Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2018 ENERGY CONFERENCE - ALL SEATS SOLD OUT!

2018 Energy Science & Technology Conference
Sponsored by Teslacoin Foundation

Teslacoin Foundation

https://www.teslastarter.org


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 05-31-2015, 08:05 PM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 258
The Single Commutator Hybrid Symmetric-Asymmetric DC Motor

Post 1 - Left Blank
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #2  
Old 05-31-2015, 08:05 PM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 258
Expecting the day to come, I kept my single comm write ups mostly in just two posts on the 'My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines' thread. There is some early stuff remaining there which predates the following information, but it is not critical to the continued analysis of the Single Commutator Hybrid Symmetric-Asymmetric DC Motor...the SC series.

Post 1 is blank should there be any information which I want to distill from the thread in the future.

The following two posts are lifted, unedited from 'My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines'.
__________________
 

Last edited by HuntingRoss; 05-31-2015 at 08:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-31-2015, 08:06 PM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 258
Hi to everyone. I've been quiet but not inactive. I submit for peer review, the SC#5.

Schematic at the end of this post and photos to follow shortly.

The OEM motor -
MY6812 24v 120w
12 poll 2 stator 1 commutator 2 brushes
0.53mm guage wire

A symmetrical motor has one length of wire wound with coils in series, the wire returning to the origin.

The route for current is one direction along two paths from brush to brush. If you picture the brushes at 3 and 9 o'clock, path 1 passes through 12 o'clock and path 2 passes through 6 o'clock.

This embodiement retains the original structures of the OEM replacing only the wire and adding 2 brushes.

--S--

Title explained -

The SC#5 (single commutator build 5) embodies the symmetric principle with one wire wound in coils in series returning to the origin. It departs from the principle as only 2no commutator sectors are so wired. The remaining comm sectors are wound as independent pairs giving a total of 6no pairs.

In this way pairs are isolated after leaving their Motor brushes and are free to deliver their energy to the Generator

brushes just prior to being re-energised 180o advanced.

For this reason I have retained the description Asymmetric and hence HYBRID.

--S--

Winding.

3 coil groups in pairs. 11 turns 3 poles per coil of 0.5mm wire. Wound for CW rotation.

Starting with P1 at 9 o'clock. Moving clockwise wind for north coil repulsion 3 coil groups. On completion of the first 3 coils hook over P7 comm and still moving clockwise wind another 3 coil groups (all coils are wound clockwise as seen from the front with shaft seen behind the coil). On completion of the second 3 coils hook over P1 comm and twist the two ends together tightening against the P1 tab. If this is not clear in the description, schematic below should help. This is one Pair of 3 coil groups.

Pairs are as follow -
P1 / P7
P4 / P10 (P4 is perpendicular to P1)
P2 / P8
P5 / P11 (P5 is perpendicular to P2)
P3 / P9
P6 / P12 (P6 is perpendicular to P3)

This winding pattern gives a very 'flat' build, meaning the build up of wire towards the commutator is minimised and wire length is more balanced around the armature as the wind progresses.

The coils on the 12 o'clock side energise North and the coils on the 6 o'clock side energise South. Both are in repulsion to their stators.

The geometry of the 12 pole motor places the P1 Coil 1 bisector approximately 20o past the north stator bisector. The geometry of this motor doesn't allow for that figure to be greatly reduced. Reduction is crudely adjusted depending on poles grabbed per coil. Finer tuning would require re-engineering of the brush mounting plate.

I tested each pair after winding at 5v PSU and measured amps -
Pair 1 - 1.92A
Pair 2 - 2.46A
Pair 3 - 2.44A
Pair 4 - 2.41A
Pair 5 - 2.38A
Pair 6 - 2.09A

A feel (literally) for torque was assessed with each pair by pinching the shaft between my fingers and I was surprised from

coil one onwards the reluctance for the motor to stall.

Bench test SC#5 -
5v @ 2.09A @ 2700rpm rising to 2800rpm
10v @ 2.30A @ 6048rpm

Bench test OEM -
5v @ 1.18A @ 763rpm
10v @ 1.18A @ 1546rpm

--S--

Static Scooter tests :

The motors were plugged into the controller only. Not driving the rear wheel.

SC#5 -
25.1v @ 3.6A @ 13,128rpm (90.4W)

OEM -
25.1v @ 0.88A @ 3840rpm (22W)

With the scooter tethered to a static object (washing machine) with a scale balance -
SC#5 5.7kg
OEM 8.525kg
This is in effect a static stall torque test measured at the radius of the wheel.

Findings -

The static test places the SC#5 at 70% of the OEM torque.
The 5v, 10v and 24v tests places the SC#5 at around 3-4x the revs and 2x the amps.

The motor drives the back wheel through final gearing. The shaft sprocket is a 16 tooth the wheel sprocket is 88 tooth giving

5.5:1. The OEM no load free spinning speed is 640rpm.

--S--

Adding Brushes -

The OEM brush holders are brass with 4no tab feet bent under the mounting board. My donor motor was stripped of its brushes and I drilled and mounted into the SC#5.

As the repulsion coils rotate off their Motor brushes the collapsing north and south coils continue to repel but become increasingly attracted to their opposite magnet. Positioning the Generator brushes is set to allow the incoming attractive coils to assist rotation for as long as possible, accordingly they are set at P3 and P9.

Bench test V out -

5.4v PSU no load
5.02v in @ 2.32A. 3.89v out @ 2706rpm

10.28v PSU no load
9.93v in @ 2.49A. 9.93v out @ 5919rpm

The additional brushes added some load / resistance. These figures settle a little outwith the snapshot of testing.


--S--

Running a load off the SC#5 output -

5.38v PSU
SC#5 4.94v @ 2.28A @ 2692rpm (11.3w) @ 3.69v out
Connect OEM load to SC#5 output
SC#5 4.96v @ 2.47A @ 2644rpm (12.3w) @ 3.33v out
OEM 3.33v @ 0.5A @ 475rpm (1.7w)

10.33v PSU
SC#5 9.96v @ 2.35A @ 5870rpm (23.4w) @ 7.82v out
Connect OEM load to SC#5 output
SC#5 9.89v @ 2.51A @ 5923rm (24.8w) @ 7.43v out
OEM 7.43v @ 0.78A (5.8w) @ 1115rpm
(note: the motor was warming and the 5870rpm had risen to above 6000rpm)

Scooter 24v batteries and controller -
OEM 120w : 25.1v @ 0.88A @ 3840rpm (22W)
OEM 450w geared motor connected to controller : 24v @ 2.63A @ 471rpm (63W)
(note: reference to OEM in all other cases is OEM 120w motor described at the top of this post)

SC#5 24v @ 3.55A @ 13,025rpm (85.2w) @ 13.5v out
Connect OEM 120w load to SC#5 output
13.5v @ 0.93A @ 1990rpm (12.6W)
Connect OEM 450w geared motor load to SC#5 output
13.5v @ 2.33A @ 242rpm (31.5W)

Despite the power hungry nature of SC#5 I'm interested to see that 31W was returned at the output. I will need to rig the twist grip on the scooter to free up my hands for testing the change in performance of the SC#5 when the load is added. From the 5v and 10v results the difference may be very small and this would be a significant use to balance the disparity between the OEM and SC#5 current draw.

--S--

THEORY.

The shortfall in SC#5 torque at 24v can be adjusted by varying the final drive ratio to bring it up to the OEM benchmark and thereby trading revs for torque.

The OEM @ 24v @ 3840rpm @ 5.5:1 delivers 640rpm at the wheel. (assuming some frictional losses)

If the SC#5 @ 10v @ 6000rpm were to deliver 640rpm at the wheel the final drive ratio would be 6000/640 = 9.3:1

With a 16 tooth drive gear the final sprocket would be 16x9.3 = 149 teeth @ 3mm pitch = 447mm belt = 142mm dia.

The scooter wheel is a standard 5.5" 138mm dia so a gearing compromise would be required.

Assume 5" 127mm dia = 400mm circumference @ 3mm pitch = 133 teeth : 16 = 8:1 final drive = 750rpm

In theory then, modifying the 88 tooth sprocket to 133 tooth, the SC#5 might match the OEM torque and have a minor advantage in revs @ 10v (not 24v).

However I think the gearing adjustment will only compensate at 24v in which case there is a large rev differential which is likely to be a troublesome feature within a small scooter platform.

The more likely conclusion is the 13k revs @ 90watts (no load) will benefit from significant gearing down to raise the torque for a larger diameter wheel.

Otherwise it is hard to justify 90W as a starting point compared to the OEM's 22W although getting 31w or more on the output is useful compensation.

--S--

Proposed Field Tests.

Once I have modified the rear sprocket the 2no 12v batteries connected in series will be wired in parallel and the SC#5 will be tested against the OEM for speed and endurance @ 12v.

Happy Hunting

mark

[IMG][/IMG]

[edit: Try as one does to get things correct...The schematic should show the P7 coils in red]

--S--
26th Feb 2015 - Photo upload

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

--S--

28th Feb 2015 - SC#6 Build and Test Results

So today I chopped one new OEM and wound it as follows -

3 - 4 pole coil groups in Pairs - 20 turns per coil of 0.425mm wire. Schematic and photos to follow. Scooter torque test tomorrow.

Something as simple as organising the pairs as described at the top of this post allows me to easily get an extra 4 turns per coil over my previous 16 which was a struggle.

Results -

5.39v PSU no load
5.05v @ 1.33A @ 1713rpm. (6.72w). Vout 4.79v

10.35v PSU no load
10.23v @ 1.48A @ 3554rpm. (15.14w). Vout 10.44v [Note. I double checked that result - the Vout exceeds the Vin]

--S--

Curious with the increase in voltage I just completed a load test -

10.36v PSU no load
SC#6 ~ 10.14v @ 1.5A @ 3402rpm @ 10.51 Vout [15.2w]
Connect SC#5 to SC#6 Vout
SC#6 ~ 9.92v @ 2.80A @ 3071rpm @ 8.36 Vout [27.78w]
SC#5 ~ 8.36v @ 1.84A @ 4803rpm [15.38w]
Allowing SC#5 to warm up
SC#5 ~ 8.36v @ 1.60A @ 4810rpm [13.38w]

SC#6 running no load @ 15.2w rising by 12.58w under load which is less than the power being used by SC#5. Perhaps someone can explain that. I will check this again tomorrow when I conclude the scooter torque test.

--S--
29th Feb 2015 - Static Scooter Test, Output load tests and photo of build.

26.5v @ the scooter controller output.
SC#6 ~ 24.7v @ 2.13A @ 8506rpm @ 26.6v out [52.6W] No load
Connect SC#5 to SC#6 output
SC#6 ~ 23.5v @ 3.87A @ 8015rpm @ 26-40v out [90.95W] The output was fluctuating a lot, this doesn't happen with the OEM. A scope of this output would be interesting.
SC#5 ~ 26-40v @ 2.52A @ 10,878rpm [notional watts 65W]
Connect OEM 450W to SC#6 output
SC#6 ~ 23.5v @ 4.09A @ 8054rpm @ 22.2v out [96.1W]
OEM 450w ~ 222.2v @ 2.62A @ 442rpm [58.16W]

Once again the SC#6 under load takes less power than the SC#6 no load + SC#5 load. Does anyone have a theory on this ?
Notice also the OEM 450w pulling 58W compared to SC#5 load @ 31W.

SC#6 static pull (torque) test 5.9kg (OEM 8.8kg)

[IMG][/IMG]

--S--

[IMG][/IMG]

--S--
2nd March 2015 - SC#7 build commenced. 3 coil 5 pole groups in Pairs - 20 turns per coil. Test results for pairs as build progresses -

Pair 1 - 5.21v @ 1.0A @ 934rpm
Pair 2 - 5.14v @ 0.98A @ 1150rpm

---S---
__________________
 

Last edited by HuntingRoss; 05-31-2015 at 08:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-31-2015, 08:07 PM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 258
SC#7 Build and Tests

3 coil 5 pole groups in Pairs. 20 turns per coil @ 0.425mm wire. Schematic at the bottom and photos to follow.

This is bordeline to not being able to complete. The last coil of one group overlaps the first coil of the other group causing a bump. This is compounded by the 5 pole coils cross the horizon of the shaft causing the wires to stack at the centre of the rotor. This makes the wires rise quickly at the centre making it difficult to avoid the commutator and the final coils are too level with the tabs to make an easy contact. I was just able to complete the wind at 20 turns per coil but had to devise a way to prevent the coils from falling out of the slots. I bound the wires in place by cotton thread by winding around the poles and thereby jumping from pole to pole at the top and bottom of the armature.

5.38v PSU no load
SC#7 - 5.06v @ 1.15A @ 1197rpm @ 3.75v out (5.82W)
Connect SC#5 to SC#7 output
SC#7 - 4.97v @ 1.98A @ 932rpm @ 1.82v out (9.84W)
SC#5 - 1.82v @ 1.50A @ 684rpm (2.73W)
Connect OEM 450W to SC#7 output
SC#7 - 4.97v @ 2.04A @ 932rpm @ 1.75v out (10.14W)
450W - 1.75v @ 1.48A @ 26rpm (2.59W)

10.35v PSU no load
SC#7 - 10.24v @ 1.10A @ 2676rpm @ 8.49v out (11.26W)
Connect SC#5 to SC#7 output
SC#7 - 10.08v @ 2.21A @ 2429rpm @ 6.35v out (22.28W)
SC#5 - 6.35v @ 1.73A @ 3478rpm (10.99W)
Connect OEM 450W to SC#7 output
SC#7 - 10.09v @ 2.21A @ 2461rpm @ 6.37v out (22.30W)
450W - 6.37v @ 1.63A @ 118rpm (10.38W)

25.7v scooter controller no load
SC#7 - 24.9v @ 1.59A @ 6772rpm @ 20.9v out (39.59W)
Connect SC#5 to SC#7 output
SC#7 - 24.1v @ 3.07A @ 6448rpm @ 24v out (fluctuating)
SC#5 - 24v varies @ 2.53A @ 9165rm
Connect OEM 450W to SC#7 output
SC#7 - 24.1v @ 3.17A @ 6486rpm @ 17.9v out (76.40W)
450W - 17.9v @ 2.21A @ 351rpm (39.56W)

Scooter no load rear wheel 1149rpm

Tether test 7.5kg 88% (approaching the OEM 8.5kg)

[IMG][/IMG]

--S--

So, it's been bothering me how to compare different motor configurations. Some dismiss themselves but many have certain qualities which look like they may be useful. I've started to express outputs in Watts because the Volts/Amps readings vary wildly sometimes. But that still doesn't crystalise it for me.

Now this may not be new, it may even be flawed, but the following does seem to bring a certain sense to the process.

For me a motor must possess torque for the least expenditure of power to set itself above its competitors. As a baseline they must equal or better the OEM.

(apologies if this doesn't tabulate very well - also I will call my static tether test 'torque' as it is a basis to compare the strength of motors by simply hitching it to a spring balance expressed in Kg.)

24v motor tests :

OEM~1.13A~3840rpm~27W~8.8kg
SC5~3.60A~13128rpm~90W~5.7kg
SC6~2.13A~8506rpm~53W~5.9kg
SC7~1.59A~6772rpm~40W~7.5kg

Expressing all of that as a percentage of the OEM :

OEM~100%A~100%rpm~100%W~100%kg
SC5~318%A~342%rpm~333%W~65%kg
SC6~188%A~221%rpm~196%W~67%kg
SC7~140%A~176%rpm~148%W~85%kg

And for simple maths if a motor doubled the Watts and doubled the RPM then the nett result would be comparable to the OEM and would be expressed as %RPM divided by %Watts (%RPM/%W) which would equal One (1) in this example. If the result is more than 1 there is a nett advantage over the OEM.

So for the above :

SC5~342/333=1.03
SC6~221/196=1.13
SC7~176/148=1.19

That puts SC7 ahead of the OEM as the RPM increased more than the Watts but this doesn't consider all three motors are under torque.

With gearing the revs can be turned into torque. For example, halve the revs to double the torque. Assuming there is no change to the Watts, then :

SC5 needs to be geared by 54%, SC6 by 49% and SC7 by 18%

Applying those percentages to the motors will bring the revs down and bring the torque up to 100% :

SC5~8525rpm
SC6~5701rpm
SC7~5758rpm

OEM~100%A~100%rpm~100%W~100%kg
SC5~318%A~222%rpm~333%W~100%kg
SC6~188%A~148%rpm~196%W~100%kg
SC7~140%A~150%rpm~148%W~100%kg

%RPM/%W :

SC5~0.67
SC6~0.76
SC7~1.01

On a strictly theoretical analysis of the figures, SC7 can be geared to compensate for the shortfall in torque and the remaining RPM advantage is not gained by excessive power draw.
__________________
 

Last edited by HuntingRoss; 05-31-2015 at 08:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-31-2015, 08:07 PM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 258
Since SC7, I have been busy with SC8 and SC9. Mostly useless and I'll maybe describe them one day. SC10 being a derivation of SC6 and SC11 being a derivation of SC7.

My primary focus is the torque testing of these motors to ascertain the amount of work they are likely to deliver. My early tests of Volts Amps Revs do not reveal the true nature of the Beast.

I will be bringing the test results for SC11, SC11.1 and SC11.2 over the next day or so in comparison to the OEM and SC7.

Happy Hunting

mark
__________________
 

Last edited by HuntingRoss; 05-31-2015 at 09:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-01-2015, 06:44 PM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 258
A baseline for testing all SC models has been the OEM 'MY6812' motor which has a 24v rated torque of 42 Ncm.

The following torque results were taken off my Prony rig at 10v PSU -

OEM - (12no 5 pole coils in series @ 23 turns per coil @ 0.53mm wire) 25.27 Ncm @ 40.26 W in @ 704 rpm.
SC7 - (3 coil 5 pole groups in Pairs @ 20 turns per coil @ 0.425mm wire) 28.18 Ncm @ 75.35 W in @ 707 rpm.
SC11 - (4 coil 5 pole groups in Pairs @ 17 turns per coil @ 0.425mm wire) 32.35 Ncm @ 77.07 W in @ 528 rpm.
SC11.1 - (4 coil 5 pole groups in Pairs @ 12 turns per coil @ OEM 0.53mm salvaged wire) 36.20 Ncm @ 133.32 W in @ 1219 rpm.
SC11.2 - (4 coil 5 pole groups in Pairs @ 11 turns per coil @ 0.53mm wire) 38.78 Ncm @ 151.59 W in @ 1248 rpm.


SC11.2 at 10v is a cats whisker behind the OEM rated torque of 42 Ncm at 24v but is taking an extra 110 W to achieve it.

The next stage is to road test and see if throttle control alone will produce the correct mix of torque, speed and power consumption.

Keep Hunting

mark
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-02-2015, 12:36 PM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 258
Moving from 3 coil groups to 4 coil groups was to achieve better resistance and better attraction. This makes the angle between the first and last coil bisectors 90°.

Moving that up to 5 coil groups suffers the same fate as the '4 pole Pairs' debate where the angle increases to 120° and consequently the energised coils pass the SSB...equals not good.

As a simple design modification the impact on torque is dramatic. Compare SC7 to SC11, 28 Ncm vs 32 Ncm. The watts in is negligble difference.

Increasing the wire size from SC11 to SC11.1 and 2 was an exercise in curiosity. The watts go up but the motor is nearly achieving OEM standard at less than half the volts.

Happy Hunting

mark
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-02-2015, 02:31 PM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 4,986
Hey Mark,

Check this guy out, that made that Single Commutator, with independent coils motor back in 2011...

And he obtained excellent results...except higher amp draw at no load.



It was originally introduced by Bob Smith about a year ago on a Thread to discuss the winding type:

NEW MOTOR WINDING ARRANGEMENT

You may find interesting comments there as well.

Enjoy and great luck with your new Thread


Ufopolitics
__________________
 

Last edited by Ufopolitics; 06-02-2015 at 03:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-02-2015, 08:14 PM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 258
Thanks UFO

Isn't that weird. I watched that video years ago and had no idea what it was all about. Now I watch it and understand perfectly.

When the time is right, it makes sense...until then...nothing.

The Bob Smith thread has some useful comments...especially on the pulse theory of input and output through a wound stator. I'll save that build for a rainy day.

Happy Hunting

mark
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-02-2015, 08:36 PM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 258
An interesting difference in that re-wind of the compressor motor and the way I wind my single comm motors is...

The compressor is wound from one end 'north on the face' to the next coil 'south on the face' to the end.

My method is to wind all 'north on the face' and in effect connect at both mid points.

('on the face' meaning as you look at the rotor)

There is no practical difference except my tabs start and finish with two wires (hence mid points) and his starts and finishes with one wire (hence end points).

On balance I prefer my method because one tab is just hooked over and the starting point is twisted to tighten against the tab. This is useful when you're doing a lot of chops to designs on one rotor because it saves fatigue on the tabs.

Happy Hunting

mark
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-02-2015, 08:43 PM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 4,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by HuntingRoss View Post
An interesting difference in that re-wind of the compressor motor and the way I wind my single comm motors is...

The compressor is wound from one end 'north on the face' to the next coil 'south on the face' to the end.

My method is to wind all 'north on the face' and in effect connect at both mid points.

('on the face' meaning as you look at the rotor)

There is no practical difference except my tabs start and finish with two wires (hence mid points) and his starts and finishes with one wire (hence end points).

On balance I prefer my method because one tab is just hooked over and the starting point is twisted to tighten against the tab. This is useful when you're doing a lot of chops to designs on one rotor because it saves fatigue on the tabs.

Happy Hunting

mark

Ok, so you are winding each matching coil (180º apart) both projecting outwards the North Fields, hence south towards shaft..
And the way you connect them to comm tabs is in Parallel, not in series like he did...so you have two wires per tab.

Is the way I am figuring it out...

Parallel winding will bring some higher amps...but a lot of torque.


Ufopolitics
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #12  
Old 06-02-2015, 10:01 PM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
Ok, so you are winding each matching coil (180º apart) both projecting outwards the North Fields, hence south towards shaft..
And the way you connect them to comm tabs is in Parallel, not in series like he did...so you have two wires per tab.

Is the way I am figuring it out...

Parallel winding will bring some higher amps...but a lot of torque.


Ufopolitics
Hi UFO

Yes to the parallel part...

Looking at the side of the rotor (face on)

I wind north from P1 to P7 (P1 on the right, P7 on the left)

Loop over P7

Then wind north from P7 to P1 (P7 on the right, P1 on the left)

Or to put it another way...

Looking on the top of the rotor

I start at P1 on the right and wind north

Each successive coil progresses CW until you come back to P1.

So one side fires up north, the other south...

Happy Hunting

mark
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-03-2015, 02:02 AM
Midaztouch's Avatar
Midaztouch Midaztouch is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Japan for 2yrs
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by HuntingRoss View Post
Thanks UFO

Isn't that weird. I watched that video years ago and had no idea what it was all about. Now I watch it and understand perfectly.

When the time is right, it makes sense...until then...nothing.

The Bob Smith thread has some useful comments...especially on the pulse theory of input and output through a wound stator. I'll save that build for a rainy day.

Happy Hunting

mark
Ross,

Yeah, I watched that video years ago also. Just like you, I finally understand it now. That Russian man used the independent singular coils hybrid in 2011. It's all just recycled information with a twist... Series, parallel, pairs, groups, singular coils, one commutator, two commutator... If it was done in 2011, I'm pretty sure it was done way before hit hit the forums.... Nothing new under the sun. ... Like most people, we just didn't know any better.

Have you found anything yet about the 3pole sc motors yet?

I read and reread B Smiths thread. Brown is really knowledge! Here's my favorite part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrownn View Post

What I propose is different, we run the motor in attraction, this is to keep the flux within the iron of the motor. In this case the reason is to maximize the coupling of the coils in the motor.

In a Bedini, your coils are bifilar wound so there is excellent coupling for the switching circuit. In this motor the switching is mechanical, so we don’t need the bifilar winding, however each coil will interact with the armature.

In some motors this is undesirable, but in others it is a requirement. An induction motor requires strong coupling between the field coils and the armature, so that a transformer action can power the squirrel cage. In inductive compensation, used on some universal type motors, again strong coupling is required. Even in resistive compensation used on universal type motors there is coupling and transformer interactions.

Basically the rule is, If you have two coils in the same magnetic circuit, they will interact (providing that the field is changing). Sometimes this is positive in so much that an induced current flows in the second winding like in the induction motor. Sometimes it is negative in so much as the induction produces a voltage which opposes the flow placed in the second winding such as in resistive compensation.

In what I am proposing, I have taken into account these interactions and where possible made them produce a current flow. To do this efficiently we need good coupling, and that is provided by having the armature in attraction with the field coils/magnets.

Much more on this when we get into the mods later on.

The Bedini has an open magnetic circuit and the torque is provided by repelling or cancelling attraction at the right moment. This method produced a strong voltage spike. The method I am proposing with a closed magnetic circuit produces strong torque and because the electrical circuit is low resistance good current flow with reduced voltage.

PS The torque is not just produced by attraction alone, the flux is bent through an acute angle in the armature and as it tries to straighten an additional torque is applied by this action. More on this later.

Midaz
__________________
 

Last edited by Midaztouch; 06-03-2015 at 04:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-03-2015, 11:29 AM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midaztouch View Post
Have you found anything yet about the 3pole sc motors yet?
Not a sausage.

Any way you look at it, it's really a bad example of a single comm concept.

No down time to speak of and no extra brushes.

Its uses would be very limited.

On a side note. The test pilot has been booked for the weekend...count down to rain.

Happy Hunting

mark
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-04-2015, 01:06 AM
Midaztouch's Avatar
Midaztouch Midaztouch is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Japan for 2yrs
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by HuntingRoss View Post
A baseline for testing all SC models has been the OEM 'MY6812' motor which has a 24v rated torque of 42 Ncm.

The following torque results were taken off my Prony rig at 10v PSU -

OEM - (12no 5 pole coils in series @ 23 turns per coil @ 0.53mm wire) 25.27 Ncm @ 40.26 W in @ 704 rpm.

SC11.1 - (4 coil 5 pole groups in Pairs @ 12 turns per coil @ OEM 0.53mm salvaged wire) 36.20 Ncm @ 133.32 W in @ 1219 rpm.

SC11.2 - (4 coil 5 pole groups in Pairs @ 11 turns per coil @ 0.53mm wire) 38.78 Ncm @ 151.59 W in @ 1248 rpm.


Keep Hunting

mark
Ross,

On the SC11.2, why did you decide to use one less turn per coil? What was the ohms differance between 11 & 12turns?

You used one less turn and the RPMs went up... but the torque increased over the 12turns, also??
If you have time, could you explain that for me?

Midaz
__________________
 

Last edited by Midaztouch; 06-04-2015 at 01:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-04-2015, 01:32 PM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midaztouch View Post
Ross,

On the SC11.2, why did you decide to use one less turn per coil? What was the ohms differance between 11 & 12turns?

You used one less turn and the RPMs went up... but the torque increased over the 12turns, also??
If you have time, could you explain that for me?

Midaz
The answer lies in the faults of the salvage wire.

SC11.1 was an exercise in curiosity to see how the OEM gauge wire would work with 4 coils instead of 3. It worked very well as I tested the motor on completion of every group but 12 turns are too much wire for the rotor, so when I battered the crap out of it to fit the wedges I found the salvage wire failed and caused continuity problems between groups.

I tested it anyway, expecting it to be a hopeless waste of time. To my surprise it performed very well despite the spurious fields that must have been formed from shorted coils.

SC11.2 was therefore expected to perform better but I worked with 11 turns to ensure I could get the wedges in.

The reason I went for OEM gauge was based on the idea that 4 coil groups on an single comm motor actually means 8 energised coils between the brushes. The OEM has 6 coils between the brushes but 1 of those is on the magnet bisector so I discounted them and estimated the OEM turns total for 10 coils (230).

The SC11.2 has 88 turns per Pair of groups and then I factored in that 96% of the time there are two Pairs of groups connectecd on the brush which is 176 turns connected.

It didn't quite work out as you can see the Watts are alot more than the OEM but the torque jumped way up, so that was ONE of the results I was looking for.

The road test will give me a better clue if it was a worthwhile exercise.

Happy Hunting

mark
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-06-2015, 12:29 PM
Midaztouch's Avatar
Midaztouch Midaztouch is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Japan for 2yrs
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by HuntingRoss View Post

The OEM has 6 coils between the brushes but 1 of those is on the magnet bisector so I discounted them and estimated the OEM turns total for 10 coils (230).

The SC11.2 has 88 turns per Pair of groups and then I factored in that 96% of the time there are two Pairs of groups connectecd on the brush which is 176 turns connected.

It didn't quite work out as you can see the Watts are alot more than the OEM but the torque jumped way up, so that was ONE of the results I was looking for.


Happy Hunting

mark
Ross,

I did some ruff estimates for your SC11.2 @ 4coils x 5poles each
Magnet size = 5 armature legs/poles
*subtracted lesser field from stronger field*


1st pole = weakest part of the magnet
2nd = stronger than 1st pole
3rd pole = strongest (magnet bisector)
4th = weaker than the 3rd pole
5th pole = weakest part of the magnet
*6th pole = 0 torque/no magnet*


Repulsion mode: (1)One coil group in contact with brushes
One pole can have a max of 44 turns/wires x 2poles(north & south magnets) = 88 turns/wires max

1st pole = 22 turns attraction magnetic field is dominate
2nd pole = 22 turns repulsion magnetic field is dominate
3rd pole = 66 turns repulsion (magnet bisector)
4th pole = 88 turns repulsion
5th pole = 88 turns repulsion
*6th pole = 66 turns No magnet/0 torque


************************************************** *****************


Repulsion mode: (2)Two coil groups are in contact with brushes 96% of the time
One pole can have a max of 88 turns/wires x 2poles(north & south magnets) = 176 turns/wires max

1st pole = 88 turns attraction magnetic field is dominate
2nd pole = 0 turns none magnetic fields are equal/cancel eachother
3rd pole = 88 turns repulsion (magnet bisector) ... coil is 50% power
4th pole = 154 turns repulsion
5th pole = 176 turns repulsion ... most turns at the weakest point
*6th pole = 154 turns No magnet/0 torque ... a lot of turns doing nothing

Ruff idea of Group winds magnetic efficiency

Vs

Repulsion mode Singular coils @ 5 poles: (2)Two singular coils are in contact with brushes 96% of the time
One pole can have a max of 88 turns/wires x 2poles(north & south magnets) = 176 turns/wires max

1st pole = 88turns/wires repulsion
2nd pole = 176 turns repulsion
3rd pole = 176 turns repulsion ... (magnet bisector) ... coil is 100% power
4th pole = 176 turns repulsion
5th pole = 176 turns repulsion
*6th pole = 88 turns @ no magnet/0 torque



I'm I missing something? How is groups better than singular coils in your opinion for magnetic efficiency?

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

Check my math for a mistake. I will fix it if I have some
__________________
 

Last edited by Midaztouch; 06-06-2015 at 02:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-06-2015, 06:14 PM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midaztouch View Post
I'm I missing something? How is groups better than singular coils in your opinion for magnetic efficiency?
I can't answer that question.

But the following is taken from my notebook when I wound the SC4 5 pole single coils in Pairs, 30 turns per coil :

Quote:
Room for 40 turns in slots (80 total) but stacking at top and bottom is right up at comm. Needs to be flatter.
So it is not physically possible to get more than 30 turns per coil (60 turns for the Pair) on this rotor. That's 120 turns for two Pairs being in contact with the brushes simultaneously.

The 4 coil group wind takes you from P1 connection Coil 1 at 5° repulsion to P1 disconnection Coil 4 at 155° attraction. That's an impressive spread of magnetic interaction.

For the single coil those figures read, P1 connection at 5° repulsion to P1 disconnection at 65° repulsion.

For the time being I'm sticking with the group wind. The pairs, lapping pairs and single didn't work out for me.

Happy Hunting

mark
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-06-2015, 10:50 PM
Midaztouch's Avatar
Midaztouch Midaztouch is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Japan for 2yrs
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by HuntingRoss View Post
I can't answer that question.

But the following is taken from my notebook when I wound the SC4 5 pole single coils in Pairs, 30 turns per coil :



So it is not physically possible to get more than 30 turns per coil (60 turns for the Pair) on this rotor. That's 120 turns for two Pairs being in contact with the brushes simultaneously.

The 4 coil group wind takes you from P1 connection Coil 1 at 5° repulsion to P1 disconnection Coil 4 at 155° attraction. That's an impressive spread of magnetic interaction.

For the single coil those figures read, P1 connection at 5° repulsion to P1 disconnection at 65° repulsion.

For the time being I'm sticking with the group wind. The pairs, lapping pairs and single didn't work out for me.

Happy Hunting

mark
I remember you had made the SC singular coils. I believe the problem was in the wire gauge.
You past builds of 30 turns vs 44~60turns now is really huge differance/discrepancy.

Do to the precision of the singular coils' magnetic fields, using the 0.425 AWG wire will reduce the wattage in and still have more torque. Since the build of the singular coils, less turns of 0.425 AWG would be used. That will still have higher torque with higher rpm.

Personally, I would think that the AWG wire between 0.54 & 0.43awg would be the best choice. Giving you "the best of all worlds".

Keep in mind:
Pairs split the magnetic field.
&
The compact Singular coils magnetic fields are concentrated though out the power band of (1)one magnet/each magnet


Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

We got off on a bad foot on your first build. Let your little girl wind my suggestion. It's really easy to wind... You have already done all of the hard work!
__________________
 

Last edited by Midaztouch; 06-07-2015 at 08:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-11-2015, 08:21 PM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 258
Finally, after storm winds and torrential rain at the weekend we got the scooter tests completed.

Over the same track, approximately 110m (average time over 4 runs) -

SC11.2 = 18.3 seconds
OEM = 22.5 seconds

Approximate speed -

SC11.2 = 21.64 km/h
OEM = 17.60 km/h

Observations. The SC motor goes up the same gradients as the OEM motor, but it has to be throttled back otherwise the fuse trips out. The speed up hill to that point is much quicker than the OEM. This is a marked difference to previous motors where the fuse would trip out as the motor was reaching stalling speed.

Configuring this motor with a more appropriate controller and fuse unit would overcome this problem and give the SC motor an operating advantage for speed and torque. Power consumption readings at this point would provide information on overall power use between the SC and OEM motors.

Scooter and motor modifications to follow.

Very Happy Hunting

mark
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-13-2015, 12:11 PM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 4,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by HuntingRoss View Post
Finally, after storm winds and torrential rain at the weekend we got the scooter tests completed.

Over the same track, approximately 110m (average time over 4 runs) -

SC11.2 = 18.3 seconds
OEM = 22.5 seconds

Approximate speed -

SC11.2 = 21.64 km/h
OEM = 17.60 km/h

Observations. The SC motor goes up the same gradients as the OEM motor, but it has to be throttled back otherwise the fuse trips out. The speed up hill to that point is much quicker than the OEM. This is a marked difference to previous motors where the fuse would trip out as the motor was reaching stalling speed.

Configuring this motor with a more appropriate controller and fuse unit would overcome this problem and give the SC motor an operating advantage for speed and torque. Power consumption readings at this point would provide information on overall power use between the SC and OEM motors.

Scooter and motor modifications to follow.

Very Happy Hunting

mark
Hey Mark,

Sincerely I am very glad you finally got the Scooter in a better (over OEM) running condition.

Although it was unfortunate you were not able to get the fully Asymmetrical design going as expected.

It would be great to have the spec's at start-end from both configurations, considering both started with same V/A at Batteries.

Related to your controller...it is designed to 'handle' X amount of Amps demand from its switching out end (PWM), I believe it was somewhere around 200 watts...and normally adding more FET's in parallel (considering also the related resistance feed to each FET legs) to its config would be able to handle higher amps switching.

Or much simpler to get a higher capacity wattage controller...but first you should calculate the operating amps under heavy mechanical loads to have an approximate, then going over that value.

Another rig you could do...is to add resistors between each comm element, say 1 K ohm, then run it...this will generate a 'dissipated balance' through whole armature circuits during operation. If temp is too high, then go up another level...like 10 K.

Cheers


Ufopolitics
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #22  
Old 06-13-2015, 12:36 PM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
Hey Mark,

Sincerely I am very glad you finally got the Scooter in a better (over OEM) running condition.

Although it was unfortunate you were not able to get the fully Asymmetrical design going as expected.

It would be great to have the spec's at start-end from both configurations, considering both started with same V/A at Batteries.

Related to your controller...it is designed to 'handle' X amount of Amps demand from its switching out end (PWM), I believe it was somewhere around 200 watts...and normally adding more FET's in parallel (considering also the related resistance feed to each FET legs) to its config would be able to handle higher amps switching.

Or much simpler to get a higher capacity wattage controller...but first you should calculate the operating amps under heavy mechanical loads to have an approximate, then going over that value.

Another rig you could do...is to add resistors between each comm element, say 1 K ohm, then run it...this will generate a 'dissipated balance' through whole armature circuits during operation. If temp is too high, then go up another level...like 10 K.

Cheers


Ufopolitics
Thanks UFO

It should be understood by everyone reading this, that the success of a single comm configuration is directly transferable to a double comm arrangement. It's just simpler working with a single comm design when you're a newbie with limited access to tools for making the necessary design adjustments to fabricate a double comm motor.

I've managed to source a pulley which will work with the power range of this (and similar sized) motors which will replace my 'heath robinson' pulley. This will enable me to conduct 24v full load bench tests so that I can do a full torque curve analysis and identify the correct OEM controller. I will steer away from tampering with electronics for the time being as I'm more likely to melt something rather than improve it.

I have a few ideas to improve the SC11.2, but v11 appears to be a good platform to work from and adding resistors may be just what it needs to tame some of the amps.

Happy Hunting

mark
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-14-2015, 01:26 AM
shylo shylo is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 594
Hi Guys, UFO, you said to add resistors between each comm element, will that not rob power or strength from the motor?
Increased resistance means lower amps right?
Amps x Voltage is power.

Mark, I like your work , but no matter how hard we try, we will always lose because of the geometry , the way everything has been laid out for us.
All motors I've seen and taken apart are always balanced, it will never produce more , it can't ,it's balanced.
Counter force is a magnetic field which opposes us, redirect it to assist us.

Sorry for the interruption..just had to say
artv
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-14-2015, 09:38 AM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by shylo View Post
Mark, I like your work , but no matter how hard we try, we will always lose because of the geometry , the way everything has been laid out for us.
All motors I've seen and taken apart are always balanced, it will never produce more , it can't ,it's balanced.
Counter force is a magnetic field which opposes us, redirect it to assist us.

Sorry for the interruption..just had to say
artv
Hi Shylo

You're very welcome to jump in.

I think there are degrees of 'more' and 'losing'.

My work on the single comm motor has a close resemblance to the symmetric 'brother', and that would appear to be a limiting factor rather than an a liberating one. From my last bench test it appears I might be getting 'more' than the OEM, although I need to verify this with more tests. But I'm not achieving OU or COP > 1.

I still need to test the SC11.2 with the extra brushes to check the output and affect on performance.

Ultimately, if I can get further or faster for the same input, then I will consider that to be a success.

Do you have any thoughts on the redirection of the counter force ?

Happy Hunting

mark
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-14-2015, 09:47 AM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 258
So I was looking for LiPo batteries last night and found this little bundle of joy -

In-Line Voltage and Amperage Meter (UK Warehouse)

Quote:
Easily monitor your model's voltage and amperage usage in real-time with this compact in-line meter. Its small and lightweight design allows it to be mounted in just about any model. The power input and output leads are pre-installed, and just require you to add you favorite battery plugs to install in your model.

Specs: Max input voltage: 30V. Max input current: 30A.
There I was thinking about bench testing being my only route to ascertaining the performance data for a motor...and up pops this little beauty.

I'm gonna get me one of these and strap it to the handlebars...make sure the camera has it in view and get the real time amps.

Nifty

Happy Hunting

mark
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-20-2015, 11:51 PM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 258
So here's an interesting thought...water cooled electric motors.

Quote:

Using servos and brushed motors underwater - Hints, Tips & Technical

Brushed motors

For small d.c. brushed motors, water in general is a bad conductor of electricity, the only real problem being dirt, fine particles and contaminates lurking in rivers and ponds which create conductivity thus causing damage and short circuits on the motor, resulting in them stopping working. We have all perhaps in our modeling experience seen a submerged motor continuing to work after immersion and indeed r/c receivers working again once dried out after an unexpected dip in the water.

Immersing a motor in distilled water with the motor running for 20 to 30 seconds will create a ‘wet stone’ effect on the commutator, smoothing out any sharp edges that may be on the brushes and this can also increase the speed of the motor by up to 20%. The motor will be quite happy to run whilst submerged, just requiring regular servicing to lightly oil the bearings and if being stored, then cleaned with distilled water, dried in an airing cupboard and lightly oiled. However if it is operated in dirty water, the long term outlook may not be so good. Please note that this is definitely a NO –NO for brushless motors (unless a reader knows differently?).
So instead of ducting water around the outside of the motor body to cool it, you flood it through the body and back out to a small heat exchanger. Keeps it cool and seemingly delivers a performance boost.

Seems counter intuitive.

Happy Hunting

mark
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-04-2015, 10:48 PM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 258
A brief update on bench testing whilst I'm waiting for parts.

The purpose was to load the motor to achieve the same revs as the OEM prony test. Adjustment of the prony rig is easy for crude steps but fine tuning down to exact revs proved difficult...But is close enough to make comparisons.

SC11.2 Prony testing. Torque 44.42Ncm @ 12v @ 804rpm.

The OEM achieved 25.27Ncm @ 12v @ 704rpm...The official spec sheet quotes 42Ncm @ 24v.

When I have the extra bits I will be able to do near to stall prony testing for both motors at 24v and see how that compares.

I'm wondering if I can get 60Ncm or more @ 24v out of this midget motor which gives an intriguing idea that two of these motors could easily be combined in a front wheel / rear wheel drive configuration giving a real boost when required and free wheeling the front wheel for lighter duty work.

Alternatively on a larger platform the two motors could drive through the same chain to the rear wheel.

Happy Hunting

mark
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-24-2015, 12:18 AM
Midaztouch's Avatar
Midaztouch Midaztouch is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Japan for 2yrs
Posts: 546
Ross,

What's up!? You had your SC scooter running for the summer. Anything to report or did you abandon the project?

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-24-2015, 12:07 PM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midaztouch View Post
What's up!? You had your SC scooter running for the summer. Anything to report or did you abandon the project?
Hi Midaz

The scooter is now chain driven rather than belt which prevents the belt slip from torque which was an issue.

I'm STILL waiting on connectors for LIPO's and new higher rated controller.

Other than that...have purchased a 36v electric motorbike which my daughter is having fun with prior to motor rewind...which will happen once I have properly evaluated the scooter.

Good hunting

mark
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-29-2015, 12:19 PM
HuntingRoss HuntingRoss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midaztouch View Post
I was waiting for your torque test at 24v. Did you hit 60?

What the voltage are you going to run on your lipo pack?
I still want to do the 24v torque test, but have also found some cheap (less than £5) 12v PWM's for testing with this motor.

I think as we slip out of summer now, my bench testing will pick up with the long nights coming.

The LiPo spec from Hobbyking -

ZIPPY Flightmax 8000mAh 6S1P 30C

Spec.
Capacity: 8000mAh
Voltage: 6S1P / 6 Cell / 22.2v
Discharge: 30C Constant / 40C Burst
Weight: 1220g (including wire, plug & case)
Dimensions: 165x69x52mm
Balance Plug: JST-XH
Discharge plug: 5.5mm Bullet-connector (without housing)
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
commutator, hybrid, motor, single, symmetric-asymmetric

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

For One-Time Donations, use admin@ this domain > energeticforum.com

Choose your voluntary subscription

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers