My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines

[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]

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.

[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]

[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

[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

[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

[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

[HuntingRoss]

[IMG]

[Ufopolitics]

[IMG][/IMG]

@ UFO

Unfortunately you used the equation for a single coil to estimate the Imperial Pairs wind...

Mark,

So, Now We should use a "specific" equation for "Single Coils" and another one for Pairs?...come on, man...are you real?

This is extremely funny now!

Why so?

We have exactly same parameters same angles, same Two Bisectors dictating the Magnetic Interaction Angle??

Mark, now are you gonna tell me what the Imperial(S) seating at my bench measurements are?

Those are REAL Measurements Mark.

Forget what the diagram looks like...am giving the REAL VALUES ABOVE.

You also said the answer derived from the equation was wrong without saying why or what it should be.

You are not reading well and slow enough Mark, it is there...It is as well on Diagram



Everything below are the wrong measurements, therefore wrong results



THERE MUST BE JUST ONE EQUATION THAT FITS ALL MOTORS, NO MATTER IF TWO STATORS, FOUR STATORS AND NO MATTER IF FOUR OR TWO BRUSHES

[HuntingRoss]

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

Hi Sam

The equations you quoted from a section of my post are for PAIRS only so you're correct, it will not apply to your single coil wind.

For a single coil wind you should use the following -

Considering P1 interaction onlyP1 and P2 combined together

For Groups the equation for P1 interaction only would be, where
F = The angle between the first and last coil bisectors and
G = The angle between the NSB and SSB

G - A - B - C - F = D


Happy Hunting

mark[/QUOTE]

[HuntingRoss]

So, Now We should use a "specific" equation for "Single Coils" and another one for Pairs?...come on, man...are you real?

This is extremely funny now!

Why so?

If we consider only the P1 interaction (my preferred option) then a single coil has one bisector which advances towards the SSB described by the addition of Comm + Brush angle.

If we consider only the P1 interaction for a Pair or Group wind the final coil bisector is closer to the SSB before we consider the amount it advances from Comm + Brush. Hence the angle between the first and last coil is added to the equation.

It's all been described in words and drawing.

Mark, now are you gonna tell me what the Imperial(S) seating at my bench measurements are?

I thought it was a typo which is why I corrected it. Without looking for the #post on the subject, from memory you remarked the Imperial brush is the width of one of the 56 comm segments and two segments are tied together...From memory.

you would work it out ?

THERE MUST BE JUST ONE EQUATION THAT FITS ALL MOTORS, NO MATTER IF TWO STATORS, FOUR STATORS AND NO MATTER IF FOUR OR TWO BRUSHES.

[Ufopolitics]

If we consider only the P1 interaction (my preferred option) then a single coil has one bisector which advances towards the SSB described by the addition of Comm + Brush angle.

You can NOT just "decide" (because is your "preferred" option) to IGNORE the ENDING INDEPENDENT CIRCUIT BEING ENERGIZED IN DUE CYCLE(and I write "Circuit" as a General Term, because it Includes ALL Type of Coils, Single, Pairs or Groups)

The Ending Circuit is required at all times (IN ALL TYPE OF WINDINGS) because this is ALL about A SEQUENTIAL-ROTATIONAL ORDER that takes place in Time and Space during OPERATION.

Remember this are ALL ROTARY MACHINES....so what goes around...comes around...

If it is about Single Coils, You MUST include in the Calculations C1 AND C2AND TWICEfor Four Stators during Machine Operation.

If we consider only the P1 interaction for a Pair or Group wind the final coil bisector is closer to the SSB before we consider the amount it advances from Comm + Brush. Hence the angle between the first and last coil is added to the equation.

It's all been described in words and drawing.

It is the completely wrong method, not to consider BOTH CIRCUITS in an Equation to Calculate proper Interactions.

Actually, C2, P2 or G2 are the FINAL DICTATING Coils that tell Us, IF or NOT We are correct before proceeding to wind THE ROTOR, in ANY KIND of Winding Displayed on this Thread.

Simply ignoring this FACT above, will lead in the construction of a completely unusable Machine, that would never perform as expected.

Sounds familiar Mark?

I thought it was a typo which is why I corrected it. Without looking for the #post on the subject, from memory you remarked the Imperial brush is the width of one of the 56 comm segments and two segments are tied together...From memory.

Your Memory is failing to recall that I corrected that fact in a previous post here.

Imperial Commutator is based on 56 segments and 28 Rotor Poles. The Brush Angle in Imperial is equal to Two Segments Angle.

Since the first Imperial here was ever wound, We used two commutator segments bridged to one circuit. This way is a 1:1 Switch Ratio.

Why not just tell me (all of us) how you would work it out ?

The Process is simple, so simple that without any formulas or equations, anyone seating in front of ANY Motor IN A REAL BUILD, could work it out very easy.

Just go through all the Members on this Thread that have done very successful asymmetric machines of many different structures without any previous existing "formulas".

Just look at Richard Bates (Midaz)...This guy obviously have no access to any CAD Software, besides he has no idea how to even start drawing a circle without the assistance of a round cup...He tries to avoid any conversation involving Math or Geometry Calculations ...However, He has built an Imperial in two windings methods by now...and they work...He even came up with his own idea...poor idea, but he made it run.

I will do put together the Right Equation...in time.

But first, I want to erase from everyone's mind here all the Confusion You have created and spread with your wrong assumptions, your wrong preferred methods and presumptions... mixing switching angles with magnetic interactions back and forth.

It's not simply a function of stators or brushes.

Oh, they are simple functions!...is just about to define a way to see them all in easier planes...for example...just by taking all this Angular Rotations into linear graphics movements simplifies this process even more. Rotations tend to confusions, basically not being able to distinguish between a smaller wheel like a Commutator, within a larger wheel of a Rotor, even though BOTH having the same exact, identical angles, and taking place within the same Time and Space...having both RADICAL traveling Distances differences...I know You are one who can not distinguish this fact properly.

The Pairs and Groups 'reach out' to the SSB...in effect bringing it closer. It stands to reason that if the final bisector is wound further towards the SSB without considering the 'time on brush', then the final bisector can reach the SSB whilst still energised. If the final bisector

Right Mark, and that "final bisector" underlined in your statement above three (3) times, is the one that dictates if or not your design will work out successfully...And that "final bisector" is defined in a 50% of whole rotation by the C2, P2 and G2 Circuits...which, according to your "preference" you ignore in your equations...meaning..."standing out of your reason"...

Still Happily Hunting

mark

There you are!...You only consider for your "specific designed formula" applicable to "Pairs Only"..."F" as The angle between P1 Coil 1 and P1...Ignoring P2 "final bisector" from Coil 2

[HuntingRoss]

I shall revise the figures for the Imperial Pairs in RED below. Correcting the single comm width brush to 2 comm width as advised by UFO.

[IMG][/IMG]


Plugging in the angles for Pairs, P1 interaction only -

A = 5
B = 12.85
C = 12.85
D = ?
F = 51.4 (12.85 x 4)
NSB to SSB = 90

90 - 5 - 12.85 - 12.85 - 51.4 =

---S---

And to calculate the 'OFF' angle for Pairs, P1 and P2 combined interaction -

G = The angle between P1 Coil 1 and P2 Coil 2 = 64.25 (12.85 x 5)

90 - A - C - G = D

90 - 5 - 12.85 - 64.25 =

You can NOT just "decide" (because is your "preferred" option) to IGNORE the ENDING INDEPENDENT CIRCUIT BEING ENERGIZED IN DUE CYCLE

It is the completely wrong method, not to consider BOTH CIRCUITS in an Equation to Calculate proper Interactions.

When you account for the total 'time on brush' for one comm segment it works just fine...every time.

The Process is simple, so simple that without any formulas or equations, anyone seating in front of ANY Motor IN A REAL BUILD, could work it out very easy.

I know. I just look at the final bisector and count on two poles and see if this looks good or not...it takes a second to do.

I will do put together the Right Equation...in time.

You're correct. There is one equation that fits all motors. But it will have some variables in it. So far it has been simple addition or subtraction.

...and that "final bisector" underlined in your statement above three (3) times, is the one that dictates if or not your design will work out successfully...

Correct.

...which, according to your "preference" you ignore in your equations...

Incorrect.
Accounted for in both formula.

There you are!...You only consider for your "specific designed formula" applicable to "Pairs Only"..."F" as The angle between P1 Coil 1 and P1...Ignoring P2 "final bisector" from Coil 2

...but be aware of many targets out there which are not an easy piece to shut down...

What does that even mean.

Like I have said before. The 4 pole pairs wind seems to be problematic because it just spans across too many poles between the magnet bisectors.


Deliriously Happy Hunting

mark

[HuntingRoss]

Found it.

The brushes on the Imperial are the width of 2 commutator segments... Not 1 comm segment.

A lot of Hunting

mark

[HuntingRoss]

The Process is simple, so simple that without any formulas or equations, anyone seating in front of ANY Motor IN A REAL BUILD, could work it out very easy.

I know. I just look at the final bisector and count on two poles and see if this looks good or not...it takes a second to do.

This quote above we can absolutely agree on.

Chances are that the motor you're working with has a brush the same size as the comm segments.

When you're drafting your schematic, look at where P1 is just connecting then count two poles on from your last coil bisector to estimate your 'OFF' angle. If you're designing a single coil motor then the coil bisector 'is' your last bisector and so the same principle applies.

It really is that simple.

For motors where the brush is narrower than the comm segments, the final coil bisector will advance less than two poles.

Good Hunting

mark