Electric Motor Secrets

[hh1341]

Looks like we have run out of thread.

[hh1341]

Jetijs,

You might want to build it this way.
Will keep your fingers and clothing from getting chewed up.




Carl

BTW Peter........I didn't find this graphic.......I drew it......it's my own idea.

[Peter Lindemann]

Perfect Idea!!!

Jetijs,

Here is a little tip that might be useful to you.

Instead of cutting new shutter disks for your timing,
Stack one shutter on top of another.
By rotating one disk in relation to the other, you can easily vary the window opening and change the timing.


[ATTACH]732[/ATTACH]
Carl

Carl,

Thanks for finding this little graphic. I was going to suggest this idea to Jetijs, but I am so busy I hadn't gotten around to it. Thank you!!!!!

Jetijs,

If you trade out your timing wheel for a system like this, you can find the exact timing window you need....... with a lot of work!

Peter

[hh1341]

Jetijs,

Here is a little tip that might be useful to you.

Instead of cutting new shutter disks for your timing,
Stack one shutter on top of another.
By rotating one disk in relation to the other, you can easily vary the window opening and thereby change the duration.
By rotating both disks, you change the timing.


Carl

[elias]

Ok, I understand now.
I did not load the motor more because my wheel is made of plexiglass and if I load it more, the plexiglass starts to melt. But still, the efficiency of my motor should be way better. I don't understand this.

Maybe you can glue some cloth or some other material on your wheel to prevent it getting molten!

[Peter Lindemann]

Don't Worry

Ok, I understand now.
I did not load the motor more because my wheel is made of plexiglass and if I load it more, the plexiglass starts to melt. But still, the efficiency of my motor should be way better. I don't understand this.

Jetijs,

Don't worry. Your motor IS more efficient than this. You just haven't fine tuned it yet. Attraction motors produce torque by "attraction". But unless the attraction cycle is turned off at the right time, they can "attract back" and destroy some of their forward progress. Your motor topology has one of the best stator arrangements we have ever simulated. But the stator must be completely "de-magnetized" by the time of direct alignment of the rotor or the rotor will produce "negative torque" as it tries to leave the stator. Your tests were done with a 65 degree "ON" time of the opto-commutator. This only leaves 25 degrees of rotation for the fields to collapse and begin being re-established at the other stator poles. This is NOT an optimum timing set up!

Please stop "agonizing" over this early test data. When you are able, you can start a systematic study of the effects of changing the timing on your motor. There IS a place where the speed is highest and the current draw is lowest..... just like an SSG. You will find very good efficiency numbers there. Also, for high speed operation, you WILL need to ADVANCE the timing, just like in your automobile engine!

Peter

[Jetijs]

Ok, I understand now.
I did not load the motor more because my wheel is made of plexiglass and if I load it more, the plexiglass starts to melt. But still, the efficiency of my motor should be way better. I don't understand this.

[elias]

elias,
I am a bit confused about your calculations and formulas. I tried to calculate my efficiencies based on your formulas and got a completely different result for my efficiencies. To be sure please calculate the efficiency from my numbers.
V in - 11.42 V
A in - 2.45 A
RPM - 2655
Scale1 - 100g
Scale2 - 10g
Wheel circumference - 0.5 feet
Diameter - 48.38mm

Thanks

Jetijs,

P = F * L / T That is the rate of doing work. So the circumference of your wheel is 0.5 ft = 152.4mm, So:
D = 152.4 mm = 0.01524 meters.
F = (.100 - .010) * 9.8 N = 0.882 Newtons.
T = 1 /( 2655/60) = 0.0226 seconds (one revolution is done in this amount of time)

P_out = 0.882*0.1524/0.0226 = 5.95 W So dividing this by the input will give your efficiency.

But a question I have is: Why haven't you loaded your motor more than this? It may give you better results.

Regards,
Elias

[hh1341]

[Jetijs]

elias,
I am a bit confused about your calculations and formulas. I tried to calculate my efficiencies based on your formulas and got a completely different result for my efficiencies. To be sure please calculate the efficiency from my numbers.
V in - 11.42 V
A in - 2.45 A
RPM - 2655
Scale1 - 100g
Scale2 - 10g
Wheel circumference - 0.5 feet
Diameter - 48.38mm

Thanks

[elias]

Efficiency Measurements

Hi everyone,

I decided to measure the efficiency of my Lindemann motor, so I bought some spring scales and did some crude measurements WITHOUT a wheel, by using only the 10mm shaft.
Here is my results:
Springscale1 = 350g
Springscale2 = 900g
RPM = 52 * 60
Vin = 43v
Iin = 0.7A
Shaft diameter = 10mm

P_in = Vin * Iin = 43 * 0.7 = 30.1
P_out = [(.9 - .35) * 9.8 ] *3.14* 0.01 * 52 = 8.8 W

Eff = 8.8/30.1 = 29%

Now considering about 50% recovery, the total efficiency becomes 29% + 50% = 79%.

I will take my motor more under load as I mount a wheel to it to see how high the efficiency goes up, I suppose that the efficiency of my motor can go up to 40%, when operating at around 2200 RPM

Also consider that my motor can have around 50% more Iron on its rotor and the air-gap of it is around 0.4mm, which can be taken down to 0.1mm or even less. And I am sure designing a Lindemann motor which can operate at higher efficiencies must not be a problem.

Now Jetijs, why is your measurements with you motor this low? It doesn't make sense. hope to see better efficiencies with your motor.

I'll do more measurements and post here!

Elias

[vzon17]

Right. the attraction to the recprocating setup is the pulling of the core inside the coil seemns to be so attractive.

What about a setup using a C shaped core like peters motor but have it perpendicular to a rotor. with a small gap in the C core. seems like one could get more torque then because you can have a bigger diameter rotor. And you could have more than one C core around the perimiter of the rotor that way you get the greater efficiency of pulling the iron into a smaller space and have a longer leverage to the shaft at the same time. in addition you would get a real good flywheel effect. Also it would be easier to build. I'll draw up a diagram to illustrate it.

[hh1341]

[hh1341]

Thanks Peter,

I only mention this because you make reference in passing, on your DVD, to your techniques being applied to generators as well.

Maybe there is already a thread started.

Carl

[Peter Lindemann]

Please Start a New Thread

Peter,

Is there any room here for discussion on applying your ideas to driven generators?

Carl

Carl,

Thanks for asking. As you can see, we have been trying to keep this thread fairly narrowly focussed on attraction motor principles and inductive recovery systems. These are all motor designs that do not generate electricity by induction methods due to the movement of the rotor. This feature allows the motor to function with "no back EMF".

Please start a new thread if you are interested in exploring different generator ideas.

Thanks,

Peter