New Motor Winding Arrangement

[Bob Smith]

I happened across this YT user's video on a novel (at least to me) DC motor winding arrangement. I'd be interested in anyone else's take on it.
My main question is: What happens to the cemf in each set of windings?

If anyone has any observations, I'd love to hear them. Here's the video at the point at which the new method for winding starts (back it up to the beginning if you want to see the standard winding):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9CLtlkl6fM&feature=player_detailpage#t=99

Bob

[Matthew Jones]

That ends up working like an encapsulated window motor. Its B field winding, or at least I think thats what it is called.

Now one reason he appears to get more power is most likely do to the lower induction, more current. CEMF is the build up of the magnetic field in the iron to slow the current. Since he used less wire and bigger wire (At least it looked like) he has less build up of magnetic field.

Now if he showed it measured and the current was lower well I would say it was novel, but that won't happen. The current may stay more stable across the work load, IE with no work he uses 10 amp, and under load he uses 11, but why use that much power for nothing.

Under conventional winding the motor might use .5 amp with no load and 10 under load, over all less power consumed.

In this thread we did some work with a motor and wound it to run similiar. This motor had 4 poles. We used real high induction and high voltage. Now this arrangement showed a reduction in CEMF, or BEMF what ever you wanna call it. Refer to Peter's explanation as to why this was the case.
Also again look at John Bedini's window motor, same thing stable power over the work load real high induction and real low current flow.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6792-lockridge-device-peter-lindemann.html

Its a shame the guy in the movie doesn't explain the whole Input Output a little better.

Cheers
Matt

[Bob Smith]

Thanks very much Matt. What you say makes a lot of sense. I'll follow up reading the Lockridge thread. Yes, it is too bad there wasn't more info on amp draw with the regular winding, and with the modded one. Oh well. Thought I'd put it out there.
Thanks for taking the time.
Bob

[Bob Smith]

Matt (and anyone else),
I gave this some more thought. What if...

- original windings were a finer gauge wire,
- a second commutator was added at the other end of the armature,
- a set of step-up windings were wound overtop the first windings and soldered to the second commutator in same fashion as primary?

In effect, we'd have a motor that is actually running as a transformer/generator. Given the arcing between secondary commutator and brushes, you might also have radiant energy entering into the system.

Any thoughts? Guess I'll have to try it out.
(Still have to look at the Lockridge thread, but I will).
Bob

[Ufopolitics]

It is not new, Bob...

I happened across this YT user's video on a novel (at least to me) DC motor winding arrangement. I'd be interested in anyone else's take on it.
My main question is: What happens to the cemf in each set of windings?

If anyone has any observations, I'd love to hear them. Here's the video at the point at which the new method for winding starts (back it up to the beginning if you want to see the standard winding):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9CLtlkl6fM&feature=player_detailpage#t=99

Bob

Hello Bob,

This is not a new type of winding, Bob, I have done it myself many times before, long time ago, before going into the Full Independent Asymmetrical Windings...as many in other parts of the World are doing it as well.

This particular one is a Two Stator Type...and you get better results with Four Stators, since you will get two brushes across at 90º as output while Motor coils (Input) collapse.

He has winded with Independent Coils attached exactly at 180º at comm elements...so when it does 180º again it reverses coils, still achieving rotation like in Symmetry by coils Forced reversal of V In, then magnetic poles reversal.

If He would have taken in account the previous original windings total R, or wire length per sections of poles, at same awg , and would have duplicated those same spec's into his new type of winding 'per each independent coil', then he should not have any Amps increase at all from original symmetric wind.

In a Spanish Speaking Forum I was attending, there was a guy from Central America building this type of Motor...and they work better than Symmetrical Closed Loop(Short Circuit) burning energy types.


Kind Regards Friend.


Ufopolitics

[Bob Smith]

Hey there UFO
Thanks for stopping by and commenting on this setup. I have to order some motors, and I will try some kind of mod, adapting this type of winding further. I appreciate your tip on the wiring. I'll remember that when I get at it.

We're all working toward the same objective, I think - the betterment of humanity, each of us trying to do our part. Nice to hear the Central Americans (dear to my heart) are into it too.

Que estes bien
Bob

[mbrownn]

This plain simple winding is what I use in my experiments. the difference is i connect the coils to the commutator segments at 90 degrees to what is shown. The reasons for this is to make the brushes have their original positions and keep the wires close to the armature shaft.

If you use just a single coil, you have a pulse motor with two pulses per rev and by adding a second set of brushes you can collect the inductive kickback. If you dont have recovery brushes on this type of winding you get a huge amount of arcing at the brushes. On this particular armature it would be possible to place two windings at 90 degrees to each other and have four pulses per rev.

The problem with a pulse motor of this type is getting enough current to flow, but by replacing one of the field magnets with a coil, a transformer effect occurs lowering the inductance of the armature winding. Now we have more current without having to increase voltage. The current found in the new field winding can be used as an output to a low impedance load.

The BEMF generated in this field coil is generated current, but because we are pulsing we also get AC appearing in this coil too, something I have been working on.

I believe that it could have been this type of winding that was used in the lockridge.

I think there is much in what is said about the standard winding with currents opposing each other, so it may well be true that he has increased torque, but I don't think his brushes will last long.

[Dog-One]

Other options/tweaks...

This plain simple winding is what I use in my experiments. the difference is i connect the coils to the commutator segments at 90 degrees to what is shown. The reasons for this is to make the brushes have their original positions and keep the wires close to the armature shaft.

On the other hand, if you have your brushes mounted to a plate you can rotate in respect to the permanent magnets, you can find the best angular offset for the type of load you are powering.


Having a set of brushes that just barely lag the primary powering brushes would provide a really good mechanism for power recovery.

Also, using stator coils could be another nice benefit. You can pulse them as well as the primary brushes.

And... If you have the switching available to pulse, it might be good to look at pulsing during repulsion (dielectric counter-voidance) instead of attraction (dielectric voidance) as I suspect from Ken's work the field lines in this mode might nearly diminish Lenz effect.

[mbrownn]

On the other hand, if you have your brushes mounted to a plate you can rotate in respect to the permanent magnets, you can find the best angular offset for the type of load you are powering.

Correct, but not all motors are easy to adjust in this way.

Having a set of brushes that just barely lag the primary powering brushes would provide a really good mechanism for power recovery.

Correct

Also, using stator coils could be another nice benefit. You can pulse them as well as the primary brushes.

Correct, and you can also recover power. There are also other benefits but as this thread is about a particular type of winding for an armature i wont go into that.

And... If you have the switching available to pulse, it might be good to look at pulsing during repulsion (dielectric counter-voidance) instead of attraction (dielectric voidance) as I suspect from Ken's work the field lines in this mode might nearly diminish Lenz effect.

In my work I have found that i needed to operate the motor in attraction. This is to keep all the flux where i want it. There are ways to work with lenz but i wont go into that here as that is to do with the field coils or magnets. I don't want to go off at a tangent.

The key points about this armature winding, is it is easy to wind, easy to recover energy from, and efficient.

The disadvantages are when you don’t have recovery brushes, the inductive kickback causes arcing at the brushes, and with the extra brushes you have greater friction.

Very early motors and generators did have this winding but it was dropped because of the above problems. It must be said that in these early motors they were not pulsing and the inductive kickback was considered problem. For those of us that wish to take advantage of this, it is a benefit.

My early tests on recovering energy, using a single winding with a second set of brushes gave me 17% of the input into a capacitor. Of course the capacitor is only around 50% efficient so the real recovered energy if fed directly into a load would be around 34%. The interesting thing about this is the recovered current also causes torque in the motor as it flows out of the armature.

With a full set of windings on the armature this recovery diminished. I theorized that a transformer effect was occurring between the powered winding and the winding that from which the energy was being recovered. This transformer effect opposed the inductive kickback causing the voltage of the inductive kickback to rise and the current duration shorten. Also under ohms law this would cause more losses and heat.

So if you wish to experiment with this, I suggest you try a single winding or two windings set at 90 degrees to each other, resulting in a pulse motor from which you can recover energy

Just food for thought

[Bob Smith]

Mbrownn,
Thanks so much for sharing the fruits of your building and tests. It'll save me a lot of time. I will try the single set of windings as you suggest, with the wire ends attached to the commutator at 90 degrees to the coils. The second set of brushes was something I had planned on adding, having built a few of UFO's early 3 and 5 pole motors.

I'm wondering if incorporating a series-wound bifilar coil might minimize the secondary reflection between primary and secondary. However...

- with the primary as swbifi, there is theoretically a cancellation of magnetic fields, and so, common sense tells me that this would probably not bode well for repulsion between coil and magnet stators;
- with the secondary wound as swbifi, I do not know if this form of winding will pick up the cemf from the primary. This is the option I would like to try, assuming that it would multiply voltage and diminish current, but again, I don't know if its topology would be receptive to being induced by the primary's inductive kickback.

My initial choice is door number two. It seems to me that it would provide a step-up voltage option which is passed thru a spark gap (brushes) and out.
Any thoughts or comments are much appreciated.
Bob

[mbrownn]

Mbrownn,
Thanks so much for sharing the fruits of your building and tests. It'll save me a lot of time. I will try the single set of windings as you suggest, with the wire ends attached to the commutator at 90 degrees to the coils. The second set of brushes was something I had planned on adding, after building a few of UFO's early 3 and 5 pole motors.

I'm wondering if incorporating a series-wound bifilar coil might minimize the secondary reflection between primary and secondary. However...

- with the primary as swbifi, there is theoretically a cancellation of magnetic fields, and so, common sense tells me that this would probably not bode well for repulsion between coil and magnet stators;
- with the secondary wound as swbifi, I do not know if this form of winding will pick up the cemf from the primary. This is the option I would like to try, assuming that it would multiply voltage and diminish current, but again, I don't know if its topology would be receptive to being induced by the primary's inductive kickback.

Any thoughts or comments are much appreciated.
Bob

Assuming we are using permanent magnets for the stator and we are keeping the geometry standard.

These types of motor require current to produce torque, the voltage is irrelevant. Putting voltage into a motor of this type is a waste of energy if that voltage isn't required.

I could be wrong but i believe a series wound bifilar winding would result in low inductance which is good for low voltage and high current but is bad for inductive kickback. To get a reasonable amount of inductive kickback would require very high frequency, which I believe isn't what we need.

If you were running on DC with all the windings on the armature it would reduce arcing.

Operating it as UFO does will give you a transformer style recovery but does it cancel out the power of the flux? i haven’t been following his thread so i dont know about that. What it will do is have opposing currents in the magnetic field set up by the magnets so I would expect reduced torque. Im sure UFO will give his knowledge on this.

My feelings are that we should have as many turns as possible to give good inductance but big wire for low ohmic resistance. of course this is a compromise. Recovery brushes are a must to give any brush and commutator life, but we can use the inductive kickback in several ways.

1) short the two recovery brushes giving maximum increased torque
2) place a low resistance load between the brushes to have a usable power recovery and significantly increased torque.
3) feed the inductive kickback to a capacitor across the supply to give a reduced input from the supply and a smaller increase in torque.

Of course 2 and 3 can be combined.

Permanent magnet motors are usually about 50% efficient but with these mods we can get up to 85% efficient which is fairly decent. Note that manufacturers often quote their efficiencies for PWM which again is 85 to 90% but we are doing it without the electronics.

We don't have to use electronics we can do it mechanically.

More food for thought

[Bob Smith]

MBrownn
Thanks for your response. Going with the heavier primary winding, I guess we're back to the higher current draw that Matt alluded to. I never thought to put a cap at the supply end. I see how combining it with picking up at the generator end could be a useful option.

Like you, I would like to see what it takes to maximize what can be taken out of a motor/generator without the aid of a pwm.

One of my main objectives would be to harness the power of bemf to assist the rotor's rotation.

I believe there also may be something to be said for feedback in order to produce standing waves (perhaps via zener diode) within the armature itself, but I am getting way ahead of myself here. Have to decide on wire gauge and coil topologies first. I appreciate your input, and will need some time to read it over and digest it. Further input always welcome
Bob

[mbrownn]

MBrownn
Thanks for your response. Going with the heavier primary winding, I guess we're back to the higher current draw that Matt alluded to. I never thought to put a cap at the supply end. I see how combining it with picking up at the generator end could be a useful option.

Dont be afraid of current draw, its a requirement of these types of motor. Power is volts multiplied by amps, Just the same as we can use high voltage with little current we can use low voltage with high current and still consume the same power. Nature supplies us with electricity in both these forms but we choose to use medium voltage and medium current, something nature does not provide.

Torque in a motor is a result of ampere turns, voltage not even being part of the equation, so if we don't need it, why produce it excessively.

Ohmic resistance in a wire is pure loss, so this is something else to be avoided.

Energy used to charge an inductor can be recovered, so we don’t worry too much about this power consumption as we can get it back. What we don't want to do, is put energy into an inductor that is already saturated as this is pure loss.

Like you, I would like to see what it takes to maximize what can be taken out of a motor/generator without the aid of a pwm.

The interesting thing about mechanical switching in this form is it is self balancing. We know that with a pulse duration of 50%, when the motor first starts to turn we burn power, but this is where maximum current is available as the commutator cant switch off. As a result the motor accelerates until it meets the load. My experience showed that our pulse results in 50% ramp up and about 35% ramp down which is the inductive kickback. This is the normal unloaded condition, but we have to take care to have low resistance bearings and low friction brushes. This is the balance I am talking about, If the motor had no frictional, BEMF or resistive losses, it would become 50 50.

The trick here is how do we get the motor to do work without burning power? believe me it is possible but not with a standard motor geometry.

One of my main objectives would be to harness the power of bemf to assist the rotor's rotation.

Exactly. Of course we have BEMF in the armature, and I haven’t found a way to mitigate that at this stage, but I have found a way to reduce the BEMF in field coils, not only that, in some situations it is possible to get this field coil BEMF to work for us. There is nothing miraculous about that, its a generator coil. We will come to how it assists the motor later.

What I am proposing at this stage is to replace one of the field magnets with a generator coil. Now you run your motor up to speed, get your recovery from the armature and generate at the same time. If you get the number of turns right on your generator coil you will get a voltage similar to what you need to power the motor, but of course the amps will be too low. Now combine this with the recovered power from the armature and we are getting close. You know where this is going dont you?

In my tests my motor efficiency was about 35%, recovery 17% and generation of 35% but that was with a really badly built motor. We are working on a better example as we speak. I believe a motor efficiency of 50%, recovery of 35% and generation of 50% is achievable without exaggerating. That means your overall efficiency will be 85%.

I believe there also may be something to be said for feedback in order to produce standing waves (perhaps via zener diode) within the armature itself, but I am getting way ahead of myself here. Have to decide on wire gauge and coil topologies first. I appreciate your input, and will need some time to read it over and digest it. Further input always welcome
Bob

Im not sure what you mean by standing waves. Where and how?

Use a single winding to start with, leave the rest of the slots empty.

When you rewind your armature, increase your wire gauge by one or two if its a 12v motor and try to get the same number of turns, you can usually squeeze this in. your resistance wants to be considerably less than 1 ohm.

The brushes are usually 3 to 5 ohms which is way too high but for now stick with them.

For your generator coil go for a wire gauge as large as you can while having 2 1/2 times more turns.

[mbrownn]

The more observant of you may have noticed that I have quoted a motor efficiency of 50% and a generation of 50%. That would mean that my generator is in fact 100% efficient. No its not a mistake, but I did not include the ohmic losses in the generator coil. So it might be 50% and 49.something%.

Why is this so efficient? its because all the frictional and iron losses are in the motor calculation. We cant add them again for the generator as they are in the same physical device. This is a huge efficiency gain that everyone misses. The only loss in the generating section is ohmic.

As we have replaced a magnet with a generator coil we can expect that our base motor power will be half of the original motor so don't expect the same motor torque. If we are pulsing at 50% our consumption has halved too, its a lot more actually because we don’t saturate the coils, but we do gain some torque back from the recovery.

[Matthew Jones]

Dont be afraid of current draw, its a requirement of these types of motor. Power is volts multiplied by amps, Just the same as we can use high voltage with little current we can use low voltage with high current and still consume the same power. Nature supplies us with electricity in both these forms but we choose to use medium voltage and medium current, something nature does not provide.

Torque in a motor is a result of ampere turns, voltage not even being part of the equation, so if we don't need it, why produce it excessively.

Where do you get this? Can you show me a motor that will run off 1 volt at 100 amp efficiently?
I can show you one that will run at 100 volt 1 amp and produce more torque or HP than 100 watts should allow and recover 90% of the energy put in.

I am not sure what it is you test but if voltage is not important "voltage not even being part of the equation" then you need to show us, cause that is contrary to everything I have ever heard.

Maybe its better to say put up or .....

Matt