150 118 90 78 13 SEATS LEFT - 2018 ENERGY CONFERENCE

 Energetic Forum Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal Input Power
 Register FAQ Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
 Eric Dollard Magnetizer Products Tesla Chargers 2018 Energy Conference Energy Science Forum Donate Energy Times Advertising

 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

#31
12-10-2009, 02:36 PM
 gyula Silver Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 809
Hi Luc,

If you observe the current consumption of a conventional electric motor, starting from a standstill to its unloaded full RPM, what would you find? Just at startup the current is at its highest value of the whole range (range here is from 0 RPM to full RPM, unloaded shaft), then the current gradually gets reduced as the RPM increases. Why does the current decreases? You surely know: the current decreases due to the back EMF which gradually increases as the RPM increases and works against the input EMF. But the result of the increasing back EMF is a decreasing current consumption because the two EMFs work against each other and their instantenous difference is that can only maintain current. And this EMF difference is surely much less than the input EMF itself. You may consider the back EMF as an RPM dependent voltage source, always in counter or opposite polarity wrt the input EMF.

The same thing is valid for your setup. When your coil starts moving its current consumption will only be dictated by the friction which is already a constant and given value and also by the coil mass, also a constant and given value already. When you stop the coil, it will have the maximum current consumption because in that moment there can be no back EMF develop in the coil. And when you let the coil moving again, the current immediately starts reducing to the "normal operational" value you correctly express as "The faster the coil is moving the less power it consumes."
(And the normal operational current consumption i.e. the no load consumption for your setup is established by the friction and coil mass.)

You can certainly reduce friction but not readily the coil mass. To reduce coil mass you are forced to use even more powerful magnets and also use higher wire diameter to reduce copper loss. So you ought to meet contradicting requirements: reduce coil mass versus using higher diameter wire that involves more mass eventually. Somewhere you have to find a tradeoff.

Hopefully it is clear for you now.

rgds, Gyula

Quote:
 Originally Posted by gotoluc Hi Gyula, thanks for taking the time to calculate all this and posting it. You're right! the coils inductance was taken without the steel bar in it. I'm so use to only using magnets in the coil (which has next to no change on coil Inductance) I forgot about the steel. So it's much more now. I measured 103mH when the coil is in the center of the bar and works its way down to 66mH when it's at the magnet (end of bar). Same measurement on each side. Added: Gyula, I just did a new test. I attached my voltmeter to the coil to read the voltage when the coil is moving (attraction) from one end of the bar to the other. I used my variac through a FWBR and 3900uf cap and set the voltage to 1.50vdc with coil attached and held in place. When I let go of the coil the voltage rises to 3.03vdc during its travel across. I then used a D cell 1.5vdc battery and attached it to the coil and also attached my quality amp meter and repeated the experiment above. I connected the battery and held the coil in place and the readings are 1.51vdc @ 189ma. This seems to be the maximum power the coil uses at this voltage. I then disconnected the coil to relieve it for a few seconds. I let go of the coil and reconnected to take the readings while in movement. They are 1.53vdc @ 55ma (average ma after many tries) which = to 0.08415 Watts. To me it looks like the coil has an advantage while it's in movement, so I'm not sure what Peter was trying to say (The faster the coil moves, the more the coil will generate back EMF to counter your input. THIS is the process that limits the overall efficiency) It doesn't look like anything is countering the input it looks quite the opposite. The faster the coil is moving the less power it consumes I do agree that under load it will consume more power which is understandable but I don't understand the above statement. Do you know what Peter is trying to explain? Thanks for your time Luc
__________________

 Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets
#32
12-10-2009, 03:23 PM
 gotoluc Gold Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,271
Quote:
Thanks Gyula for the details.

It looks to me like all motors will have BEMF occoring is there a way to prevent it? or even reduce it? that has proven to be better then a motor with BEMF?

Thanks

Luc
__________________

#33
12-10-2009, 03:50 PM
 gyula Silver Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 809
Hi Luc,

Well, to answer your question, Peter Lindemann's rotary attraction motor that contains iron cores and electromagnets only and does not contain permanent magnets, is one possibility I am aware of.

There is another design I saw at overunity.com from member DMMPOWER, see this link: BEMF MAGNO MOTOR
He claims for his setup a no BEMF case which may come about due to the repel fluxes between the 'rotor' and 'stator', no induction can occur in that case? It would be very good to discuss his theory here.

rgds, Gyula
__________________

#34
12-10-2009, 04:09 PM
 cody Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 407
Very good bemf explanation gyula.

luc, your correct all motors have bemf. In fact every coil has bemf just by powering it up, you cant get around that. But in a motor you can reduce it by simply getting rid of the magnets. That way the only bemf your fighting against is the coils bemf. Like Peters design. You could alter yours to be like Bob Teals, with the coil attracting a piece of iron through the center of the coil and have the same no bemf operation. I have also heard stories of using exotic flux paths but im not really sure how that works or if that was directly related to a bemf effect. But maybe your energy recovery will be good enough in your design to overcome the bemf losses. That slow speed is just itching to put your recirculating effect on it, im sure youve been thinking about that already
__________________

#35
12-10-2009, 04:21 PM
 gotoluc Gold Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,271
Quote:
 Originally Posted by SkyWatcher Hi folks, Hi gotoluc, What What this means is that when at higher rpm your magnetic field will be less and so less shaft power due to the reverse generator built in, though at lower rpm's you can have higher efficiency, but still may be limited since the reverse gen effect is still there. So if we could use magnets and not have this reverse effect then at max rpm the torque and shaft power would be large, whereas in most motors now its feable until you lower rpm which allows more current to flow because less reverse voltage. hope that helps. peace love light Tyson
Hi Tyson,

thanks for the explanation

If I was to use this motor design I would use it at a very low RPM (1 Hz or less) since it has more mechanical power when running very slow. If I would of dropped the frequency of the motor in my video (test 1) the coil would slap the magnets much harder then you even heard the time it started doing it. I think I'll do tests to see how long of a shaft I can have before the coils mechanical efficiency starts to drop since much is lost when the coil reaches the end and needs to reverse.

Luc
__________________

Last edited by gotoluc; 12-10-2009 at 04:23 PM.
#36
12-10-2009, 04:34 PM
 gotoluc Gold Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,271
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Inquorate Gotoluc - is your engine generating current unpowered in the same direction as you would use to move the coil by powering it? Ie; the wires are the same polarity?
Yes Inquorate! same direction. If it was the opposite it would not drop in power when it would move forward.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Inquorate If that is the case (and I'm no expert) then the counter-emf people are talking about would in this case be supporting-emf???
That's what I was trying to get to the bottom of

Luc
__________________

#37
12-10-2009, 04:43 PM
 gyula Silver Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 809
Thanks cody.

When you have some freetime would you go through the link I gave on the no BEMF claim setup by DMMPOWER? I would be interested in reading your understanding on his both the DC and AC case setups.

Luc, to test in the simplest way DMPOWER's claims (i.e. no induction can happen between two electromagnets in repel mode, this would mean no BEMF), an experiment could be done as follows: take two more or less identical electromagnets (meaning equal number of turns and identical core materials) and connect them in series and face two endings in repel mode. Then move one of them passing in front of the other (defeat the repel force with your hand movements) and see the current consumption how much it changes. The best would be to use a DC source like a battery with an DC ampermeter in series with it or a DC power supply also with a DC ampmeter.
If DMMPOWER claims is correct then the current consumption cannot change (maybe only a very little, depending on the difference in the electromagnets), and when a current does not change (or changes a very little) in such a setup where repel fluxes interact while the coil or coils moving, then it would be very good news I think.

Maybe I do not consider or misunderstand something in the above description, anybody feel free to discuss if so.

rgds, Gyula

Quote:
 Originally Posted by cody Very good bemf explanation gyula. luc, your correct all motors have bemf. In fact every coil has bemf just by powering it up, you cant get around that. But in a motor you can reduce it by simply getting rid of the magnets. That way the only bemf your fighting against is the coils bemf. Like Peters design. You could alter yours to be like Bob Teals, with the coil attracting a piece of iron through the center of the coil and have the same no bemf operation. I have also heard stories of using exotic flux paths but im not really sure how that works or if that was directly related to a bemf effect. But maybe your energy recovery will be good enough in your design to overcome the bemf losses. That slow speed is just itching to put your recirculating effect on it, im sure youve been thinking about that already
__________________

#38
12-10-2009, 05:27 PM
 gotoluc Gold Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,271
Quote:
 Originally Posted by gyula Luc, to test in the simplest way DMPOWER's claims (i.e. no induction can happen between two electromagnets in repel mode, this would mean no BEMF), an experiment could be done as follows: take two more or less identical electromagnets (meaning equal number of turns and identical core materials) and connect them in series and face two endings in repel mode. Then move one of them passing in front of the other (defeat the repel force with your hand movements) and see the current consumption how much it changes. The best would be to use a DC source like a battery with an DC ampermeter in series with it or a DC power supply also with a DC ampmeter. If DMMPOWER claims is correct then the current consumption cannot change (maybe only a very little, depending on the difference in the electromagnets), and when a current does not change (or changes a very little) in such a setup where repel fluxes interact while the coil or coils moving, then it would be very good news I think. rgds, Gyula
Hi Gyula,

I can do this test. Does the core material matter? Can it be coreless?

So, I bring them together (repel mode) then move one from side to side and see if the power changes, correct?

My motor design is also in repel mode but made from the PM! is this not similar?

Luc
__________________

#39
12-10-2009, 05:39 PM
 gyula Silver Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 809
Hi Luc,

The core material cannot matter, and yes I think it can be coreless too. With iron cores the conventional negative effect i.e. coils interaction due to the movement would be more pronounced.

Re on the your bringing them together: yes, treat one coil as the rotor, the other one as the stator and try passing the rotor in front of the stator, beyond the face to face position too. Try moving both to increase the relative speed, so that induction, if any, could surely take place between them (if any induction may happen at all of course).

Yes, your motor design is also in repel mode but this is the only similarity, nothing else: you have one coil and PMs and this setup have two coils in series and the same current flows through them and no PMs, this is a huge difference I think.

Gyula
__________________

Last edited by gyula; 12-10-2009 at 05:43 PM.
#40
12-10-2009, 05:55 PM
 h20power Silver Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 661
Well done,
Now to put that in the place of a piston on a engine and see just what it acan do.

h2opower.
__________________

#41
12-10-2009, 07:13 PM
 cody Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 407
gyula,
I took a look at the link. I dont think its a no bemf design and ill explain why i think that. He is using say a N field electromagnet to repel a N field electromagnet right. This is the same operation used in a bedini monopole except bedini has a permanent magnet. It should not matter if the N field is made by a permanent mag or by an electromagnet, either way its still a N field. Therefore this N field (whether by perm or electro) moving away from the stator coil will still produce bemf in the stator. But maybe i misunderstood something in his diagram.

edit
I looked at the diagram again and now im just confused...... I dont know really, i guess someone should test it to find out.
__________________

Last edited by cody; 12-10-2009 at 07:18 PM.
#42
12-10-2009, 08:01 PM
 essamali Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 9
very nice idea

i this this motor is working like the car motor working same idea right
__________________

#43
12-10-2009, 10:08 PM
 gotoluc Gold Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,271
Quote:
 Originally Posted by gyula Hi Luc, The core material cannot matter, and yes I think it can be coreless too. With iron cores the conventional negative effect i.e. coils interaction due to the movement would be more pronounced. Re on the your bringing them together: yes, treat one coil as the rotor, the other one as the stator and try passing the rotor in front of the stator, beyond the face to face position too. Try moving both to increase the relative speed, so that induction, if any, could surely take place between them (if any induction may happen at all of course). Yes, your motor design is also in repel mode but this is the only similarity, nothing else: you have one coil and PMs and this setup have two coils in series and the same current flows through them and no PMs, this is a huge difference I think. Gyula
Okay Gyula,

the test is done!... I had 2 identical 120v to 15v step down transformers which I broke open and cut the end of each to make an open E core of each. The primary (120v) is 40 Ohms @ 153mH (cut open to E) and secondary is 0.6 Ohms @ 1.16mH

I used three 12vdc batteries in series to get 36 volts as power source and passed the + through my quality 6 digit meter to measure amps. I connected the primaries of the transformers in series and they were repelling each other. Once they were together I slide them apart many times as fast as I could (by hand) and kept my eyes on the amp draw. I could not detect any change at any time. I also tried it with the secondaries in series but with 12vdc @ 7.23 amps and also the same results.

Keep in mind that power was connected at all times!... if that changes anything

Let me know if this sounds alright to you Gyula

Luc
__________________

#44
12-10-2009, 10:54 PM
 gyula Silver Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 809
Hi Luc,

How fast you are! Very good and many thanks for this test. Yes your test sounds ok to me (I assume that connecting the primary coils in series resulted in a current consumption of about half an Amper from the 3 12V batteries.)

Now we have to understand the setup DMPOWER showed in his drawing. You have made a DC test and DMPOWER's first drawing shows the DC setup where two - two electromagnet pairs are shown. He seems to indicate brushes at the center shaft of his drawing for switching the current on and off when it is just needed. Thinking loudly, maybe more than two-two coil pairs would be needed for a smooth operation and all these coils are to be connected in series, to run the same current through them. And because of the repel forces being the strongest when the coil pairs are just facing and these repel forces act radially towards and away from the shaft, we should fix the coils in an angled (twisted) position to utilize the repel force the most in the wanted rotation, and leave a minimal force towards the shaft.

Of course, first two-two coil pairs (four electromagnets) would be enough for building a pulse motor for testing purposes.

Let's try to understand what happens when you load the shaft of such a pulse motor? After your test it is sure that the current consumption cannot increase for the shaft loading because there is no induction backwards we have got used to it so well, very unusual property, no? The RPM would probably get reduced but input power would remain more or less the same.

I think this is the next step for testing. I cannot be 100% sure this setup will be giving out more power than what is needed to run it, sorry for this, this setup is also new to me, I also have to fully understand its properties, including the AC feeding behavior too. Any other member here are welcome to comment.

Thanks Luc!

Gyula
__________________

#45
12-10-2009, 11:09 PM
 gyula Silver Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 809
Quote:
 Originally Posted by cody gyula, I took a look at the link. I dont think its a no bemf design and ill explain why i think that. He is using say a N field electromagnet to repel a N field electromagnet right. This is the same operation used in a bedini monopole except bedini has a permanent magnet. It should not matter if the N field is made by a permanent mag or by an electromagnet, either way its still a N field. Therefore this N field (whether by perm or electro) moving away from the stator coil will still produce bemf in the stator. But maybe i misunderstood something in his diagram. edit I looked at the diagram again and now im just confused...... I dont know really, i guess someone should test it to find out.
Hi Cody,

Thanks for the answer. You seem to go through the same frustration I had when first pondered on this setup. You are right that in Bedini's setup a permanent magnet creates the same N field like an electromagnet does. But one thing is totally different: when you switch the current off in the perm. magnet case, the total field of the perm magnet remains there in its same strength whereas in the two electromagnets case (no perm magnet) both N fields collapse because the coils near to each other are fed by the same current, and both fields still repel each other during the collapse, so back induction cannot really take place in either direction. With a permanent magnet present, its field can immediatly penetrate into the coil and/or to the coils core when you switch off the current in the still nearby electromagnet.

I do think this is an important and useful property but fully agree that it should be tested in pulse motor setup.

Thanks, Gyula
__________________

#46
12-10-2009, 11:46 PM
 gotoluc Gold Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,271
Quote:
 Originally Posted by gyula Hi Luc, How fast you are! Very good and many thanks for this test. Yes your test sounds ok to me (I assume that connecting the primary coils in series resulted in a current consumption of about half an Amper from the 3 12V batteries.) Now we have to understand the setup DMPOWER showed in his drawing. You have made a DC test and DMPOWER's first drawing shows the DC setup where two - two electromagnet pairs are shown. He seems to indicate brushes at the center shaft of his drawing for switching the current on and off when it is just needed. Thinking loudly, maybe more than two-two coil pairs would be needed for a smooth operation and all these coils are to be connected in series, to run the same current through them. And because of the repel forces being the strongest when the coil pairs are just facing and these repel forces act radially towards and away from the shaft, we should fix the coils in an angled (twisted) position to utilize the repel force the most in the wanted rotation, and leave a minimal force towards the shaft. Of course, first two-two coil pairs (four electromagnets) would be enough for building a pulse motor for testing purposes. Let's try to understand what happens when you load the shaft of such a pulse motor? After your test it is sure that the current consumption cannot increase for the shaft loading because there is no induction backwards we have got used to it so well, very unusual property, no? The RPM would probably get reduced but input power would remain more or less the same. I think this is the next step for testing. I cannot be 100% sure this setup will be giving out more power than what is needed to run it, sorry for this, this setup is also new to me, I also have to fully understand its properties, including the AC feeding behavior too. Any other member here are welcome to comment. Thanks Luc! Gyula
Okay Gyula,

I'll build a 4 coil wheel and 4 coil stator to test this design.

I'm not too sure of your coil angle explanation... can you make some kind of illustration so I have a visual of it.

Are you thinking that current won't go up when you load this motor design? ... if so, how can that be? If a load slows down the rpm of the motor the the coils will stay on longer and is the result not more current draw?

Also, I'm not sure about coils in repel mode have as much force as when they are in attraction mode. If I use the same test as I did above but connect the coils in attraction mode I cannot separate the coils using both hands with all my force. However, when they are in repel mode I can easily hold them together with one hand. What am I missing why such difference?

Luc
__________________

#47
12-11-2009, 02:28 AM
 Inquorate Gold Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Sydney, Aus Posts: 2,097
Attraction vs repulsion

@ Gotoluc, what you've observed makes sense to me. Considering the magnetic lines of force from magnet or electromagnet as streams of aetheric nature, we can visualize that when attracting, the lines of force join together in a tight bundle; the 'stream' is quite strong.
When repulsing, the magnetic field lines don't meet, and like two water hoses' streams meeting, must diverge.

Love and light
__________________
Ben Brandwood
Youtube - kinetic energy multiplier theory
Heretical Builders
#48
12-11-2009, 02:59 AM
 gotoluc Gold Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,271
Hi everyone,

I just completed a new video to demonstrate a new switching circuit I made for the motor to work on its own DC supply of what ever voltage I chose to input which should be based on the load the motor would be under.

With this new switching circuit I should be able to get better power data. I used 3.80vdc @ 40ma as it makes the coil move back and forth every second which means the .9 pound coil traveled 12" = 1 foot per second with a 0.15 Watt input. I think this is a better score then previously calculated. You may also notice that the back and forth is just a little faster then every second, so I think it would be safe to say it moves 1 pound 1 foot every second for a 0.15 Watt input and could be better with a bearing system.

Luc
__________________

#49
12-11-2009, 03:29 AM
 gotoluc Gold Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,271
Can someone help with foot pound-force per second.

I'm looking for the Watt value for moving 1 pound 1 foot in 1 second and the below is what I found. Is this correct?

1 ft.lbf/s = 1.35582 Watt

which would add to 746 Watts for 1 HP if 550 ft.lbf/s = to 1 HP

If this is correct and my motor is moving the 1 pound coil 1 foot per second with 0.15 Watt how does this fit in

Luc
__________________

#50
12-11-2009, 03:53 AM
 Inquorate Gold Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Sydney, Aus Posts: 2,097
Conversion calculator

__________________
Ben Brandwood
Youtube - kinetic energy multiplier theory
Heretical Builders
#51
12-11-2009, 04:03 AM
 gotoluc Gold Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,271
Thanks Inquorate

this online calculator confirms the amounts I posted above

Now why does it come up with only 0.111 pound when I enter my motors 0.15 Watt consumption when I'm pushing 1 lb. per ft/s

I'll need someone to explain me this

Luc
__________________

#52
12-11-2009, 05:02 AM
 Inquorate Gold Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Sydney, Aus Posts: 2,097
Gravity?

Does it assume 'moving the mass' is against gravity (aether stream shown in extended Michaelson Morley experiment)???

We need an expert to point out what is going on.. Or failing that, um.

@Gotoluc - can you recycle the radiant spike thru diode back into coil for this one?
Reason I ask is I'll have to figure out the same when I get round to using the dielectric emf recycler (aka tesla switch) to pulse a bedini coil.

the challenge is making it pulse both ways and still be able to use a recovery diode. Otherwise I'll have to use two coils with diodes to negative each way.
__________________
Ben Brandwood
Youtube - kinetic energy multiplier theory
Heretical Builders
#53
12-11-2009, 06:08 AM
 sucahyo Platinum Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 3,073
Sorry if this is off topic

Just opening some harddisk and find the coil position over magnet is rather interesting.

Is the very fine wire the key for harddisk head controller precision? I still don't get how it the controller move over the flat neo magnet. Very wide coil almost covering north to south?

The harddisk controller should consume very small power considering it's wire size? But it can move very fast during operation.
Attached Images
 harddisk1.jpg (16.1 KB, 13 views) harddisk2.jpg (11.5 KB, 13 views)
__________________

#54
12-11-2009, 11:04 AM
 petersone Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 59
Hi Luc and all
As I think I mentioned earlier,the foot/lb per sec.is vertical movement,so try your setup in a vertical pos.it should come out about right on the numbers.
Also,if you had 2 setups,with the coils wired in a bucking manner,moving in unison there should be no bemf.I think that would apply to any 2 coil in almost any motor,attraction, bedini,etc
I don't understand why bemf is a bad thing in motors,I must be missing something,as I see it,with no bemf we are "paying" 100% up front,so the juice used will not rise when under load,but load or no load we are paying 100%,with bemf as the load rises the juice used rises,that seems reasonable.
I we could get rid of the unwanted motor effect in a genny now that would be worth having.No matter what, I find your tests are very enlightning,and will follow them with interest.If my thoughts on any/all the above are incorrect,please put me right!!I learn best by being wrong.
peter
__________________

#55
12-11-2009, 11:33 AM
 SkyWatcher Gold Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 2,242
Hi folks, Well then it seems that maybe 'Creative Science and Research' and their motor plans that use electromagnets on rotor and electromagnets on stator if wired correctly would be canceling the back emf. The plans are then useful if this cancellation occurs, which I will be testing dmm's post, even though I thought I tested this already with all the motors I've built, but now that I think of it I always used permanent magnets. Seems Ed Gray's motor wasn't that complicated after all, removing back emf would have made his motor very efficient.
peace love light
Tyson
__________________

#56
12-11-2009, 12:49 PM
 gyula Silver Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 809
Quote:
 Originally Posted by gotoluc Okay Gyula, I'll build a 4 coil wheel and 4 coil stator to test this design. I'm not too sure of your coil angle explanation... can you make some kind of illustration so I have a visual of it. Are you thinking that current won't go up when you load this motor design? ... if so, how can that be? If a load slows down the rpm of the motor the the coils will stay on longer and is the result not more current draw? Also, I'm not sure about coils in repel mode have as much force as when they are in attraction mode. If I use the same test as I did above but connect the coils in attraction mode I cannot separate the coils using both hands with all my force. However, when they are in repel mode I can easily hold them together with one hand. What am I missing why such difference? Luc
Hi Luc,

I have attached a drawing how I thought to fix the cores at an angle wrt the radial direction on a rotor disk, unfortunately this would involve cutting the cores' facing ends at a certain angle too, they could not be with 90 degrees corners. I think the most repel force can be received only this way between a rotor and a stator where the facing areas are flat and not with any arc.

Obviously this setup surely will works if cores are not cut at an angle but left with 90 degree corners but I think useful torque will be lost in the wanted direction of rotation because in this case most of the repel forces will go towards the radial direction. Also when the corners are left in normal 90 degree shape, the facing areas between rotor and stator cores reduce as the rotor turning advances, hence useful repel forces get reduced even rapidly, wrt the slanted cut core ends.

Of course there is relationship between the thickness of the core and angle of the cut, so that the very edges of both the slanted cut rotor and stator cores should not touch each other when rotating; this involves keeping a certain distance (an air gap) between the rotor and stator core, and unfortunately the higher this gap the more repel force is lost.

Re on your 'current will not go up' question: you can test this by your hands, moving one of the cores (in repel mode) towards the other and at a very near facing position suddenly reduce the moving speed (imitate a cogging situation) and watch the current meter. I do hope you will not notice any current change (after your test yesterday). Remember this is intended to be a switched (i.e. a pulsed) motor and I think the switch(es) should only be ON from just after the facing position for a small time duration to establish the repel kick-out force, then OFF again.
Maybe I do not interpret correctly the DC setup drawing of DMPOWER, but that is how I would think it works. Nevertheless, I cannot see any back induction possibility when the rotor suddenly slows down due to a increased load because this should have already manifested in your yesterday test.

Re on your repel and attract mode question: if you mean that in repel mode you are able to keep the two cores pressed totally together with one hand easily, (using the same current as in the attract case mode), well this is interesting to say the least... I mean I would not have thought for as a big difference between a repel and attract force of two identical electromagnets as you have found.
Maybe this could be utilized by making a DC polarity change switch for the series coils: when on approch they receive an attract polarity current and after TDC they get a repel polarity current, this is what suddenly I can think of as a 'remedy'...

On your latest video: maybe fixing springs at the endings of the steel rod to conserve most of the bumping energy that otherwise would dissipate would also increase your efficiency, besides using bearings. Very good test!!

rgds, Gyula
Attached Images
 SlantedCores.jpg (12.0 KB, 29 views)
__________________

#57
12-11-2009, 09:57 PM
 gotoluc Gold Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,271
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Inquorate Does it assume 'moving the mass' is against gravity (aether stream shown in extended Michaelson Morley experiment)??? We need an expert to point out what is going on.. Or failing that, um. @Gotoluc - can you recycle the radiant spike thru diode back into coil for this one? Reason I ask is I'll have to figure out the same when I get round to using the dielectric emf recycler (aka tesla switch) to pulse a bedini coil. the challenge is making it pulse both ways and still be able to use a recovery diode. Otherwise I'll have to use two coils with diodes to negative each way.
Hi Inquorate,

it is much more complicated of a circuit to recover coil flyback when using AC but not impossible. At this time it does not concern me to waste it as it's not a high frequency device yet

Luc
__________________

#58
12-11-2009, 09:59 PM
 jeanna Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 286
Luc,
I am way over my head with many of the posts here, but what keeps striking me is that you have made a sort of coil gun. (except yours goes back immediately.

I had the same take on your motor that inquorate had, which is that the bemf would be helping, but...

In the case of a coil gun the projectile is stopped by the collapsing mag field IF it is still inside the coil, but if it is already outside the trajectory is not hurt, and, I am not sure, it might be helped.

But the whole deal to get a coil gun to work well is to time the length of the pulse and the intervals (frequency) well with the aim that the collapse happens late enough.
Barry says it like this:
Quote:
 Another goal is to get the correct timing. If the coil current is too short, then the projectile barely moves before the current is gone. If the current is too long, the projectile is pulled back again after it passes the middle. You must get the right timing for your particular combination of coil and projectile!
So, you could try to time the pulse and its length between pulses such that the coil is on the other side of the bar before the collapse slows it down.

I bet you are doing this already, since you seem to be getting good results.

I think when you do time it perfectly to shoot and reload at the right intervals, you might have an increase in speed, like some bedini motors, and you will need to back off a bit.

and
click the link for RLC for a great java applet
Thank you,

jeanna
__________________

Last edited by jeanna; 12-11-2009 at 10:29 PM.
#59
12-11-2009, 10:13 PM
 gotoluc Gold Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,271
Quote:
Thanks Peter,

I wasn't sure about this since Peter L. was saying that my motor was in the normal ballpark from looking at my horizontal test video. I did not understand how he could calculate that from the coil weight going from side to side.

I purchase a longer steel bar to test it vertically. Should have a setup in the next day or so.

Not sure I understand your 2 coils wired in a bucking manner ... is that repel mode? I only have one coil and it takes about a day to make one since every layer is epoxied.

I'm also unclear of the benefits of no BEMF motor but ready to test it if feasible

Thanks for your interest and posts

Luc
__________________

#60
12-11-2009, 10:47 PM
 gotoluc Gold Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,271
Quote:
Hi Gyula,

thanks for the illustration ... very easy to understand now

I do trust from my repel tests that this kind of setup will not cause generator effect (BEMF) but I do not agree that it will not increase in current draw when under load.

The coils will be turned on and off at the ideal timing setting found, right?

This on off timing period will changes with motor RPM (longer at start up and shorter at full speed) right?

So if the length of the on off timing periods change with RPM then when it is under load and RPM reduces and coil on off time increases would you not think the current will increase?

I will make a video to show you the difference between repel mode and attraction mode using the same power input and you can make a decision.

Luc
__________________

 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 Forum Rules

Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

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

 Choose your voluntary subscription \$5 : \$5.00 USD - monthly \$7 : \$7.00 USD - monthly \$10 : \$10.00 USD - monthly \$25 : \$25.00 USD - monthly \$50 : \$50.00 USD - monthly \$75 : \$75.00 USD - monthly \$100 : \$100.00 USD - monthly \$175 : \$175.00 USD - monthly \$250 : \$250.00 USD - monthly

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:06 PM.