My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines

[Ufopolitics]

Is a "Good Thing" though...

neurons firing up a bit I see. Nice job UFO! Right under our noses, eh? well excuse me while I try to stay afloat here and keep mine above water level... As soon as I get those taxes done and hold off those doctors, I will see what I can get to! Almost done with my baldor commutators, but I am getting an antsy feeling the old winding might be obsolete. Looks like it still one pole to one commutator connection... Just needs developed for more poles as you mention.

Hey Sam,

Well, look at it this way...it is a good thing you are still on this stage...and have NOT wound your BALDOR...

Now, for sure we will make it roar...!!

Was it a 20 or a 40 Poles?...I believe Comm is 40 elements...and it is a 20 right?


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

My Friend...

G'day UFO
I remember you said we can not go by calculations BUT
I always try to think things through
So just thinking aloud

First the premise
The #Turns is governed by the volume of the 1 slot in the P56 say PI
In each slot we have to have the #Turns div by 4 = #Turns per half pair.
So if we take the previous #Turns per half pair in my case 15 and multiply by the wire thickness we have the volume of wire per #Turns per P1N or P1S previous now we can calculate the new #Turns for P1N1 or P1N2

UFO are you up to it I know you can not get much sleep Like me I dream about these things

Now onto some hard thinking
V= volume, ONT = Old Number turns, NNT= New Number of Turns. WT = Thickness of wire, AWG18=1.0mm,AWG 21 =0.71, AWG22=0.61, AWG23=0.56

So V=ONT x AWG18= 15*1=15 so V=15

Inversely NNT= V/WT so

AWG21 NNT=15/0.71 =21.126 so for AWG21 the NNT= 21 has resistance of 44.89 Ohms per Klm =10.77 Ohms per Kg
AWG22 NNT=15/0.61 =24.590 so for AWG22 the NNT =24 has resistance of 65 Ohms per Klm =26 Ohms per Kg
AWG23 NNT=15/0.56 =26.785 so for AWG23 the NNT= 26 has resistance of 72.18 Ohms per Klm=33.2 Ohms per kg

My armature wound weighed =8.902-unwound weight =6.930 wire weight is 1. 927 kg and was AWG 18 .6 to .7 Ohms per pair
We should easily be able to fit more thinner wire turns
So my reckoning is as follows
AWG 21 would be 21 turns @ 10.77 Ohms Per Kg * 1.927kg 20.75/28 = 0.741 Ohms per pair Ohms Nearest to mine
AWG22 would be 24 Turns @ 26 Ohms Per Kg * 1.927kg = 50.102/28 = 1.789 Ohms per pair 9 turns more
AWG 23 would be 26 turns @ 33.2 Ohms Per Kg * 1.927kg 63.976/28 = 2.285 Ohms per pair 21 turns more

So UFO which would be the better option?

Kindest Regards

Is Kogs thinking aloud allowed

Hello My Friend Kogs,


I will entirely leave you the "pleasure" of doing all the calculations and winding yourself...

Now commenting on your final gauges/ohms...my opinion.

23 is too fine wire to move that Beast of Imperial...I honestly do not think it would build enough strong magnetic field as required per rotor mass...plus stators magnetic strength factor.

I would say it is between 21 and 22...however, I notice such a big Ohms difference between 21-22...

My recommend is to wind first P1...say with 21 and measure ohms when finish as also figure out if enough room.

I will really love to be able to do it with 18 awg...but seen this it would be too small resistance.

But honestly Kogs, I am working on a P10 All Norths right now...in order to see if we get same results/advantages before moving on. I do not have an Imperial yet to be wound, and still when I get it...it will take me some time to get it ready to be tested...even though I am planning to just do a full Armature All North, and swap them into my existing Housing assembly...resuming, My Friend, after seen what you did with your Imperial...I FULLY trust you will do a heck of a job there...


I will be here, for anything you need, and many thanks!


Kind Regards Friend


Ufopolitics

[iankoglin]

Hello again,

@Kogs: Yes Kogs, the wire must be finer than previous 18 awg...say a 22-23 gauge (awg)...so we could add over 20 Turns per Coil.


Regards


Ufopolitics

G'day UFO
I remember you said we can not go by calculations BUT
I always try to think things through
So just thinking aloud

First the premise
The #Turns is governed by the volume of the 1 slot in the P56 say PI
In each slot we have to have the #Turns div by 4 = #Turns per half pair.
So if we take the previous #Turns per half pair in my case 15 and multiply by the wire thickness we have the volume of wire per #Turns per P1N or P1S previous now we can calculate the new #Turns for P1N1 or P1N2

UFO are you up to it I know you can not get much sleep Like me I dream about these things

Now onto some hard thinking
V= volume, ONT = Old Number turns, NNT= New Number of Turns. WT = Thickness of wire, AWG18=1.0mm,AWG 21 =0.71, AWG22=0.61, AWG23=0.56

So V=ONT x AWG18= 15*1=15 so V=15

Inversely NNT= V/WT so

AWG21 NNT=15/0.71 =21.126 so for AWG21 the NNT= 21 has resistance of 44.89 Ohms per Klm =10.77 Ohms per Kg
AWG22 NNT=15/0.61 =24.590 so for AWG22 the NNT =24 has resistance of 65 Ohms per Klm =26 Ohms per Kg
AWG23 NNT=15/0.56 =26.785 so for AWG23 the NNT= 26 has resistance of 72.18 Ohms per Klm=33.2 Ohms per kg

My armature wound weighed =8.902-unwound weight =6.930 wire weight is 1. 927 kg and was AWG 18 .6 to .7 Ohms per pair
We should easily be able to fit more thinner wire turns
So my reckoning is as follows
AWG 21 would be 21 turns @ 10.77 Ohms Per Kg * 1.927kg 20.75/28 = 0.741 Ohms per pair Ohms Nearest to mine
AWG22 would be 24 Turns @ 26 Ohms Per Kg * 1.927kg = 50.102/28 = 1.789 Ohms per pair 9 turns more
AWG 23 would be 26 turns @ 33.2 Ohms Per Kg * 1.927kg 63.976/28 = 2.285 Ohms per pair 21 turns more

So UFO which would be the better option?

Kindest Regards

Is Kogs thinking aloud allowed

[Ufopolitics]

Start Point (P1) and Commutator Element

Hello again,

The main part of a successful winding is contained on this "Chapter"...

The setting of P1 and the corresponding Commutator Element.

[IMG][/IMG]

The way I set this, is according to factory spec's, where each brush is aligned exactly on Bisector (Center) of each Stator...in order that small adjustments are allowed forward or reverse from that position on Brush mountings/End Caps.

If you take a look at your Imperial Rotor versus the Stator INNER circumference, will realize that EXACTLY Five (5) Poles comprehend the whole Stator Area... and We are winding Coils of EXACTLY Five Poles, so, the Bisector of each Coil would be the THIRD POLE of the Five, meaning, the CENTER ONE...counting from wherever...

Now, We still have "Pairs" here...but both are North... We name them as N1/N2 for P1 (P1/N1 and P1/N2), where P1/N1 would be our first wound coil, and the Commutator Element of POSITIVE Commutator on Drive Shaft is already attached to its wire.

On Picture above I have represented both Bisectors on each Blue Coil (segmented Blue Line at center of each Coil), plus Both Stators Bisectors (Turquoise for North and Yellow for South)

P1 Element at Comm Positive is marked RED, pointed with RED/BLACK Arrow, Note that it is STARTING to touch Brush M1, according to Rotation CCW (Not shown)

[IMG][/IMG]

Note that Commutator Element CENTER is EXACTLY at center of Pole #4 of P1/N1, as also, Pole#4 would be the Bisector (Center) of your "Future" P2 (shown on above Picture)...THEN, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT, that while P2 Future Commutator Element is still contacting Brush M1, This Pole#4 does NOT reach CENTER of South Stator

[Midaztouch]

G'day Midaz
UFO has only shown us 4 separate windings I am sure this is for clarity only
I am sure we still need to wind each pole consecutively like P1,P2, P3, etc.

When UFO said we could wind the Imperial this way I immediately thought about the crossover on the small 5 pole motor for each half winding.
This would mean that if we wound the imperial P56 motor the same way it would mean that P1 would be wound from P2 to P24 and from P28 to P6 and that would mean that the build up of wire where they cross over @ P1 would be double and that means we would no way have enough room between the armature laminations and the commutator to do these windings.

I was going to post a query to UFO about this but he already posted the P56 all North's wiring diagram above and therefore answered My question before I wrote it.

Kindest regards to you my friend



Kogs saying as he sees it

Kogs

Just trying to get the math to add up neatly

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

[iankoglin]

G'day
I came home read the posts
started to write an answer made a coffee finished writing posted the answer and look UFO beat me to the post once again

UFO if we have more turns we will need thinner wire but of course you know that

Kindest regards
Kogs

[iankoglin]

UFO,

Wind 5 then skip 2, repeat until finished for the Imperial?

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

G'day Midaz
UFO has only shown us 4 separate windings I am sure this is for clarity only
I am sure we still need to wind each pole consecutively like P1,P2, P3, etc.

When UFO said we could wind the Imperial this way I immediately thought about the crossover on the small 5 pole motor for each half winding.
This would mean that if we wound the imperial P56 motor the same way it would mean that P1 would be wound from P2 to P24 and from P28 to P6 and that would mean that the build up of wire where they cross over @ P1 would be double and that means we would no way have enough room between the armature laminations and the commutator to do these windings.

I was going to post a query to UFO about this but he already posted the P56 all North's wiring diagram above and therefore answered My question before I wrote it.

Kindest regards to you my friend



Kogs saying as he sees it

[Ufopolitics]

P1-p8

UFO,

Wind 5 then skip 2, repeat until finished for the Imperial?

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

Hello Midaz,

No skipping at all.

The previous Diagram was showing ONLY the INTERACTING (Firing/Generating) PAIRS at Brushes...which were FOUR.

This Motor have the same number of Pairs...or Twenty Eight (P28)...Total of 56 Coils.

Wind Five Poles CW, then go to next five and wind same way, CW, same amount of turns, finish at matching commutator element at bottom.
Note that the same as before, we are using one slot where both coils pass through where Pair number (P#) is on Diagram.

[IMG][/IMG]

In Diagram above I have set continuously Pairs from P1 to P8, so you see what it should look like in a Quarter of the whole circumference.

I still need to make the CAD for the exact element to hook P1, then start from there on the rest...and will NOT be the same as before.

So, hold on before starting.

This Coils will be shorter, therefore less resistance than previous...so it would need more turns than before.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[marxist]

[Midaztouch]

UFO,

Wind 5 then skip 2, repeat until finished for the Imperial?

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

[AlanHartsell]

[Cornboy 555]

Hello Cornboy,

Yes, indeed my friend...indeed.


I also agree and believe in that statement...



It would not be such a big problem...majority of the work has been done...it is just a matter to "stretch" the distances we had before with N-S Rotors, in order to make a Shorter N-N Rotor Coils, within the N-S Bisectors from Stators...everything would be seen better with a simple module of previous and new type...in CAD...

Regards Friend, and hoping your personal issues will get clear up soon.


Ufopolitics

Thanks UFO, when you get the time, a cad of previous and present would be excellent.

I believe in the long run, what we are trying to achieve here will be better served with an all electromagnet topology.

My personal life in the next 6 months, will be in mayhem mode, due to my situation.

If need be, i can take a few thousand kilometer drive down south, to Kog's place and deliver the MAG3 to him to finish for us.

Warmest Regards Cornboy.

[Ufopolitics]

Imperial All North Rotor Coils...

Hello to All,

IMPERIAL ALL NORTH ROTOR COILS

Yes I have not stopped working on this...there are other ways to wind Imperial, however, being conflict on too many wires within one slut when we make coils that comprehend Seven Poles each, like we had before...but, we have to interlace them at junction like the small Five Pole RS Model...So, this has to be tested on real motor.

The drawing below is the one I consider more appropriate for this...comprehending Five Poles per Coil in the Pair.

[IMG]

[Ufopolitics]

Originally Posted by asollid
Hi Ian I understand that when the current to a rotor segment is cut, the new momentary field will then reverse. But will the new momentary field be aiding the generator segment or opposing the generator segment? I dont have a scope to find out.

Hello Asollid,

If You'd ever build the Asymmetric Three Poles...it would have answered your question.

In the little motor we only fire one Coil at a time right between N-S Stators...while the other two are "On Idle" or Generator stage...however, that motor has MORE Torque than a typical 3 pole Symmetrical...where at least Two Coils are always On...

In my opinion as long as the stator and the rotor are both electromagnets then when the current is simultaneously cut to both the rotor and stator segments it won't matter as both coils will iether stay the same or reverse their polarity. If they both follow the same law then the momentary (collapsing?)field will be assisting rotation as the timing of said pulse would be occuring just post optimal time for creating rotation.

a further strange thought on this matter may be that should there be anything special in the collapsing field of a dc pulse it may only be able to create a force 90 degrees to iether rotation or counter rotation

a machine something akin to the below drawing may be suited to such a force

There are even more advantages on rotating all Norths in rotor than improving and enhancing existing attributes...

We have to also look at the Interval, where Coil is Off, finished with "Motoring" stage and keeps traveling between "the other side" N-S Stator Joint...what happens there?...it is passing right in front of a curved B field, from N to S...So, if we load that Coil when it reaches the brushes elements...and it is passing the South Bisector...by Lenz Law it should become Induced as a South Pole (opposed to the Field that created it)...aided by the reversed polarity at collapse...

What do you guys think may occur there?...I will leave you this homework...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Hello UFO, et al, i have been following your new direction from the sidelines, because of my workload, and have to say that old, is the new, new. There is so much that has been deliberatly kept from us mere mortals.

Hello Cornboy,

Yes, indeed my friend...indeed.

As ssenergy said "everything happens for a reason", i firmly believe that.

I also agree and believe in that statement...

I have been hesitating winding, my 36 pole rotor, 6 stator all electromagnet motor for a while now.

When you have the time UFO, could you please have a think about the best possible way to move forward whith my scratch motor. i don't mind making a new design rotor, 3 pole or 6 pole, not a problem!.

Best Regards, Friends, Cornboy.

It would not be such a big problem...majority of the work has been done...it is just a matter to "stretch" the distances we had before with N-S Rotors, in order to make a Shorter N-N Rotor Coils, within the N-S Bisectors from Stators...everything would be seen better with a simple module of previous and new type...in CAD...

Regards Friend, and hoping your personal issues will get clear up soon.


Ufopolitics