traversing currents) / 925 (frequency of circuit) = 200 miles (length of
stationary wave) X ¼ = 50 miles (length of secondary coil)
Play around with this formula until you have a secondary length of 144 inches. 144 inches should be based on a
22.5 mm inch.
144 inches = 0.227272727 miles (repeating sequences like these are important)
The number 144 is important because it forms a harmonic with 432. 432:144 = 3:1. 432 is the square root of
the speed of light, 186624.
why 24 mm can’t be used. Have a look at the following.
First Octave
1080 mm / 48 = 22.5 mm
1080 mm / 45 = 24 mm
1080 mm / 42 = 25.714286 mm
Second Octave
3240 mm / 48 = 67.5 mm
3240 mm / 45 = 72 mm
3240 mm / 42 = 77.142857 mm
1080 / 144 = 7.5 – This is no good as there is nothing in the octave first octave corresponding to this number.
3240 / 144 = 22.5 – Here it can be seen that by dividing the root of the second octave by the number
representing our wire length, we get a number which corresponds or resonates on the first octave. The
investigator should at this point
begin to understand that the energy we are trying to get in tune with is on
the second octave, and we must resonate with it on the first.

good luck
B X

Thanks for the suggestion everyone .

I attach the core picture, how can I wound it in a bifilar way?

BTW, I see your coil in this link:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post53516

Would rewinding your coil as unison as possible would increase the output? since I see the winding is not unison. The winding is like posted in the first post and it is not the neatest possible winding since neat winding would wind from bottom to top at fist layer then top to bottom at second which is conflicting. I wind always from bottom to top, second layer started by crossing the wire from top to bottom.


The problem is the magnet varies greatly between one motor and other. The motor use brush, and it is know that higher permanent magnet force reduce speed but increase tourqe. Many would opt to use black magnet instead of neo.

Another consideration is the static resistance of the magnet which will translate to how many amps will go trough the motor. Higher amp will have higher tourqe but will deplete battery faster.

Matching the length with resonance would be hard since the wire length mostly less than a meter and reducing length may end up reducing wound.


All I did is rewinding the available wire and adding core metal, I am convinced that different winding increase power/rpm. My recent wound is satisfying, it has the same speed as the 23000 rpm motor but with a lot more tourqe (hand stopping test on the wheel). This motor do not reach the same rpm or power previously.

For permeability, how can I know if it get better or not?


I think the surface area between primary and secondary need to be the same, but most people usually measure it by weight because it is easier to do, or length if both have the same diameter.

Also, getting the motor to achive resonant might get me more efficient motor, but reducing the coil impedance could increase the current passing the coil, increasing the electromagnetic power more easily. I think it is like comparing a well tuned 2000cc engine vs crude 4500cc V8. The first option is harder and need a good measuring equipment.

The formula is usefull .

better?

So I guess what is needed here is a graph of torque vs input power.
Or keep the voltage the same and have torque vs. current.

I would imagine that this would be a curve and not linear.
So to judge and improvement in a design, one that yields more torque
for less power would be superior.

The other consideration is the armature. Sparks are bad (Tesla was trying to convince Edison of that fact). They steal power.
Before a "race" it might be useful to clean the contacts with vinegar
or something to have the copper be fully exposed with no
copper-oxide.

Hi sucahyo,

That way is good if you wind on a spool or a core but on the loose wound of the Windows Motor, I use the " tight twist" 2 wires method as an orderly wound would not be possible. The twist wire method could be also used on a motor core as we did on a unit with similar result as used in generator mode, we got 33% more current than a single wire wound with the same size and length. I guess it would give similar improvement in motor mode.

Hope this helps,

Michel

Thanks, I am sure to try that .

Thanks for the info. Do the coil still has the same resistance like before or it also has 33% less resistance too? I just notice that you use them for twisting wire. But why you can't wind a twisted wire in unison?

How did you wind your core?

The resistance is the same, measured with a multimeter, but once the current travels through the coil the second way around in the bifilar, the resistance might be affected more than a regular coil.

On the Windows Motor, the coil(s) (air core) which is rectangular on my winding jig ends up being round when taped over and the wire mostly displaced in an unorderly fashion hence why I twist the wires together to get the bifilar effect as best as I can in this setup.

Take care,

Michel

I see. that explain it, thanks .

Wire twisting remind me of Viktor Schauberger publication .

tight twist not applicable for small DC motor

I tried to use tight twist for the motor and it waste too many space. The wire become too big and hard to wound. I may get a better result with smaller wire but I don't think it would be more efficient if we consider space saving (for more wound).

Winding it with ordered method still possible though.

Find something curious today. Using the same stator, which means using same permanent magnet, default rotor has coil resistance of 1.2 Ohm and draw 1 Amp. My modified roto has coil resistance of 1 ohm but draw less amp at 0.8 Amp. Weird. Or maybe the one with ordered winding and more core can not rev up and rotate slower? I won't be able to know for sure since I don't have a way to measure rotation speed. The sound of the default rotor definitely louder, but not sure about the speed.

Whatever it is, I guess having ordered winding and more core would be better since this would mean my kid play longer lol.

experiment video

It turn out to be much easier to use 1.5V battery to test the rotor. Here is the video:
YouTube - Adding core and ordered wound in small dc motor reduce power consumption

The modified rotor draw 0.25 Amp while original draw 0.29 Amp. 12% more efficient. Maybe because added core or maybe because the winding.