Electric Motor Secrets

[hartiberlin]

Well,

In that circuit I usually charge C1 with a battery and pulse it through the coil into C2, while capturing the spikes in C3, this basic circuit defies the law of charge conservation and you end up with more charge than you started with. It will show how much charge you can capture by using a coil and pulsing the pushbutton (or you can use a transistor) when starting with a predefined amount of charge.

Elias

Hi Elias,
does this mean that this circuit:



is producing more energy than was stored as 0.5 x C x V^2 in the beginning in C1 ?
If yes, you would have already creazed a circuit with COP >1 !

Please let us know more about this experiment.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.

[elias]

Jetijs,

Yes, I agree with you. The silicon-steel should have been able to do better. This result tells us two things. First, that your magnetic core material is returning energy at less that 50% of the silicon-steel. And second, that there may be a problem with the switching speed of your 2N3055's. I always use the MJL21194 by ON-Semiconductor. But I don't know why your 2N3055's aren't working better. Is it possible for you to try this test with a different transistor?

This was a great test to run. We were expecting a result that suggested that your core material was slow, but that the transistors were fast enough. Perhaps they are not doing as well as we thought either.

High speed BPT's are still the device of choice. MOSFET's are difficult to turn OFF quickly, so let's stay with BPT's for now. (Sorry, Elias).

We need to solve (or explore) one issue at a time, so maybe trying a different transistor on your energy return test set-up is a good place to start.

What do you think?

Peter

Yes thanks for pointing that out. I was thinking of logic circuits instead of power circuits. Finding a way to discharge the base of the bipolar transistor faster would turn it off more quickly and increase the output even more.

[Peter Lindemann]

I Agree

Peter,
I just browsed on the local electronic web shop and they seem to have the MJL21194 transistors. They are three times more expensive than the 2n3055, but I will buy one or two to make the tests, also I will have a use for them later. But I doubt that the transistors are the problem, I can't see any fall time on my scope, only rise times and off periods, this tells me that the transistor switches off fast enough, right? Also I used these transistors on some SSG setups and could get some very good results.
I just found some silicon steel open core material form an old contactor relay, I will also do some tests on that material, since this core is open and not closed like the induction motor startor core, maybe this will give some different results. After these tests I will post my results and then we will decide what to do next. I am not gonna quit on this!
Thanks,
Jetijs

Jetijs,

I agree that the scope shots look like the 2N3055 is turning off fast enough. But in a situation like this, everything must be looked at carefully, and all assumptions questioned. The MJL21194 has a history of working well in circuits like this, so let's see how they behave in your test.

Glad to hear you plan to stick with it.

Peter

[Jetijs]

Peter,
I just browsed on the local electronic web shop and they seem to have the MJL21194 transistors. They are three times more expensive than the 2n3055, but I will buy one or two to make the tests, also I will have a use for them later. But I doubt that the transistors are the problem, I can't see any fall time on my scope, only rise times and off periods, this tells me that the transistor switches off fast enough, right? Also I used these transistors on some SSG setups and could get some very good results.
I just found some silicon steel open core material form an old contactor relay, I will also do some tests on that material, since this core is open and not closed like the induction motor startor core, maybe this will give some different results. After these tests I will post my results and then we will decide what to do next. I am not gonna quit on this!
Thanks,
Jetijs

[Peter Lindemann]

Hoping for Better....

Thanks, elias
I don't quite understand your circuit, maybe if you explained what the circuit does and how should I add it in my circuit, I would try that out. Also that with the closed core, maybe that is why I actually get better results with a open welding rod core than with a closed induction motor startor core. Lets see what Peter has to say. If there is a big difference in the closed and open cores, then I could cut the induction motor startor core in half and test only one half of this core. Because I was hoping for better results with this silicon steel core

Jetijs,

Yes, I agree with you. The silicon-steel should have been able to do better. This result tells us two things. First, that your magnetic core material is returning energy at less that 50% of the silicon-steel. And second, that there may be a problem with the switching speed of your 2N3055's. I always use the MJL21194 by ON-Semiconductor. But I don't know why your 2N3055's aren't working better. Is it possible for you to try this test with a different transistor?

This was a great test to run. We were expecting a result that suggested that your core material was slow, but that the transistors were fast enough. Perhaps they are not doing as well as we thought either.

High speed BPT's are still the device of choice. MOSFET's are difficult to turn OFF quickly, so let's stay with BPT's for now. (Sorry, Elias).

We need to solve (or explore) one issue at a time, so maybe trying a different transistor on your energy return test set-up is a good place to start.

What do you think?

Peter

[elias]

Thanks, elias
I don't quite understand your circuit, maybe if you explained what the circuit does and how should I add it in my circuit, I would try that out. Also that with the closed core, maybe that is why I actually get better results with a open welding rod core than with a closed induction motor startor core. Lets see what Peter has to say. If there is a big difference in the closed and open cores, then I could cut the induction motor startor core in half and test only one half of this core. Because I was hoping for better results with this silicon steel core

Well,

In that circuit I usually charge C1 with a battery and pulse it through the coil into C2, while capturing the spikes in C3, this basic circuit defies the law of charge conservation and you end up with more charge than you started with. It will show how much charge you can capture by using a coil and pulsing the pushbutton (or you can use a transistor) when starting with a predefined amount of charge.

Elias

[Jetijs]

Thanks, elias
I don't quite understand your circuit, maybe if you explained what the circuit does and how should I add it in my circuit, I would try that out. Also that with the closed core, maybe that is why I actually get better results with a open welding rod core than with a closed induction motor startor core. Lets see what Peter has to say. If there is a big difference in the closed and open cores, then I could cut the induction motor startor core in half and test only one half of this core. Because I was hoping for better results with this silicon steel core

[elias]

May you try this experiment?

Hello everyone

Today I did some testing. I tested various core materials that I had at hand. First I used a induction motor startor core, I wound several layers of tape around it to deal with the sharp corners, then I wound about 80 turns of gauge 21 wire. I also used a recovery coil form my SSG setup, it has a core made out of welding rods and about 2000 turns. The resistance of this coil was about 10 Ohms. Also I tried a coil with a magnetite/hematite/resin core with about 500 turns of gauge 24 wire, just to see what results I will get Here are my cores:



I pulsed all of these cores with the 555 timer on the attraction motor circuit. I used only one transistor and the non isolated output. I had to adjust the capacity of the 555 capacitor to mach the rise times of each coil, I found that there is a sweetspot where I can get the most energy back. Too much or too less capacity and the efficiency drops big time. I wont post the result table because they are not very precize, instead I just post the best results I got form each core. So, when I used the iron induction motor startor core, the best result I could get was 46,2% back. The coil with the welding rod core gave 50,1% back at the best try. But the coil with the black sand (magnetite/hematite) core gave me 53,1% back. The input current of each coil varied form 0,27 to 1.5 amps, but nevertheless the transistor stayed only slightly warm. So I guess that my core material is just not good enough.

Thanks,
Jetijs

Good work Jetijs,

Have you used MOSFETs or any kind of faster switching device instead of BJTs? Faster switching may increase your output. (with sincere respect to Peter)
Can you use the capacitor arrangement of the following schematic in your circuit to find out how much excess charge your coils put back? http://www.energeticforum.com/attach...crets-cssg.jpg

This circuit is useful for measuring the amount of charge gained from pulsing coils. It would provide us with a measure of how different coils behave. Also I remember Bedini talking about open cores being better to capture Radiant Energy rather than toroid shaped closed magnetic cores.

[Jetijs]

Hello everyone

Today I did some testing. I tested various core materials that I had at hand. First I used a induction motor startor core, I wound several layers of tape around it to deal with the sharp corners, then I wound about 80 turns of gauge 21 wire. I also used a recovery coil form my SSG setup, it has a core made out of welding rods and about 2000 turns. The resistance of this coil was about 10 Ohms. Also I tried a coil with a magnetite/hematite/resin core with about 500 turns of gauge 24 wire, just to see what results I will get Here are my cores:



I pulsed all of these cores with the 555 timer on the attraction motor circuit. I used only one transistor and the non isolated output. I had to adjust the capacity of the 555 capacitor to mach the rise times of each coil, I found that there is a sweetspot where I can get the most energy back. Too much or too less capacity and the efficiency drops big time. I wont post the result table because they are not very precize, instead I just post the best results I got form each core. So, when I used the iron induction motor startor core, the best result I could get was 46,2% back. The coil with the welding rod core gave 50,1% back at the best try. But the coil with the black sand (magnetite/hematite) core gave me 53,1% back. The input current of each coil varied form 0,27 to 1.5 amps, but nevertheless the transistor stayed only slightly warm. So I guess that my core material is just not good enough.

Thanks,
Jetijs

[Peter Lindemann]

Good Idea

Peter, I already tried this last circuit and the ampmeter did not show any noticable decrease in current draw. It was still about 0.70-0.75A depending on the cap value in the 555 timer. Also I have not connected the pin number 4 to the 12V, because the circuit seems to work well without that.
I have an idea, what if instead of the startor coil we used simply a ordinary induction motor core with some wire wound around? We could pulse the coil and capture the BEMF at a frequency so that the pulse width matches the current rise time. That way we would have a coil around a good core material and could see if this way the output energy increases. If the output from such a coil will be greater, then we know that the problem is in core material, if not, then the problem is somewhere else. I have a small induction motor startor core, just like in Stevens pictures only not as thick, I could use this for the test core material. What do you think?
Thanks,
Jetijs

Jetijs,

Yes, that is a good idea. It is a way to test the hypothesis about the behavior of your core material. If the standard motor laminations works better, then that is evidence in support of the thesis. If you are seeing almost no drop in the energy input when you recycle the output back to the front, it strongly suggests that your meters are right and your recovery is low. Like I said, I have seen 65% drop in the input, and suspect that 80% is possible.

Try your experiment and see what happens.

Good thinking!!

Peter

[Jetijs]

Peter, I already tried this last circuit and the ampmeter did not show any noticable decrease in current draw. It was still about 0.70-0.75A depending on the cap value in the 555 timer. Also I have not connected the pin number 4 to the 12V, because the circuit seems to work well without that.
I have an idea, what if instead of the startor coil we used simply a ordinary induction motor core with some wire wound around? We could pulse the coil and capture the BEMF at a frequency so that the pulse width matches the current rise time. That way we would have a coil around a good core material and could see if this way the output energy increases. If the output from such a coil will be greater, then we know that the problem is in core material, if not, then the problem is somewhere else. I have a small induction motor startor core, just like in Stevens pictures only not as thick, I could use this for the test core material. What do you think?
Thanks,
Jetijs

[Peter Lindemann]

Right

Peter, do you mean this way:

?

BTW, here's a video that shows how the rotor behaves when the power is turned off. You can clearly see that there is still some magnetism in the startor or the rotor piece:
YouTube - Lindemann attraction motor

Thanks,
Jetijs

Jetijs,

Yes, the circuit looks right at this point, except for the lack of a connection from Pin 4 of the 555 timer to the +12 volt supply.

Your YouTube clip does show a small amount of residual magnetism. It's hard to believe this may be the problem, but something about the magnetic behavior of the stator is involved with the low energy return. It's either that, or your transistors are not shutting off fast enough...... and that doesn't seem to be the problem. The 2N3055 has been used in circuits like this for years and has shown its ability to perform well. That pretty much leaves the magnetic behavior of the core to look at.

I guess we are entering the stage where the easy problems are out of the way and the slightly more difficult problems are arising. This is what research looks like. Just stay focussed and don't get discouraged. We can find out what is happening, AND why...and then make corrections.

You are doing really well.

Peter

[Jetijs]

Peter, do you mean this way:

?

BTW, here's a video that shows how the rotor behaves when the power is turned off. You can clearly see that there is still some magnetism in the startor or the rotor piece:
YouTube - Lindemann attraction motor

Thanks,
Jetijs

[Peter Lindemann]

Almost Right....

Ok Peter,
I will make the capacitor test, but first I need you to verify That I understood you correctly. Is this what you meant:


The capacitor is in parallel with the battery and there is a diode on the negative line facing chatode to battery. Is this right?

In the mean time I will make some other tests

Jetijs,

This schematic is almost correct. The isolated output negative line is NOT a part of the common ground of the system. It must be applied directly to the capacitor contact point BEFORE the ammeter and after the diode. We only want to see the currents in the RUN mode, and not in the recovery mode. Your circuit puts the recovery current through the meter backwards to get to the capacitor.

Try that.

Peter

[Jetijs]

Ok Peter,
I will make the capacitor test, but first I need you to verify That I understood you correctly. Is this what you meant:


The capacitor is in parallel with the battery and there is a diode on the negative line facing chatode to battery. Is this right?

In the mean time I will make some other tests