Open discussion for projects on this forum.

[citfta]

Hi again dR-Green,

I have to agree with you again. We have a lot of people on this forum that use terms they don't really understand or maybe they do understand what they mean but they don't use the terms in the same way as someone who is familiar with the field or subject matter they are talking about. PWM stands for Pulse Width Modulation. If we are modulating the pulse width then there is no fixed duty cycle just as you said. We could have a PWM circuit that has a fixed frequency and only vary the duty cycle but in a lot of PWM circuits the frequency varies somewhat as the duty cycle changes.

Another expression I see used on here a lot is when someone says the transistor opens up. Now to those of us that have worked in electronics for years an open transistor is going in the trash can because "open" means it has burned out. I still don't really know what they mean because some of the people that say that seem to mean open like a faucet and letting the current flow through. And some of them seem to mean open like a knife switch so no current can flow through. Very confusing when all they have to say is the transistor is on or off. How much simpler and more understandable it would be if people would at least learn the correct vocabulary when talking about something.

I suppose we will both be bashed for picking on the novices, but that is really not my intention and I don't think it is yours either. If we can all agree on the proper use of the proper terms then it can only help our communication with one another. I try to recognize and be aware of the fact there are a lot of people that really do want to learn they just haven't had that opportunity yet. So I try to help by gently explaining the proper use of some of the terms but some of the time is seems to be a wasted effort.

Respectfully,
Carroll

[dR-Green]

This isn't particularly important, but then again it might be because there's obviously a complete misunderstanding.

On a certain thread the question was asked:

Now I want to try it with a pulsating current of a PWM source. What do you suggest for the PWM ?what frequecy and what dutycycle?

A square wave, as an example, has a given and fixedduty cycle of any pre-determined value. Example: Duty = 50%, Time = not applicable.

PWM or pulse width modulation modulates the duty cycle with respect to time. Example: Time 0 duty = 50%, Time 1 duty = 75%, Time 2 duty = 99%.

Therefore the question asked is an invalid question, the time dimension, or the modulation over time, is absent. The question asks for a fixed frequency and a fixed duty cycle, there is no mention of the modulation frequency. The reference to PWM is absolutely invalid. "Teachers" and gurus need to be aware of exactly what they are teaching. The student equally needs to do his/her homework.

PWM IS NOT EQUAL TO A SQUARE WAVEFORM.

[shylo]

Hi Carroll, I'll try to get some pics this weekend . The coil is just out of a micro-wave transformer, the one with the thin wire( the secondary I think)?
I made a reed switch to short the coil leads together, but it doesn't work very good, since my magnet rotor doesn't spin true. The rotor has about a half inch wobble to it This also accounts for the dc reading out of the bridge not being stable.
One lead from the coil goes to one side of the bridge , the other goes into the read ,the out of the reed goes to a bread board, where it feeds one side of the parallel diodes, then the other side of the diodes goes back to the other side of the bridge.
Nothing else just diodes.
Hope thats a little more clear
Thanks shylo

[citfta]

Hi shylo,

Can you post a some pictures or a video of your setup? And a schematic would be helpful too. I think I understand what you are saying but a schematic would be a big help. Then maybe we can figure out what is happening in your circuit. It sounds like you have a coil that is capable of a fair amount of current even though the voltage is rather low.

Carroll

[shylo]

Snubber

Hi Folks,I read the link ,but not really sure I understand how it works. In the 3rd scenario they say they catch the spike and feed it back to the source, but I'm not sure this is what's happening.
I made a bridge out of LEDs' and it works well by showing how the AC pulses through it ,blinking 2, kitty corner to each other.This is with a single coil and a pmg (permanent magnet generator). The output of the bridge is 2vdc.
Shorting the coils allows the bridge to blink at a much lower rpm.
When I interrupt the shorting circut with a diode the diode bllinks but dosen't dimish the 2vdc out of the bridge. Then I put 10 LEDs' in parallel in the shorting circut ,and the bridge output holds at 2vdc, but lights the ten LEDs'
Shouldn't the voltage drop across the LED's eat up the 2vdc that is available?
When time permits I've got some more tests I want to do.
The diodes seem to catch the spike.
shylo

[Matthew Jones]

This reference came up in another forum and I thought it might be helpful/useful/interesting/inspiring/whatever to some of you.

Snubber Circuit Design Calculators

Notice how the engineers are using resonance and inductors to replace lossy resistors? There are also calculators built into the web page that may be useful.

Enjoy!

@Carroll, I thought you would be particularly interested.

Method number 3 is a good circuit. The other 2 would be good conventionally speaking but they do have some losses tied to them.
That same website has calculators for alot of stuff including SMPS setups.
They got alot of good stuff.

Matt

[citfta]

Tesla's name is misused a lot.

You are right about that. And a lot of the time Tesla had nothing to do with the idea they are trying to make work. I have studied the works of Tesla since back in the 1960's. There is a lot of junk on the internet and especially on youtube that claims to be something Tesla built or patented that he really didn't. When I try to point that out then I am called a non-believer and sometimes worse. I do believe there are sources of energy we haven't tapped into yet. That is why I am a member of this forum. But when I see something that is obviously a scam or ignorance I am going to say so. Thanks again for sharing some good information with us.

Carroll

[wayne.ct]

I agree with you, Carroll

There are quite a few members of this forum that seem to think that if they just follow in the footsteps of Tesla, they will discover the secrets of free energy. I'm not saying who is right and who is wrong, because at this point I don't know. Maybe something I read here tonight will help me see the answer. I'm glad the post was worth your time.

[citfta]

Thanks!!

Hi wayne.ct,

Thanks for posting that info. I bookmarked the page for future reference. That is good information for those who are interested in regular motor design. On this forum there are a lot of people who are trying to figure out the best way to use the spikes instead of just suppressing them. The information may also help some of them to understand ways they may be able to collect the spikes for use.

Thanks again,
Carroll

[wayne.ct]

Minimize energy losses in your motor designs

This reference came up in another forum and I thought it might be helpful/useful/interesting/inspiring/whatever to some of you.

Snubber Circuit Design Calculators

Notice how the engineers are using resonance and inductors to replace lossy resistors? There are also calculators built into the web page that may be useful.

Enjoy!

@Carroll, I thought you would be particularly interested.

[shylo]

something similar

Hi Dave ,I used an old armature that I ground grooves into it ,evenly spaced and then filled in the grooves with Mar-Glass. So it had conductive and non-conductive strips all around the circumference, but the surface was completely smooth.I connected it to a cordless drill and ran it off bat#3(in your 3BGS) to short my coils.But it didn't work because the wires kept burning down . Not sure if the pic loaded ,if it did you can see the blue sparks that's eating the wires.
Point is the Mar-Glass(auto body filler sold at Crappy Tire) worked well for filling in the voids.
shylo

[sorveltaja]

In fact you are going to have such a small contact area where the bearing touches the commutator you will increase heating because of the high resistance path of the small contact area.

Right on the spot. Using ball bearings, instead of brushes, would increase the mechanical parts count significantly, thus creating even more (unwanted?) variables.

Not to step on anyone's toes, just my two mechanical cents.

[citfta]

Huh?

Where in the quotes from Farmhand or my quotes did I say motors can't be improved? And what has that got to do with the bearing instead of brushes idea?

When your roller hits the gap between commutator sections it is going to drop slightly into that gap. It has to because the curvature of the roller is the opposite of the commutator. At any kind of normal speed this will cause the bearing to bounce when it hits the next section of commutator. When a brush gets to the gap it will bridge the gap because the trailing edge of the brush is still riding on the leaving section of the commutator and the curvature of the brush matches the curvature of the commutator.

You said you came up with this idea because one of the sections of a commutator came flying loose and hit someone in the eye. I am already blind in one eye so I know that is a very serious concern. But I fail to see how changing from a brush to a bearing is going to prevent a section of commutator from coming loose. In fact you are going to have such a small contact area where the bearing touches the commutator you will increase heating because of the high resistance path of the small contact area.

Respectfully,
Carroll

[Ufopolitics]

Hello UFO,

I think you need to work on your mind reading skills. They have failed you big time. I have never said motors couldn't be improved. You can search every post I have ever made on this forum and any other forum on the internet and you will not find where I have said that. If I really believed that I wouldn't be a member of this forum. And I have never said your motors aren't worth investigating. I am still waiting to see where all this is going. Time will show us if what you have to offer is all you claim. Until then I am reserving judgement on your motors. But don't make claims about what I believe. I can do that for myself.




Respectfully,
Carroll

Hello Citfta,


I really doubt I have any problems with My mind reading skills...
Although...I could say that you do...

POST #5/Page 1/Farmhand


Hi Carroll, As far as motors go I think they are already quite efficient, there
is benefit to recovering the coil collapse from switched coils, but from what I see
if the motor is pulsed the max power is reduced, and when loading a
pulsed motor if the motor tries to maintain speed the input power will increase
and the recovered energy will be more. When a pulsed motor with recovery is
accelerated by increasing the voltage input, the recovered energy is less.

This all tells me there is no free energy in a motor, all that is possible is closer
to 100% efficient. Motors are for delivering shaft power and if we reduce
maximum input power we reduce maximum shaft power, it's the in between area's where
people see what appears to be extra energy because they reduce the input
by pulsing or removing windings and recover some energy, but under full load
at full power they cannot perform as a regular motor would in my opinion, only
slightly or partially loaded motors can afford to lose "on" time to get the
recovery in my opinion and I doubt it will ever be more out than in in a modified motor.

To improve a motor I think it needs to keep the same shaft power or more
and reduce input. Testing shaft power is not simple, using a generator could
work for testing but won't give a hard figure to compare so I have little
expectation any improvements will be made unless to already inefficient
motors. Almost a waste of time trying to improve on 97% efficient.

Cheers

POST#7/PAGE1/Citfta

Hi Farmhand,

Most of what you said about motors is true. On a lot of the machines I worked on we had to have motors big enough to get a large mass moving. Once that mass was moving then we didn't need all that power. So at that point using PWM we were able to power the motor as if it was a smaller motor than it actually was. This is the case with a lot of motors used in industry. They are almost never run at full power. So in those cases pulsing the motor with a PWM controller is really a good idea and lets the motor run cooler and uses less power. The PWM also lets us control the motor speed more easily than some of the older systems that used the thyratron tubes. The PWM also lets us control the torque in cases where we don't want to overly stress the motor or other components with a too rapid start up.

Now the question still remains is pulsing the motor a good way to try and get OU. I agree with you that we probably are not going to get more from a motor just by pulsing it. However as Bizzy has shown we can pulse the motor when it is tied to a very efficient generator and get a machine that appears to be doing the same thing as the Watson/Bedini machine.

Later,
Carroll

POST#50/PAGE 2

Hi Farmhand,

I have gotten so tired of all the silly talk about witches and assymetrical this and that I have just about quit looking at that thread. So far I have not seen any evidence of proof to back up the claims. I asked for some references to these motors that somehow have more than one axis and as expected no references have been given. There are a lot of claims with nothing to back them up. I would really like to be wrong and see a motor that does what he is claiming but I don't think it is going to be from him.

Later,
Carroll

Regards


Ufopolitics

[citfta]

Hello UFO,

I think you need to work on your mind reading skills. They have failed you big time. I have never said motors couldn't be improved. You can search every post I have ever made on this forum and any other forum on the internet and you will not find where I have said that. If I really believed that I wouldn't be a member of this forum. And I have never said your motors aren't worth investigating. I am still waiting to see where all this is going. Time will show us if what you have to offer is all you claim. Until then I am reserving judgement on your motors. But don't make claims about what I believe. I can do that for myself.

However Carrol, I know You are on the "Conservative Tea Party" related to Motors and Generators, like others here I expect here as well...
That You all think Motors and Generators do not need any more improvements...since they are all "pretty efficient" as of now...as you believe..

Regards

Ufopolitics

Respectfully,
Carroll