@Tehnoman

Yeah, it does seem obvious but in certain cases position of some components does make a difference. Even in the DC closed path circuits. I just want to be sure that I understand correctly what Peter is proposing.

Hi Guys,

As you both have agreed, in closed loop circuits, electron current is supposedly identical at all locations along the path. Jetijs showed his ammeter on the negative line after the capacitor. I simply suggested to move it to the left, to a position before the diode, leaving it on the negative line. As you have suggested, Lighty, it would also give the same reading if it was placed on the positive line between the supply and the capacitor. Standard convention usually places meters on the Positive line, so your suggestion is totally correct. My suggestion was not meant to be contrary to yours. Both locations should give identical readings.

Where Jetijs had placed the ammeter, it would indicate the TRUE current use of the system. This IS where he needs to place it to determine the TRUE efficiency of the mechanical energy production in relation to the TRUE current provided to the coils. For the motor to attain a COP>1, this mechanical energy production will need to be at least 1% above the amount of electrical energy recovered. As an example, if he can tune the motor so that it produces at least 51% mechanical energy AND recovers at least 50% of the electrical energy and returns it to the capacitor for reuse, the motor will achieve COP>1.

Peter

@Peter

Thanks for clearing that up. It's just that when dealing with high voltage all the time one learns to appreciate that although current should be identical at all the points along the current path it can sometimes behave... well... let's say out of the ordinary depending on the polarity of one particular branch. Granted, this circuit doesn't have anything to do with spark gap capacitor discharges which do show anomalous readings in certain configurations but it never hurts to ask and make sure I got it right.

Hi everyone!!
I just come across this vid on youtube...[url="http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=mvFvQMagl3g"]http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=mvFvQMagl3g[/URL
If someone experimented can comment this vid.
He is doing the selenoid with a cam and transistors..
This guy have scope shots too..
I hope you appreciate...

Alain

Peter,

Is there any room here for discussion on applying your ideas to driven generators?

Carl

Carl,

Thanks for asking. As you can see, we have been trying to keep this thread fairly narrowly focussed on attraction motor principles and inductive recovery systems. These are all motor designs that do not generate electricity by induction methods due to the movement of the rotor. This feature allows the motor to function with "no back EMF".

Please start a new thread if you are interested in exploring different generator ideas.

Thanks,

Peter

Thanks Peter,

I only mention this because you make reference in passing, on your DVD, to your techniques being applied to generators as well.

Maybe there is already a thread started.

Carl

BTW…..I’m putting the solenoid motor idea on the shelf.

I’m sure we all agree that rotary is more efficient and less complicated than reciprocating.

Carl

Right. the attraction to the recprocating setup is the pulling of the core inside the coil seemns to be so attractive.

What about a setup using a C shaped core like peters motor but have it perpendicular to a rotor. with a small gap in the C core. seems like one could get more torque then because you can have a bigger diameter rotor. And you could have more than one C core around the perimiter of the rotor that way you get the greater efficiency of pulling the iron into a smaller space and have a longer leverage to the shaft at the same time. in addition you would get a real good flywheel effect. Also it would be easier to build. I'll draw up a diagram to illustrate it.

Attached Images

motorC.jpg (13.0 KB, 62 views)

Hi everyone,

I decided to measure the efficiency of my Lindemann motor, so I bought some spring scales and did some crude measurements WITHOUT a wheel, by using only the 10mm shaft.
Here is my results:
Springscale1 = 350g
Springscale2 = 900g
RPM = 52 * 60
Vin = 43v
Iin = 0.7A
Shaft diameter = 10mm

P_in = Vin * Iin = 43 * 0.7 = 30.1
P_out = [(.9 - .35) * 9.8 ] *3.14* 0.01 * 52 = 8.8 W

Eff = 8.8/30.1 = 29%

Now considering about 50% recovery, the total efficiency becomes 29% + 50% = 79%.

I will take my motor more under load as I mount a wheel to it to see how high the efficiency goes up, I suppose that the efficiency of my motor can go up to 40%, when operating at around 2200 RPM

Also consider that my motor can have around 50% more Iron on its rotor and the air-gap of it is around 0.4mm, which can be taken down to 0.1mm or even less. And I am sure designing a Lindemann motor which can operate at higher efficiencies must not be a problem.

Now Jetijs, why is your measurements with you motor this low? It doesn't make sense. hope to see better efficiencies with your motor.

I'll do more measurements and post here!

Elias

elias,
I am a bit confused about your calculations and formulas. I tried to calculate my efficiencies based on your formulas and got a completely different result for my efficiencies. To be sure please calculate the efficiency from my numbers.
V in - 11.42 V
A in - 2.45 A
RPM - 2655
Scale1 - 100g
Scale2 - 10g
Wheel circumference - 0.5 feet
Diameter - 48.38mm

Thanks

Vzon17,

That’s an interesting idea.

Also, the coils would be easer to wind with your design.

Carl

Jetijs,

P = F * L / T That is the rate of doing work. So the circumference of your wheel is 0.5 ft = 152.4mm, So:
D = 152.4 mm = 0.01524 meters.
F = (.100 - .010) * 9.8 N = 0.882 Newtons.
T = 1 /( 2655/60) = 0.0226 seconds (one revolution is done in this amount of time)

P_out = 0.882*0.1524/0.0226 = 5.95 W So dividing this by the input will give your efficiency.

But a question I have is: Why haven't you loaded your motor more than this? It may give you better results.

Regards,
Elias

Ok, I understand now.
I did not load the motor more because my wheel is made of plexiglass and if I load it more, the plexiglass starts to melt. But still, the efficiency of my motor should be way better. I don't understand this.

Jetijs,

Don't worry. Your motor IS more efficient than this. You just haven't fine tuned it yet. Attraction motors produce torque by "attraction". But unless the attraction cycle is turned off at the right time, they can "attract back" and destroy some of their forward progress. Your motor topology has one of the best stator arrangements we have ever simulated. But the stator must be completely "de-magnetized" by the time of direct alignment of the rotor or the rotor will produce "negative torque" as it tries to leave the stator. Your tests were done with a 65 degree "ON" time of the opto-commutator. This only leaves 25 degrees of rotation for the fields to collapse and begin being re-established at the other stator poles. This is NOT an optimum timing set up!

Please stop "agonizing" over this early test data. When you are able, you can start a systematic study of the effects of changing the timing on your motor. There IS a place where the speed is highest and the current draw is lowest..... just like an SSG. You will find very good efficiency numbers there. Also, for high speed operation, you WILL need to ADVANCE the timing, just like in your automobile engine!

Peter

Maybe you can glue some cloth or some other material on your wheel to prevent it getting molten!

Jetijs,

Here is a little tip that might be useful to you.

Instead of cutting new shutter disks for your timing,
Stack one shutter on top of another.
By rotating one disk in relation to the other, you can easily vary the window opening and change the timing.


Vari-Shutter.jpg
Carl

Carl,

Thanks for finding this little graphic. I was going to suggest this idea to Jetijs, but I am so busy I hadn't gotten around to it. Thank you!!!!!

Jetijs,

If you trade out your timing wheel for a system like this, you can find the exact timing window you need....... with a lot of work!

Peter

Jetijs,

You might want to build it this way.
Will keep your fingers and clothing from getting chewed up.


Vari-Shutter.jpg

Carl

BTW Peter........I didn't find this graphic.......I drew it......it's my own idea.