My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines

[Ufopolitics]

Sometimes I write 'assume' or 'presume' to sound less emphatic, but really on this subject I have no doubt.

[img][/img]

To demonstrate the point of disagreement between us on the issue of timing, I present the 10 pole 4 stator commutator / brush angles for everyones consideration.

Ok, Great!, it is Sam-po-Joe's Special Beauty!...

Sounds good so far...

For a single coil as we have been discussing in the recent past I would estimate it as so :

A = 'ON' angle
B = The angle of the comm segment
C = The angle of the brush
D = 'OFF' angle
E = The angle between P1 and P2

Up to here I understand all codes written above...I guess you wrote P1-P2 as a Typo...since we are on Single Coils (underlined).

Plus, it would help if you assign a Letter to Stators Bisector Angle.

Where B + C = 'Time on brush'

Ok, Mark, here we are both in agreement as to ADD comm. Segment Angle to Brush Angle...or a "Sweep Angle" (sA) from previous post right?

Yes Mark...of course You have it right this time...since you are Not Adding BUT Subtracting the Switch ON Time on ALL your above equations.

Whilst you have not enlightened anyone on how to estimate the 'OFF' angle when designing your motor...

Of course I couldn't "enlighten" anyone, just because you did not allow me to...with all your continuous arguments INSISTING ON keep ADDING the switch Angle to the Interaction Angles!

you have demonstrated the result of considering it at the design stage, below.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG]

Mark,

Of course We don't have any difference NOW!!Now, there is one "special" issue (I will better call it "Unique") in Sampojo's 10 Pole/4 Stators and 4 Pole Single Coils:

E=BNOW LET'S VERIFY IF YOUR EQUATIONS ABOVE HOLD TRUE IN A CONVENTIONAL MOTOR:

So let's choose Imperial, since it is a Four Stator as well, except E is not equal to B

[IMG][/IMG]

So We have Pairs P1 and P2 each engaging Four Poles:

A = 'ON' angle=
C = The angle of the brush=
D = 'OFF' angle = ?
E = The angle between P1 and P2
F=The NSB and SSB stator bisectors are D= 7

So, unfortunately finding D don't work on your above Equation Mark.

Now let's use your other Formula...:

90 - A - B - C = D

D= 90-5-13-13

D= 59


Close, but Nope...it can not be applied to a "Conventional" Motor Mark...so we can not use it as a "Universal Applicable Equation" am really sorry...just because We will have to keep "Hunting"...

Hopefully that clears up any confusion on why we don't agree.


Happy Hunting

mark

Even though the negative results trying to calculate Imperial...I am still happy you are not adding switching angles...but deducting them...which I consider a step forward in our Timing Calculating Process.


Keep Hunting (hopefully very happy...)


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

First: Reviewing Previous Discussion

@Mark Ross,

Ok, Mark...I also want to reach an agreement here, believe me...for the sake of all members attending this Thread, and, of course, mainly to the ones actively replicating this Machines.

As...in the end everyone will get benefit out of our final conclusion.

What am doing on this Post is reviewing our initial arguments related to Timing...and I will be just showing the essential parts of concern, since there is a LOT of text involved from both of Us.

Excellent graphics as always UFO which paint the picture perfectly...AND...we agree, it seems.

[IMG]This reduces

Ok, Mark up to here you were doing the Wrong Calculations for the Brush Sweep Angle (sA) ...look above and then below:

When comparing your previous above calculations to our latest conclusions, starting at My "Five Frames Film Strip Diagram"...We both agreed that the Total Sweep Angle or ON Angle is equal to: Commutator Segment Angle PLUS Brush Angle.

You obviously were deducting instead of adding both angles...

But, the CENTER and MAIN Discussion STARTS below:

...So

X + Z + sA+ sA

Ok, On your above Formulas You were ADDING sA (even the wrong total ON Angle Calculation...but the point is here you were ADDING Sweep Angle to Magnetic Interaction Angle (MIA)...


Up to above point I am agreeing with You...great, BUT then I tried to rectify your error about adding Switch Angle to MIA:

Rotor MAX Interaction Angle based on Two Pairs being fired at same timing

So, above was shown the "essence" of our main arguments...which is to ADD Switch Angle, or Comm. Segment PLUS Brush Angle to Magnetic Interaction Angle...

Are we agreeing so far?

Ok, let's end here "the Past" and go into "the Present"...your Latest Post next


To be Continued...


Ufopolitics

[sampojo]

Question on this calculation

The negative number denotes the coils remained energised past the SSB when they should disengage prior to the SSB.

Hopefully that clears up any confusion on why we don't agree.


Happy Hunting

mark

So Mark, I don't think I see the above calculation highlighted in purple applying to the dual coil group for the 12 pole, done for the 10 pole. I know it only has the single coil. But I guess this type of calculation can prove that a coil will not be improperly energized past the top dead center of any magnet sector bisector. I think I can make the substitutions to get that calculation, but just thought I'd ask for now... I guess the 4-pole coil doesn't have this problem you show for the 12-pole?

Sam

[HuntingRoss]

Have anyone here- including You- done ANYONE of those two simple tests?

Firstly. It never even occurred to me that I should. For the motor speeds that I've been encountering and the fact they do not 'sit' locked onto the RPM, I have never thought that was even measurable. Trying some lower voltage tests might be sufficiently illuminating for me to try. And thank you for suggesting it.

Secondly. I shall re read your post to fully digest the information.

My thoughts on these motors and how they behave between connection has changed in the last few days. Your Imperial diagram, when it is motoring on all 4 gates must be firing north on the north magnet and south on the south magnet to rotate by repulsion. I'm going to pay my mind to this and what implications it has for my current interest in the single comm hybrid design.

Delightedly Hunting

mark

[HuntingRoss]

Sometimes I write 'assume' or 'presume' to sound less emphatic, but really on this subject I have no doubt.

[img][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]
[/QUOTE]

[bistander]

I want to Thank You Bistander, for making me stay to answer your post...This make me reach the 1million Views...

Congratulations. A million views of your misinformation and double talk. You must be very proud.

[Ufopolitics]

POST marking the 1,000,000 Views!!!

Ufo,

So when you gave me that "I am wrong" answer in post #7750 you weren't serious and you really do believe ceramic permanent magnets are stronger than electromagnets? Sad.

I'll just go back and stand on the sidelines.

bi

permanently magnetized?

Yes, I do know the "typical" answer... :

The "Magnetic Domains" inside that ferromagnetic material has been "oriented" according to the current flow...right?

Yes, so, how do we "read" that?...Oh!, absolutely...we grab some iron loose particles over a piece of white paper...lay it over our newly magnetized ceramic, and BOOM, there "they" are...the "IMAGINARY Lines of Force"...that dictates the way domains has been aligned...

end of research.

Over.

Now...do you really believe that is the final, and true answer about what happened to that magnetized piece of ceramic?

You have here exactly two "pills" to take...Blue or Red.

If you are satisfied with that typical and too simple and cheap answer...then fine...keep going on...and I will retract all I have written above and say again...

"Bistander, I am wrong"


Take care


Ufopolitics


EDIT: I want to Thank You Bistander, for making me stay to answer your post...This make me reach the 1million Views...

[bistander]

You don't say what you mean?

If I have written "I am wrong"...it was because the way I have answered before...when I AM SURE I WAS NOT...Got it?

Ufo,

So when you gave me that "I am wrong" answer in post #7750 you weren't serious and you really do believe ceramic permanent magnets are stronger than electromagnets? Sad.

And I have spent considerable time reviewing this thread and others on this site. I find all the quarreling and fussing over minute details quite boring. I was primarily searching for a test under load showing efficiency. There were a few but all contained flaws in the data collection method.

I'll just go back and stand on the sidelines.

bi

[Ufopolitics]

I believe you have written in the past, that a north (or south) projecting field will collapse as a north (or south) projecting field.

Never, ever written such non sense thing.

Read my very first thread here...it don't matter the CW nor CCW for a Collapsed Coil to reverse voltage polarity.

Mark, your quoted statement above is not specific, as to what kind of coil and where it is installed or affected by which specification is referring to.

You never mentioned when such Coil is INSTALLED in an ALL NORTH Motor, SHARING SAME EXACT IRON CORE from other energized coils.

I believed you were referring to Coils in general, an ISOLATED COIL, not affected by SEVERAL surrounding overlapped coils, also projecting OTHER Magnetic Fields, which DO INFLUENCE its behavior.

That is why I cited my first Thread in my answer, which is completely based on STATIC and ISOLATED COILS.

So, you are first asking me...

So you didn't write this -

Then, citing my SPECIFIC comment on the All North Machines, Coils behavior:

[...]Now, we must realize this Coil Groups are ALWAYS NORTH...even when collapsing, they are collapsing North Coils...meaning Weaker Norths than the ones that are being energized...

A completely different scenario than an Isolated Coil projecting a collapsing field.

In the All North Machines, each independent COLLAPSING coil is INFLUENCED MAGNETICALLY BY other ACTIVELY ENERGIZED COILS in the whole sequence taking place, in TWO WAYS:

1-By SPATIALLY PROPAGATED MAGNETIC FIELD INFLUENCE.

AND

2-By DIRECT COMMONLY SHARED IRON CORE, WHICH TRANSFERS ITS INFLUENCE VIA FERROMAGNETIC MASS.

That is why I wrote above statement, that You have taken your time to search for and brought here as a "proof"...attempting to make me look I was either "forgetting", "lying" or completely "confused" about.

I am VERY FIRM about everything I have written here, although, we are not perfect, we keep searching into the "unknown" every second of our research for Free Energy.

However, on a SINGLE, STATIC and INDEPENDENT COLLAPSING COIL AND IRON CORE, NOT INFLUENCED BY OTHER FIELDS, it is a completely NONSENSE, to write it will collapse in a DEFINITE AND EXACT MAGNETIC POLARITY.

I have conducted several Tests trying to establish IF or NOT a Static Coil is swapping its Magnetic Polarity as well...it is ALL on my first Thread, as well as ALL Videos on each related Testing.

First and related to Asymmetric Motors...None of Us -that I know off- has installed a magnetic sensor, connected to a read out circuit within the specific point inside the Stator area...to find out which polarity is CONSTANT after collapse. It will be great to find out!

Second, in Static Coils, this swapping magnetic polarity at collapse has brought several discussions/arguments all along since my First Thread here, and back a long time ago...and I am not going to "Re-Open" that case at this stage of time.

The only REAL thing that we are SURE OFF, it takes place in both cases...is that they DO REVERSE VOLTAGE POLARITY, since it is easily measured a clear read out with any cheap DMM.

On the Asymmetric All North Machines, it could be checked, once we have a full control and understanding over timing settings:

1-IF, when we set Timing to PASS South Stator Bisector...and We notice a SLOW DOWN in the RPM's of Rotor...then we know that the specific COLLAPSING COIL at Stator Bisector is NORTH.

OR...

2-IF, when we set Timing to PASS South Stator Bisector...We notice a SPEED UP/ACCELERATION in the RPM's of Rotor...then we know that the specific COLLAPSING COIL at Stator Bisector has collapsed into SOUTH polarity.

Based on THOSE TWO SIMPLE TESTS, we could notice which way the coil is collapsing.

Have anyone here- including You- done ANYONE of those two simple tests?

If You would've, then you would have the answer, and no need to ask me which way it happens.

It is a VERY COMFORTABLE POSITION, to just WAIT for that "someone" who will do it Uh?...But in the meantime we just keep trying to proof others are wrong, or full of it...or keep "assuming and presuming"..."tinkering"...and theorizing, while having a cup of coffe in front of our PC's...that is a great "by standing" position...but a very poor Open Source behavior, as a terrible Scientific research method.

OR...did I just misunderstand it ?

I maybe do.

If you would have read well my written post -that you brought over here- related to collapsing all north coils...you should have realized I wrote also that those collapsing coils tend to keep their North orientation, HOWEVER, they were "WEAKER NORTHS" or "Less North" than the active ones. That could also be interpreted as "if they are "less North" ...well, then that could mean they are tending to be "More South" related to the active North ones.

One interesting issue I found in Asymmetric Machines, is that even in a simple, small five or three pole motor, the rear negative at generator...is not actually a "full Negative"...nor a "Full Positive" when comparing it to either one of the main Input Polarities. It could play like a "Neutral" point in between both top voltage polarities...and we could read out a steady voltage, from both connections using that specific Negative terminal.

I know that voltage and field are not the same thing...but I did think reversing one meant reversing the other. It appears that I may be mistaken...and not afraid to admit it if this is the case.

You will encounter a lot of opposition to your statement above (basically the underlined part)...not coming from me...but, from the "Educated" Community of the Established Electric Engineering Schools.

So far, the NATURAL Voltage Reversal of a given COLLAPSING coil, has MAINLY been applied to the "INDUCTOR" application in the Electronic Engineering development...where that "Inductor" has been "statically" soldered in an isolated circuit board, away from any magnetic interaction, like we are doing with Asymmetric Machines... so, there is no way of knowing...if or not magnetic polarity is also switching...as Engineers don't give a "who" if or don't.

All they care, is that whenever Inductor reverses polarity a "Filtering Diode" will allow that reversed flow be sent to output caps, when switching a Square wave to Coil. (Search for BUCK or BOOSTER as SEPIC Converters)

I understand that. The context here is 'one commutator' meaning symmetrical motor.

My question was in the 'single comm hybrid' you do have down time and therefore a south coil collapses in the down time just as you say it does in your four stator diagram. The four stator does it in a quarter turn...therefore the single comm hybrid does it in half a turn. If it works for one it must work for all.

Hence the logic and more of the dripping sarcasm...

Happy (as ever) Hunting

mark

You have to look at overall interactions taking place there (at hybrid)...even being multiple ones, and not just focusing/following a single coil 'possible' behavior. Also You must look at what kind of Magnetic development is taking place at that ferromagnetic CORE, here known as the Motor Armature...then compare it to the way it evolves/develops in an All North Machine.

Like I mentioned above, the Magnetic INFLUENCE is something we have been ignoring for a long time...by constraining to "Lines of Force" within a given Field...

Single Commutator Hybrids...no matter if they do go into an OFF stage...the ferromagnetic core is FRAGMENTED and that fact, constantly affects North South Influences within its mass to the Interacting Coils.

Keep being "happy" it is a great "State of Mind"...



Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Which is what I said all along and you refuted.

Still Hunting

mark

ALL along this discussion you have been adding Brush Angles PLUS Interaction Angles, like if they will take place at different TIMES and Spaces, overlooking the FACT they are SIMULTANEOUS TIMED ANGLES that spin within same Rotor.

Until You accept that Both Angles can NOT be added SEPARATELY We can not agree on this Timing Issue.

And I will keep refuting about adding both angles, just like 2+2=4

IF whenever you rotate the shaft, you notice Brush Angle spins AS WELL AS Interaction Angle, how can you add them separately like occurring at Isolated Times and Space?

This -I thought- is something very simple to digest/understand and get to an agreement easily...but obviously for you it is Not.


Ufopolitics

[HuntingRoss]

Never, ever written such non sense thing.

So you didn't write this -

Now, we must realize this Coil Groups are ALWAYS NORTH...even when collapsing, they are collapsing North Coils...meaning Weaker Norths than the ones that are being energized...

OR...did I just misunderstand it ?

Again wrong...Mark you do have a serious problem understanding/reading me...

I maybe do.

Why you keep writing "reversing the field"?...or...is it the same thing for you?...voltage or field, the same deal?

I know that voltage and field are not the same thing...but I did think reversing one meant reversing the other. It appears that I may be mistaken...and not afraid to admit it if this is the case.

One Commutator, simply changes VOLTAGE POLARITY as soon as circuit passes the brush planes, there is no OFF/IDLE "thing" happening at all...VERY ACTIVELY ENERGIZED COILS, are Injected a REVERSED VOLTAGE FLOW completely AGAINST THEIR WILL...AND THAT, IS ONLY CALLED FORCED AND "FACE ON" ELECTRONIC COLLISION.

I understand that. The context here is 'one commutator' meaning symmetrical motor.

My question was in the 'single comm hybrid' you do have down time and therefore a south coil collapses in the down time just as you say it does in your four stator diagram. The four stator does it in a quarter turn...therefore the single comm hybrid does it in half a turn. If it works for one it must work for all.

Hence the logic and more of the dripping sarcasm...

Wow...what a "logic" explanation...

for the first time on this post or should I say...ever?

Happy (as ever) Hunting

mark

[HuntingRoss]

Whoever sides with my declared enemy...

[Ufopolitics]

Whoever sides with my declared enemy...is my "automatic" enemy...long time law...

If I review all your history here as a "rookie" it has never brought any good results...except for your very first test...where you said it was due because of your "rookie" Unacknowledged state...or inexperience with motors...

And now you are "helping" this ******* to keep his Hijacked Thread alive...by criticizing there and NOT HERE...all my work.

Where You obviously know absolutely nada, you keep "presuming and assuming" ...but agree to keep agreeing...with the other clown.

It is up to you to keep doing whatever you are doing so far, but don't try to play in Heaven and Hell...like nothing is happening...or like I am not reading the Big clown's thread.

This is great that all this is taking place here and there...

[Ufopolitics]

@UFOPolitics

Hello Raul I have finished my Imperial modifications and am ready to wind the rotor. I have sent a very short video in a PM to you. I am deviating slightly on the winding and needed your input on a couple of fine points. This is a really fine motor. Wish they had not started gouging people with the new guy.
If you have the time would appreciate a response.

Cheers

Garry

Hello Garry,


I responded your mail, it looks great!

Sorry about all this noise here!

Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

I believe you have written in the past, that a north (or south) projecting field will collapse as a north (or south) projecting field.

Never, ever written such non sense thing.

Read my very first thread here...it don't matter the CW nor CCW for a Collapsed Coil to reverse voltage polarity.

If the above design is fired from all four gates. I presume that to do so the coils on the north magnets have to project north as drawn and therefore presume that the other coils would have to project south on the south magnets.

You are again..."presuming=assuming"...the wrong way

If I understand what you're saying here, the south fields collapse north (naturally) and therefore do not flik-flak when arriving at the north magnet brush.

Again wrong...Mark you do have a serious problem understanding/reading me...I never wrote "reversing magnetic polarity" above...but reversing Voltage Polarity...very different thing.

So if I'm understanding that correctly, then a north field does not collapse as a north field and I'm mistaken that you said that before.

Definitively, and again, you do are mistaken.

So if the above design naturally reverses the field, then why does the single comm design which you despise not do the same.

I can not understand...why after you have previously posted my OWN WORDS above your post...and written in capital letters...where I write...

AND...even if We feed from ALL FOUR GATES, for your lack of previous and basic knowledge, every time any type of COIL, INDUCTOR or BOBBIN is cut/stopped from supplying its feeding voltage, it NORMALLY REVERSES VOLTAGE POLARITY...SO, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO FORCED REVERSAL BY OUTER SOURCES, BUT "NATURALLY" DONE FROM ITS INTRINSIC REACTIONS.

Why you keep writing "reversing the field"?...or...is it the same thing for you?...voltage or field, the same deal?


IT IS NOT THE SAME AT ANY TIME...to allow Natural Flow Reversal FIRST, AND...after a period of OFF Time...THEN Inputting the energy...

THAN FORCING it within an ACTIVELY ENERGIZED Circuit or system.

One Commutator, simply changes VOLTAGE POLARITY as soon as circuit passes the brush planes, there is no OFF/IDLE "thing" happening at all...VERY ACTIVELY ENERGIZED COILS, are Injected a REVERSED VOLTAGE FLOW completely AGAINST THEIR WILL...AND THAT, IS ONLY CALLED FORCED AND "FACE ON" ELECTRONIC COLLISION.

All that "Old Material" was originally uploaded on my First Two Videos on this Thread and Forum, in 3D and animated full color graphics...Oh! and FREE of charge!:

SYMMETRY OF DARKNESS

ASYMMETRY TO ENLIGHTENMENT

I would presume the mechanics behind one electromagnet is the same for all electromagnets regardless of the number of comms and brushes.

Curiously Hunting

mark

Wow...what a "logic" explanation...

for the first time on this post or should I say...ever?

Keep Hunting Ross...you are still far to find him..


Ufopolitics