Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2020 ENERGY CONFERENCE - PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!!

2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference
PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!
http://energyscienceconference.com


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
  #421  
Old 11-28-2007, 05:42 PM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,192
Right

Quote:
Originally Posted by lighty View Post
Um, if one puts a diode cathode on battery negative and diode anode on the negative side of the capacitor, wouldn't that block current from capacitor to battery?




I suppose one should connect recovery coil to capacitor with appropriate diode in between? Otherwise it wouldn't make sense (at least to me it wouldn't).
Lighty,

Yes, the idea is to block the energy from going back to the battery. Why? Putting the energy back on to the RUN battery is the same as throwing the energy away, because the battery cannot be charged and discharged at the same time. In the arrangement I am suggesting, the capacitor acts as a buffer stage. Its voltage will never drop below the battery voltage, but it may rise above the battery voltage whenever the return energy pulse arrives.

The isolated output coils already have their respective diodes associated with them to block any current flows during the input phase, so they only allow current to flow during the magnetic field collapse phase. When you collect the output energy from the same winding as the input, the output current is reversed and cannot be applied back to the front of the circuit without producing a short circuit in the system. By collecting the output on an isolated winding, the problems associated with this current being in the opposite direction are negated, so the energy may be applied directly back to the front of the circuit with no other complications.

This frees the system from needing a second battery to receive the recovered energy.

The idea is to optimize the circuit conditions for this recovery mode, so the motor can be run by simply replacing that fraction of the energy that is NOT recovered. When this circuitry is coupled with a mechanical section with a very small air-gap, so that the mechanical torque production is high, the probability of running the COP>1 is also very high.

Peter
__________________
 
Reply With Quote

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

  #422  
Old 11-28-2007, 05:48 PM
sykavy sykavy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Lindemann View Post
Sykavy,

CAST IRON is an industrially available metal. Whether or not it is readily available near you is beside the point. That you do not know this, or even know how to find out, is a reflection on your general lack of scientific knowledge. Even the assumption on your part that you could some how make your own "cast iron" by melting down "old drain pipes or car radiators" shows a complete lack of understanding.

Just to clarify, I am not suggesting that you cast your own iron.

This forum is about experimental electric motor building. Casting your own metal alloys is an experiment in metallurgy. That you would even suggest this is shocking to me. Your lack of knowledge about electric motors and electronics in general is profound, but the idea that you would attempt to begin a project like this by casting your own iron core is beyond my comprehension.

Over the last 6 months, I have been extremely patient and polite with you, but I am going to draw the line right here. I will not offer you any help with such a project. If you attempt any of this, you are totally on your own. I will not be drawn into a discussion about casting techniques, raw materials stocks, fluxes, slag, molds, or the like. Any posts on these subjects in this forum will be deleted.

The scientific knowledge base and engineering skill set required for success in the project of building your own experimental electric motor is considerably beyond your current abilities. A reciprocating solenoid engine like Teal's is a complex electro-mechanical machine. Building one from scratch is very difficult. Building one by modifying an existing internal combustion engine is no less difficult. Please don't waste any money by starting a project you are unlikely to be able to finish successfully.

Peter
I understand that I may seem foolish in wanting to cast and that point is well taken. My friend, who is experienced in casting, will be handling the iron part. I had no intention of drawing the tread away from its purpose or asking you metallurgy questions.

I know my knowledge is limited but I have to start somewhere. You have been patient with me and I thank you for that.

Ok if you say that I'm on my own.

I'm still going to try and make it from what I understand from this thread and your DVD. I never intended to be a problem. I know I may be naive but I am sincere in my interest in your project and I'm willing to learn. So for now adieu
__________________
 

Last edited by sykavy; 11-28-2007 at 06:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #423  
Old 11-28-2007, 06:14 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,955
start new thread

Hi Sykavy,

You're welcome to start a new thread on iron casting as it relates to building rotors, cores, etc... so that it ties into a renewable-energy topic. I don't know anything about it but I'm sure there are others that can kick around some ideas with you on this. If you don't mind doing that, I'll clean this thread up a bit.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #424  
Old 11-28-2007, 08:23 PM
Jetijs's Avatar
Jetijs Jetijs is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,134
Ok, here is a little update.
At first I was getting some random results because the primary battery was depleted and lost voltage very fast while motor was running. So instead I used a variac vith a bridge rectifier and 20 000uF smoothing capacitor. This way I could get a steady DC. At first I tried how much energy I could get back if I increased the voltage and thus the speed of the motor. Here are my results:


Test1
IN____19.0V___1.37A___26,03W___100%____2241RPM
OUT__24.0V___0.13A___3,12W____11,98%___2241RPM

Test2
IN____23.1V___1.57A___36,26W___100%____2516RPM
OUT__24.0V___0.20A___4,80W____13,23%___2516RPM

Test3
IN____25.1V___1.67A___41,91W___100%____2632RPM
OUT__24.1V___0.232A___5,583W____13,34%___2632RPM

Test4
IN____27.2V___1.76A___47,87W___100%____2750RPM
OUT__24.2V___0.27A___6,53W____13,64%___2750RPM

From these tests i figured that increasing voltage/speed is one way to get better IN/OUT ratio in percentage. But if I would like to get something like 80% back, I would have to increase the speed to maybe 6000-8000RPM. I doubt that my motor could handle that speed, even now when the motor is running at about 2500 RPM, it is very loud and it is hard to speak to someone in the same room. So increasing the voltage and thus the RPM's is not the way to go.
I also tested what the difference between two circuits is (isolated output and non isolated output). Here are the results:

Test 1 Isolated output
IN____23.4V___1.59A___37,2W___100%____2537RPM
OUT__24.1V___0.20A___4,82W___12,96%___2537RPM

Test 2 NON isolated output
IN____23.4V___1.58A___36,97W___100%____2531RPM
OUT__24.1V___0.20A___4,82W___13,03%____2531RPM

From these tests we see that ihe non isolated output works just a tiny little bit better. The amp draw is a little bit less and so are the RPMs at the same voltage.

So next I looked at the input current waveform and the top line. I figured that in order to get the perfect wave (only a straight line) I have to decrease the ON time two times, but when doing that I have another 15 degree left on my 30 degree operation window, also only one such perfect impulse would not deliver enough power to get the motor to high speeds, so I figured I will make a commutator wheel that gives two impulses per rotor leg (30 degrees), not just one. That way I could deliver about the same amount of power to the stator coil and get two pulses with better waveform and thus IN/OUT ratio. Here is what I mean:


So I made the timing wheel this way:


Each gap is 7,5 degree of an arc, total ON time is the same (15%) and there is plenty of time left for the BEMF fall time. Here is the waveform I got now:


And here are the test results:

Test 1
IN____25.4V___1.27A___32,25W___100%____1815RPM
OUT__24.2V___0.24A___5,80W___17,98%____1815RPM

Test 2
IN____30.0V___1.38A___41,40W___100%____2237RPM
OUT__24.5V___0.34A___8,33W____20,12%____2237RPM

So here we see, that with these two pulses instead of only one, we get more back with less speed and current draw
The best achievment yet is 20.12% recovered energy.
Any comments?
Also, Peter I think you missed my post with a question about motor loading in the previos page

Edit: I made another timing wheel with three gaps (5degree of an arc).



Here's how the waveform looks:


I tried several timing adjustments and voltages. The best result I got so far is 24,25% recovered energy.


Thanks,
Jetijs
__________________
It's better to wear off by working than to rust by doing nothing.

Last edited by Jetijs; 01-18-2008 at 01:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #425  
Old 11-28-2007, 10:25 PM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,192
Totally on the Right Track

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetijs View Post
Ok, here is a little update.
At first I was getting some random results because the primary battery was depleted and lost voltage very fast while motor was running. So instead I used a variac vith a bridge rectifier and 20 000uF smoothing capacitor. This way I could get a steady DC. At first I tried how much energy I could get back if I increased the voltage and thus the speed of the motor. Here are my results:


Test1
IN____19.0V___1.37A___26,03W___100%____2241RPM
OUT__24.0V___0.13A___3,12W____11,98%___2241RPM

Test2
IN____23.1V___1.57A___36,26W___100%____2516RPM
OUT__24.0V___0.20A___4,80W____13,23%___2516RPM

Test3
IN____25.1V___1.67A___41,91W___100%____2632RPM
OUT__24.1V___0.232A___5,583W____13,34%___2632RPM

Test4
IN____27.2V___1.76A___47,87W___100%____2750RPM
OUT__24.2V___0.27A___6,53W____13,64%___2750RPM

From these tests i figured that increasing voltage/speed is one way to get better IN/OUT ratio in percentage. But if I would like to get something like 80% back, I would have to increase the speed to maybe 6000-8000RPM. I doubt that my motor could handle that speed, even now when the motor is running at about 2500 RPM, it is very loud and it is hard to speak to someone in the same room. So increasing the voltage and thus the RPM's is not the way to go.
I also tested what the difference between two circuits is (isolated output and non isolated output). Here are the results:

Test 1 Isolated output
IN____23.4V___1.59A___37,2W___100%____2537RPM
OUT__24.1V___0.20A___4,82W___12,96%___2537RPM

Test 2 NON isolated output
IN____23.4V___1.58A___36,97W___100%____2531RPM
OUT__24.1V___0.20A___4,82W___13,03%____2531RPM

From these tests we see that ihe non isolated output works just a tiny little bit better. The amp draw is a little bit less and so are the RPMs at the same voltage.

So next I looked at the input current waveform and the top line. I figured that in order to get the perfect wave (only a straight line) I have to decrease the ON time two times, but when doing that I have another 15 degree left on my 30 degree operation window, also only one such perfect impulse would not deliver enough power to get the motor to high speeds, so I figured I will make a comutator wheel that gives two impulses per rotor leg (30 degrees), not just one. That way I could deliver about the same ammount of power to the startor coil and get two pulses with better waveform and thus IN/OUT ratio. Here is what I mean:


So I made the timing wheel this way:


Each gap is 7,5 degree of an arc, total ON time is the same (15%) and there is plenty of time left for the BEMF fall time. Here is the waveform I got now:


And here are the test results:

Test 1
IN____25.4V___1.27A___32,25W___100%____1815RPM
OUT__24.2V___0.24A___5,80W___17,98%____1815RPM

Test 2
IN____30.0V___1.38A___41,40W___100%____2237RPM
OUT__24.5V___0.34A___8,33W____20,12%____2237RPM

So here we see, that with these two pulses instead of only one, we get more back with less speed and current draw
Any comments?
Also, Peter I think you missed my post with a question about motor loading in the previos page

Thanks,
Jetijs
Jetijs,

You have entered the zone of self-learning where you can see what the motor's behavior is teaching you!!! You can begin to see that by properly limiting the input pulse to just what you can get back, the motor can run 55% of the time on your applied currents and 45% on the recovered currents. The recovered currents increased when you chopped the ON-TIME window into two parts. But you are still ON for too long for the magnetic behavior of your stator.

The LAST TRICK to fine tune this arrangement is to open up the ON-TIME window on your commutator wheel to about 25 degrees, and flash the LED at the inductive rise-time rate. This keeps the motor in the maximum energy recovery mode regardless of speed or loading. From the looks of your recovery wave-form, it looks like the optimum ON-TIME is between one and two time divisions on your scope.

Make a little 555 timer circuit and chop the LED front end of your optical commutator with a 50% duty-cycle and an ON-TIME equal to about 1.5 time divisions on your scope.

Now, it is just about maximizing torque with small air-gap, maximizing energy return with proper input chopping and recycling the recovered energy back to the front with an isolated output winding.

That's it! You now know how to make the machine work.

Peter
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #426  
Old 11-29-2007, 01:16 AM
Jetijs's Avatar
Jetijs Jetijs is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,134
Thanks Peter
The idea about the 555 timer flashing the LED is great, because I can't really squeeze more than three pulses in this 30 degree window on my timing wheel due to the need of very small endmill bit diameter. I should be able to do this LED flash trick easily. Flashing the LED with 50% duty cycle will also make it consume less power. I will try this and post the results

Thanks,
Jetijs
__________________
It's better to wear off by working than to rust by doing nothing.

Last edited by Jetijs; 11-29-2007 at 01:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #427  
Old 11-29-2007, 04:04 AM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,192
Make it Variable

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetijs View Post
Thanks Peter
The idea about the 555 timer flashing the LED is great, because I can't really squeeze more than three pulses in this 30 degree window on my timing wheel due to the need of very small endmill bit diameter. I should be able to do this LED flash trick easily. Flashing the LED with 50% duty cycle will also make it consume less power. I will try this and post the results

Thanks,
Jetijs
Jetijs,

If you make the 555 timer circuit with a variable pot, you will be able to dial up the perfect chopping frequency to maximize the energy recovery. Once you know the right frequency, you can hardwire the circuit for those values.

Once you have the new rotor with the micro-clearance air-gap, we can go through each system one more time to balance the motor at a higher power level.

Great work!!

Peter
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #428  
Old 11-29-2007, 05:42 AM
MHZathras's Avatar
MHZathras MHZathras is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1
The first waveform shows the peroid of the pulse. The curving rise time replesents the slew rate of the charging cycle of the on switch. It has a low pass filter tendency (slow rise time). The second wave form is from a longer period of repetition or lower rpm, same approx slew rate. The third wave form, assuming the controls for the scope are not changed, is an even slower rpm (ergo longer period of cycle) It has reached a saturation of some sort(most likely the power supply maximum voltage). Spectrally you could deduce their are more high frequency harmonics in the wave form. Mostly odd harmonics... But with the non linearity of the circuit with it high constituents of inductive reactance. I would guess that there are some even harmonics as well (sum and difference componects of the sum and diference componets, that are odd harmonics (3f-5f=2f etc.)

Wow, sorry guys I was trying to reply to a post on 11-22-2007, 01:55 PM and it landed here. I guess that is why I am called a junior member. I have been a linear and digital electronics engineer for a very log time. But I still have problems with BBs, Forums, and postings.

Sorry, maybe someone can put this post where I meant it to be. Just trying to contribute.
__________________
 

Last edited by MHZathras; 11-29-2007 at 05:57 AM. Reason: Posted in wrong place.
Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 11-30-2007, 01:04 AM
Jetijs's Avatar
Jetijs Jetijs is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,134
Hello everyone.
Today I played around with 555 circuits. I could get the frequency easily, but the thing is that a simple 555 timer can't get you a perfect 50% duty cycle. You can use a flip flop to solve this. I did this a while ago when I atempted to buid a Tesla switch. Unfortunately I lost all my circuit examples when the hard disk array on my computer crashed. But I guess I don't need a perfect 50:50 duty cycle, 50.001:49:999 will do just fine. I just need some positive voltage regulators, because my system runs at 24V and the 555 timer can handle max 16V. I think the LM7812 will do just fine. Here is the data sheet:
LM7812 datasheet pdf datenblatt - Fairchild Semiconductor - 3-TERMINAL 1A POSITIVE VOLTAGE REGULATORS ::: ALLDATASHEET :::
Also I have a question. When I make the efficiency tests, the output battery gets charged with each test and there is only a little pause between tests. The battery gets to a higher voltage with each next test thus giving me better results, but this is not acurate. Also if a test is longer, the battery gets charged higher at the end of the test. Maybe someone has a different idea how to calculate the output energy more precize?
Thanks,
Jetijs
__________________
It's better to wear off by working than to rust by doing nothing.

Last edited by Jetijs; 11-30-2007 at 01:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #430  
Old 11-30-2007, 02:47 AM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,192
A Few Ideas

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetijs View Post
Hello everyone.
Today I played around with 555 circuits. I could get the frequency easily, but the thing is that a simple 555 timer can't get you a perfect 50% duty cycle. You can use a flip flop to solve this. I did this a while ago when I atempted to buid a Tesla switch. Unfortunately I lost all my circuit examples when the hard disk array on my computer crashed. But I guess I don't need a perfect 50:50 duty cycle, 50.001:49:999 will do just fine. I just need some positive voltage regulators, because my system runs at 24V and the 555 timer can handle max 16V. I think the LM7812 will do just fine. Here is the data sheet:
LM7812 datasheet pdf datenblatt - Fairchild Semiconductor - 3-TERMINAL 1A POSITIVE VOLTAGE REGULATORS ::: ALLDATASHEET :::
Also I have a question. When I make the efficiency tests, the output battery gets charged with each test and there is only a little pause between tests. The battery gets to a higher voltage with each next test thus giving me better results, but this is not acurate. Also if a test is longer, the battery gets charged higher at the end of the test. Maybe someone has a different idea how to calculate the output energy more precize?
Thanks,
Jetijs
Jetijs,

I love the way you just jump on this stuff. Anyway, here are some simple solutions to the problems you are having.

1) Don't worry about the perfect 50% duty cycle with this set-up, it just doesn't matter. 51% - 49% is plenty good for this.

2) Run the 555 timer circuit and the LED portion of the optical commutator from just ONE of your 12 volt batteries. This portion of the system isn't connected to anything else, so it doesn't have to be run on the 24 volt system.

3) For efficiency tests, go back to running the little light bulbs.

Good luck,

Peter
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #431  
Old 11-30-2007, 07:14 PM
Jetijs's Avatar
Jetijs Jetijs is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,134

Thank you Peter!
The idea of using only one 12V battery to power the 555 is so simple that it is almost embarrasing that I did not think about that Anyway, here is the picture of the whole circuit that I am indending to use:

I think that it is all right here, but just to be sure I need someone to verify this
Thanks,
Jetijs
__________________
It's better to wear off by working than to rust by doing nothing.

Last edited by Jetijs; 01-18-2008 at 01:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #432  
Old 11-30-2007, 08:53 PM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,192
Pretty Good

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetijs View Post

Thank you Peter!
The idea of using only one 12V battery to power the 555 is so simple that it is almost embarrasing that I did not think about that Anyway, here is the picture of the whole circuit that I am indending to use:

I think that it is all right here, but just to be sure I need someone to verify this
Thanks,
Jetijs
Jetijs,

Looks close. Pin 4 of the 555 needs to be tied to the +12. I think if the capacitor is about .01uf, the resistor between Pins 7 & 8 is a 10k resistor, and the resistor between Pins 7 & 6 is a 1M pot, you should be able to play with the pulse width to find the inductive rise-time of the coil and a good percentage energy return. Play around with it, as I may still have this wrong. I don't use 555 timers in the standard mode very much, and I don't have this stuff memorized.

You may also have to lower the value of the resistor on the LED to get the same brightness as the 1k across 24 volts. The output at Pin 3 is not the full +12 volts.

Other than those minor things, it looks good to try.

Have you opened up the window in your commutator wheel to 25 degrees?

Peter
__________________
 

Last edited by Peter Lindemann; 11-30-2007 at 09:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #433  
Old 11-30-2007, 09:17 PM
Jetijs's Avatar
Jetijs Jetijs is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,134
Ok, thanks Peter
I have not made a new comutator with a 25 degree gap yet. I will first solder the 555 circuit and test it with a scope.
I think I have all the info now to proceed

Jetijs
__________________
It's better to wear off by working than to rust by doing nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #434  
Old 12-01-2007, 12:35 AM
amigo's Avatar
amigo amigo is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 744
Jetijs,

If you need a good square wave oscillator, please check LTC1799, here's a link to one circuit: Electronics -- Small Footprint Square Wave Oscillator
__________________
Are the ravings of a lunatic signs of a genius?
Reply With Quote
  #435  
Old 12-03-2007, 04:14 PM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,192
Steven, are you still here?

Steven,

After showing us those excellent photos of your motor a few weeks ago, we haven't heard from you.

Can you give us a progress report?

Thanks,

Peter
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #436  
Old 12-03-2007, 07:32 PM
Jetijs's Avatar
Jetijs Jetijs is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,134
Peter,
I made some tests with the 555 timer pulsing the LED. The results are not too good. Here they are:


I used a 1 KOhms for the first resistor and 85K for the second one on the 555 circuit, the greated difference between these values, the closer we get to 50:50 ratio of ON and OFF time. I changed the frequency of the pulses by adding or removing some 1,5nF capacitors on that timer. The more capacitors in parallel, the longer the pulses. The resistor between the output of the 555 timer and the IR diode is 470 Ohms. The comutator wheel has four gaps, 25 degree of an arc each. In the chart you can see, that by reducing the pulse width, I get more spikes per 25 degree window and also getmore back on the output. But I can't get more than 24% back. Also the more spikes, the slower speed.

Here are some scope shots:





Notice how they get shorter in height when there are more spikes per 25 degree window. That means that I can get the pulses even shorter than the rise time, but nevertheless I can not get more than 24% back. Also the higher the frequency of the spikes, the higher pitch noise the motor gives out.
Any suggestions which way to dig next?
__________________
It's better to wear off by working than to rust by doing nothing.

Last edited by Jetijs; 01-18-2008 at 01:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #437  
Old 12-04-2007, 01:00 AM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,192
Excellent Work

Jetijs,

Well, it looks like you have the circuit working right and it is functioning properly. So now, the commutator is switching ON when in the right position, and the Stator Coil is being switched On and Off at its inductive rise-time.

Why you are only getting back 24%, at best, is not known to me. It looks like there may be some problems in your magnetic circuit. Possibly the large air-gap is part of the problem, as well, although this seems less likely.

It could something else. Let me think about it for a while.

Lighty, do you have any ideas?

Peter
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #438  
Old 12-04-2007, 01:25 AM
Jetijs's Avatar
Jetijs Jetijs is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,134
Peter,
The air gap should not be the problem. Before I changed the magnetic bolts that were holding the rotor together, I noticed, that the gaps were slightly more wide on upper surface of the rotor and narrower on the bottom side. That's why I changed my rotor upside down when I changed the bolts. This time it was a lot harder to get the rotor in place so that it would not touch the startor. The gap is now so wide that I can get only one sheet of paper between startor and rotor, but not two sheets of paper. That is why I think that the gap is not the problem. Also I noticed, that changing the bolts to non magnetic steel ones, did not do any good, because the rotor still tends to align itself to the startor when no power is aplied. That means that the material of the rotor/startor plates retains some magnetism but just a little. That could also be the problem. Maybe this type of steel just can't demagnetize so fast? When I made the tests, it seemed that I simply can't get enough power to the coils if the impulse is choped to too many smaller impulses. I am sure, that the circuit and the 555 timer is right just in the schematic abowe. I did not solder the 555 timer circuit to a base plate instead I used a non soldering break out board, this way I can easy and fast adjust the capacitor value and thus the frequency just by adding more capacitors, or removing some. Also, this pulse chopping approach makes the transistors work cooler, they get only slightly warm. Since I am now using only 3 strands of wire and the non isolated output, maybe I should add another 3 transistors to the circuit and use the remaining strands for powering?
These tests were not very precise, because I was powering the motor with batteries and they slowly went down as you can see in the chart. But still, the results should be better. I will make some more tests tomorrow and see what the scope shows on the output section.
Another interesting thing I noticed, the output current seems to drop as the motor gets up to speed now. This is interesting, because when I ran my motor with only the comutator timing and no 555 circuit, the opposite was happening - as the speed increased, so did the output current also the input current dropped.

Edit: Just a thught. Lets suppose that the problem is the core material that can not demagnetize fast enogh. Wouldn't a slower rise time help? Maybe I should connect the three unused wires in series with the other three coils so that the inductance increases, this way also the rise time should increase, right? This way there should also be more time left for the material to demagnetize because we could use a smaller frequency on the 555 timer.

Jetijs
__________________
It's better to wear off by working than to rust by doing nothing.

Last edited by Jetijs; 12-04-2007 at 01:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #439  
Old 12-04-2007, 03:26 AM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,192
Incomplete De-magnetization.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetijs View Post
Peter,
The air gap should not be the problem. Before I changed the magnetic bolts that were holding the rotor together, I noticed, that the gaps were slightly more wide on upper surface of the rotor and narrower on the bottom side. That's why I changed my rotor upside down when I changed the bolts. This time it was a lot harder to get the rotor in place so that it would not touch the startor. The gap is now so wide that I can get only one sheet of paper between startor and rotor, but not two sheets of paper. That is why I think that the gap is not the problem. Also I noticed, that changing the bolts to non magnetic steel ones, did not do any good, because the rotor still tends to align itself to the startor when no power is aplied. That means that the material of the rotor/startor plates retains some magnetism but just a little. That could also be the problem. Maybe this type of steel just can't demagnetize so fast? When I made the tests, it seemed that I simply can't get enough power to the coils if the impulse is choped to too many smaller impulses. I am sure, that the circuit and the 555 timer is right just in the schematic abowe. I did not solder the 555 timer circuit to a base plate instead I used a non soldering break out board, this way I can easy and fast adjust the capacitor value and thus the frequency just by adding more capacitors, or removing some. Also, this pulse chopping approach makes the transistors work cooler, they get only slightly warm. Since I am now using only 3 strands of wire and the non isolated output, maybe I should add another 3 transistors to the circuit and use the remaining strands for powering?
These tests were not very precise, because I was powering the motor with batteries and they slowly went down as you can see in the chart. But still, the results should be better. I will make some more tests tomorrow and see what the scope shows on the output section.
Another interesting thing I noticed, the output current seems to drop as the motor gets up to speed now. This is interesting, because when I ran my motor with only the comutator timing and no 555 circuit, the opposite was happening - as the speed increased, so did the output current also the input current dropped.

Edit: Just a thught. Lets suppose that the problem is the core material that can not demagnetize fast enogh. Wouldn't a slower rise time help? Maybe I should connect the three unused wires in series with the other three coils so that the inductance increases, this way also the rise time should increase, right? This way there should also be more time left for the material to demagnetize because we could use a smaller frequency on the 555 timer.

Jetijs
Jetijs,

The electro-magnetic effect that produces the output is the collapse of the magnetic field. This falling field produces a "rate of change" of flux in the output windings that produces the VOLTAGE of the output pulse. The current associated with this VOLTAGE is determined by Lenz Law, so the higher the voltage, the higher the current.

If your core material retains some of its magnetic field, that characteristic is going to slow down the magnetic field collapse and reduce the amount of energy the return pulse can produce.

This is the most probable reason you cannot get your recovery energy above 24%. Until this issue is resolved, your project motor cannot hope to produce a COP>1. Slowing down the rise-time of the inductor does not overcome the slowness and energy loss of the hysteresis curve of the core material.

Where we go from here is up to you.

Peter
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #440  
Old 12-04-2007, 05:24 PM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,192
Recycle Circuit

Jetijs,

I've had some time to think about this situation and have a few more suggestions. It sounds like your air-gap is pretty small right now, so that is good. One other possibility is that your return energy readings are low partly because of the sampling rate of your meters. Metering the energy quotient from the inductive collapse has always proved difficult. Some people believe that there is no significant energy there, but the recent development of high efficiency DC-to-DC converters shows there is, if the switching and core materials are properly configured.

In Bedini's SG motors, the "metered" energy return always looks lower than the effect it produces in recharging the second battery. When I worked for John's company, we rarely bothered metering the output directly for these reasons.

What I would like you to do is take the output pulses from the isolated windings and apply them back to the front of the circuit to a capacitor placed between the front battery and the motor. The capacitor must be isolated from the battery with a diode on the negative line (cathode toward the battery) as I discussed before.

Then you can look at the input current between the battery and the capacitor and as well as the input current between the capacitor and the motor. The difference is the amount of energy you are recovering back to the capacitor. I got a 65% current reduction on the battery drain using this technique on my first try, using one of my little Bedini SG type motors, but I have not tried to maximize this effect in either an SG or an attraction motor yet. The transistor switching, coil/core response, and inductive coupling between the windings are the keys to high return.

As you have seen, your twisted wire pairs are working well, with only a small difference in recovered energy between the isolated windings and the power windings.

Try this experiment, and see if you get an indication that your recovered energy is higher than the 24% you are currently metering.

Peter
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #441  
Old 12-04-2007, 06:04 PM
Jetijs's Avatar
Jetijs Jetijs is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,134
Ok Peter,
I will make the capacitor test, but first I need you to verify That I understood you correctly. Is this what you meant:


The capacitor is in parallel with the battery and there is a diode on the negative line facing chatode to battery. Is this right?

In the mean time I will make some other tests
__________________
It's better to wear off by working than to rust by doing nothing.

Last edited by Jetijs; 01-18-2008 at 01:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #442  
Old 12-04-2007, 06:25 PM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,192
Almost Right....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetijs View Post
Ok Peter,
I will make the capacitor test, but first I need you to verify That I understood you correctly. Is this what you meant:


The capacitor is in parallel with the battery and there is a diode on the negative line facing chatode to battery. Is this right?

In the mean time I will make some other tests
Jetijs,

This schematic is almost correct. The isolated output negative line is NOT a part of the common ground of the system. It must be applied directly to the capacitor contact point BEFORE the ammeter and after the diode. We only want to see the currents in the RUN mode, and not in the recovery mode. Your circuit puts the recovery current through the meter backwards to get to the capacitor.

Try that.

Peter
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #443  
Old 12-04-2007, 06:55 PM
Jetijs's Avatar
Jetijs Jetijs is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,134
Peter, do you mean this way:

?

BTW, here's a video that shows how the rotor behaves when the power is turned off. You can clearly see that there is still some magnetism in the startor or the rotor piece:
YouTube - Lindemann attraction motor

Thanks,
Jetijs
__________________
It's better to wear off by working than to rust by doing nothing.

Last edited by Jetijs; 01-18-2008 at 01:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #444  
Old 12-04-2007, 10:01 PM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,192
Right

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetijs View Post
Peter, do you mean this way:

?

BTW, here's a video that shows how the rotor behaves when the power is turned off. You can clearly see that there is still some magnetism in the startor or the rotor piece:
YouTube - Lindemann attraction motor

Thanks,
Jetijs
Jetijs,

Yes, the circuit looks right at this point, except for the lack of a connection from Pin 4 of the 555 timer to the +12 volt supply.

Your YouTube clip does show a small amount of residual magnetism. It's hard to believe this may be the problem, but something about the magnetic behavior of the stator is involved with the low energy return. It's either that, or your transistors are not shutting off fast enough...... and that doesn't seem to be the problem. The 2N3055 has been used in circuits like this for years and has shown its ability to perform well. That pretty much leaves the magnetic behavior of the core to look at.

I guess we are entering the stage where the easy problems are out of the way and the slightly more difficult problems are arising. This is what research looks like. Just stay focussed and don't get discouraged. We can find out what is happening, AND why...and then make corrections.

You are doing really well.

Peter
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #445  
Old 12-04-2007, 10:14 PM
Jetijs's Avatar
Jetijs Jetijs is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,134
Peter, I already tried this last circuit and the ampmeter did not show any noticable decrease in current draw. It was still about 0.70-0.75A depending on the cap value in the 555 timer. Also I have not connected the pin number 4 to the 12V, because the circuit seems to work well without that.
I have an idea, what if instead of the startor coil we used simply a ordinary induction motor core with some wire wound around? We could pulse the coil and capture the BEMF at a frequency so that the pulse width matches the current rise time. That way we would have a coil around a good core material and could see if this way the output energy increases. If the output from such a coil will be greater, then we know that the problem is in core material, if not, then the problem is somewhere else. I have a small induction motor startor core, just like in Stevens pictures only not as thick, I could use this for the test core material. What do you think?
Thanks,
Jetijs
__________________
It's better to wear off by working than to rust by doing nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #446  
Old 12-05-2007, 02:28 AM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,192
Good Idea

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetijs View Post
Peter, I already tried this last circuit and the ampmeter did not show any noticable decrease in current draw. It was still about 0.70-0.75A depending on the cap value in the 555 timer. Also I have not connected the pin number 4 to the 12V, because the circuit seems to work well without that.
I have an idea, what if instead of the startor coil we used simply a ordinary induction motor core with some wire wound around? We could pulse the coil and capture the BEMF at a frequency so that the pulse width matches the current rise time. That way we would have a coil around a good core material and could see if this way the output energy increases. If the output from such a coil will be greater, then we know that the problem is in core material, if not, then the problem is somewhere else. I have a small induction motor startor core, just like in Stevens pictures only not as thick, I could use this for the test core material. What do you think?
Thanks,
Jetijs
Jetijs,

Yes, that is a good idea. It is a way to test the hypothesis about the behavior of your core material. If the standard motor laminations works better, then that is evidence in support of the thesis. If you are seeing almost no drop in the energy input when you recycle the output back to the front, it strongly suggests that your meters are right and your recovery is low. Like I said, I have seen 65% drop in the input, and suspect that 80% is possible.

Try your experiment and see what happens.

Good thinking!!

Peter
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #447  
Old 12-05-2007, 06:17 PM
Jetijs's Avatar
Jetijs Jetijs is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,134
Hello everyone

Today I did some testing. I tested various core materials that I had at hand. First I used a induction motor startor core, I wound several layers of tape around it to deal with the sharp corners, then I wound about 80 turns of gauge 21 wire. I also used a recovery coil form my SSG setup, it has a core made out of welding rods and about 2000 turns. The resistance of this coil was about 10 Ohms. Also I tried a coil with a magnetite/hematite/resin core with about 500 turns of gauge 24 wire, just to see what results I will get Here are my cores:



I pulsed all of these cores with the 555 timer on the attraction motor circuit. I used only one transistor and the non isolated output. I had to adjust the capacity of the 555 capacitor to mach the rise times of each coil, I found that there is a sweetspot where I can get the most energy back. Too much or too less capacity and the efficiency drops big time. I wont post the result table because they are not very precize, instead I just post the best results I got form each core. So, when I used the iron induction motor startor core, the best result I could get was 46,2% back. The coil with the welding rod core gave 50,1% back at the best try. But the coil with the black sand (magnetite/hematite) core gave me 53,1% back. The input current of each coil varied form 0,27 to 1.5 amps, but nevertheless the transistor stayed only slightly warm. So I guess that my core material is just not good enough.

Thanks,
Jetijs
__________________
It's better to wear off by working than to rust by doing nothing.

Last edited by Jetijs; 01-18-2008 at 01:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #448  
Old 12-05-2007, 06:41 PM
elias's Avatar
elias elias is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,129
Question May you try this experiment?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetijs View Post
Hello everyone

Today I did some testing. I tested various core materials that I had at hand. First I used a induction motor startor core, I wound several layers of tape around it to deal with the sharp corners, then I wound about 80 turns of gauge 21 wire. I also used a recovery coil form my SSG setup, it has a core made out of welding rods and about 2000 turns. The resistance of this coil was about 10 Ohms. Also I tried a coil with a magnetite/hematite/resin core with about 500 turns of gauge 24 wire, just to see what results I will get Here are my cores:



I pulsed all of these cores with the 555 timer on the attraction motor circuit. I used only one transistor and the non isolated output. I had to adjust the capacity of the 555 capacitor to mach the rise times of each coil, I found that there is a sweetspot where I can get the most energy back. Too much or too less capacity and the efficiency drops big time. I wont post the result table because they are not very precize, instead I just post the best results I got form each core. So, when I used the iron induction motor startor core, the best result I could get was 46,2% back. The coil with the welding rod core gave 50,1% back at the best try. But the coil with the black sand (magnetite/hematite) core gave me 53,1% back. The input current of each coil varied form 0,27 to 1.5 amps, but nevertheless the transistor stayed only slightly warm. So I guess that my core material is just not good enough.

Thanks,
Jetijs
Good work Jetijs,

Have you used MOSFETs or any kind of faster switching device instead of BJTs? Faster switching may increase your output. (with sincere respect to Peter)
Can you use the capacitor arrangement of the following schematic in your circuit to find out how much excess charge your coils put back? http://www.energeticforum.com/attach...crets-cssg.jpg

This circuit is useful for measuring the amount of charge gained from pulsing coils. It would provide us with a measure of how different coils behave. Also I remember Bedini talking about open cores being better to capture Radiant Energy rather than toroid shaped closed magnetic cores.

__________________
 

Last edited by elias; 12-05-2007 at 06:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #449  
Old 12-05-2007, 06:51 PM
Jetijs's Avatar
Jetijs Jetijs is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,134
Thanks, elias
I don't quite understand your circuit, maybe if you explained what the circuit does and how should I add it in my circuit, I would try that out. Also that with the closed core, maybe that is why I actually get better results with a open welding rod core than with a closed induction motor startor core. Lets see what Peter has to say. If there is a big difference in the closed and open cores, then I could cut the induction motor startor core in half and test only one half of this core. Because I was hoping for better results with this silicon steel core
__________________
It's better to wear off by working than to rust by doing nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #450  
Old 12-05-2007, 06:58 PM
elias's Avatar
elias elias is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetijs View Post
Thanks, elias
I don't quite understand your circuit, maybe if you explained what the circuit does and how should I add it in my circuit, I would try that out. Also that with the closed core, maybe that is why I actually get better results with a open welding rod core than with a closed induction motor startor core. Lets see what Peter has to say. If there is a big difference in the closed and open cores, then I could cut the induction motor startor core in half and test only one half of this core. Because I was hoping for better results with this silicon steel core
Well,

In that circuit I usually charge C1 with a battery and pulse it through the coil into C2, while capturing the spikes in C3, this basic circuit defies the law of charge conservation and you end up with more charge than you started with. It will show how much charge you can capture by using a coil and pulsing the pushbutton (or you can use a transistor) when starting with a predefined amount of charge.

Elias
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

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.

Choose your voluntary subscription

For one-time donations, please use the below button.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers