My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines

[Ufopolitics]

I don't understand. I ask a question and you tell me I am right. You are unwilling to support your statements. You admit you're wrong.

If I have written "I am wrong"...it was because the way I have answered before...when I AM SURE I WAS NOT...Got it?

I am not "unwilling" nada guy!...all related Radiant Energy is on My Other Thread...which is obvious you did not ever take a look at it.

You realy think I am going to "start from scratch" here...just for you?...just because you ask it?...keep dreaming.

Your precious time is better spent drawing clown cartoons and belittling other members with racial slurs than addressing technical issues for the benefit of the readers.

It only takes me a few strokes with a pencil to draw a CLOWN...the rest is PS Colors...did you like it?...excellent Art Work man...can you admire great art?...Oh what a shame!

I am an intelligent individual schooled in the scientific method and logical thought process.

I don't doubt it for a second, no one is judging your intelligence here Bistander...

Why do you say I would be unable to understand an explanation? I'm just looking for some facts here. I am not here to argue with you.

Because of our previous conversations...You are too much into all those things you have learned...it is like teaching an old man that has being chopping trees all his life by hand...with axes and hand saws...not to use an Axe nor a Hand Saw but a Gasoline Powered Chain Saw.

And this has nothing to do with age...the "old man" term was just an example of someone who would never change, no matter what great tools you show him.

Tell me why you think more off-time per circuit equates to more radiant entering the machine. Please.

bi

Like I wrote before...it is ALL, in detail, with nice Graphics -as I always do- related to Radiant Energy in my First Thread on this Forum:

"My Motors Got me to Tap...Radiant Energy"

And, don't just run there now...and post your questions expecting an answer right away...because it will just NOT happen.

It is very rude...and that goes into ANY PUBLIC FORUMS RULES...To just "walk in" and start asking questions just like a little kit...before reviewing all previews pages, no matter if they are 1,000,000,000...to find out FIRST by yourself...if whatever you are searching for is in any of them...plus it will get you very FAMILIAR with the Author's WORK on that Thread...so by the time you post for the first time...you do not ask already stated answers on previous pages.

Then You could also search by Author's other Threads and find any "Related Work"...it is ALL Your due foot work.


Plus I have over 50 videos on all my work in You Tube...where Radiant Energy work...was the very first ones.


Hope you understand guy


Ufopolitics

[HuntingRoss]

The excellent CAD Diagram that you are referring to is below:

[IMG][/IMG]

For your knowledge, that Motor uses TWO INPUTS for MOTORING...and TWO FOR OUTPUT.

AND...even if We feed from ALL FOUR GATES, for your lack of previous and basic knowledge, every time any type of COIL, INDUCTOR or BOBBIN is cut/stopped from supplying its feeding voltage, it NORMALLY REVERSES VOLTAGE POLARITY...SO, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO FORCED REVERSAL BY OUTER SOURCES, BUT "NATURALLY" DONE FROM ITS INTRINSIC REACTIONS.

I believe you have written in the past, that a north (or south) projecting field will collapse as a north (or south) projecting field.

If the above design is fired from all four gates. I presume that to do so the coils on the north magnets have to project north as drawn and therefore presume that the other coils would have to project south on the south magnets.

If I understand what you're saying here, the south fields collapse north (naturally) and therefore do not flik-flak when arriving at the north magnet brush.

So if I'm understanding that correctly, then a north field does not collapse as a north field and I'm mistaken that you said that before.

So if the above design naturally reverses the field, then why does the single comm design which you despise not do the same.

I would presume the mechanics behind one electromagnet is the same for all electromagnets regardless of the number of comms and brushes.

Curiously Hunting

mark

[bistander]

Bistander,


First, knowing your ways to look and understand Energy, Magnetism...Induction...etc,etc and etcetera...


Why do you want me to waist my precious time answering your question above??!!

Second, even if I would explain it...you will never understand it...

Therefore...my answer would be like my prior post to you...remember?

You are very right...and whatever you say is the real deal...since you are going to the perfect sources...

I am wrong...

Take care and keep searching....best of luck


Ufopolitics

I don't understand. I ask a question and you tell me I am right. You are unwilling to support your statements. You admit you're wrong. Your precious time is better spent drawing clown cartoons and belittling other members with racial slurs than addressing technical issues for the benefit of the readers.

I am an intelligent individual schooled in the scientific method and logical thought process. Why do you say I would be unable to understand an explanation? I'm just looking for some facts here. I am not here to argue with you. Tell me why you think more off-time per circuit equates to more radiant entering the machine. Please.

bi

[HuntingRoss]

Wow.

What a tirade of insults and personal abuse.

Not once have I insulted you or made any kind of personal comment despite your provocation.

You don't even have the good grace to admit that we agreed on the 10 pole discussion (and therefore the entire timing debate) by your submission of the two schematics that showed the rotor advance by 25°...the 25° that represents the face width of the brush with 2° deducted for gap and connection.

You call me a clown, but I'm the only one that brought you all the way through that discussion to admit I was correct by submission of diagrams...no words or explanation from you as to why.

You quote Garry, but omit his immediate apology for not understanding that coil groups have bisectors that extend their field of influence towards the south stator which can have serious implications on performance as the motor advances over the brush.

You will not drag me down with your comments.

Still Hunting

mark

[GChilders]

Imperial Build Progress

@UFOPolitics

Hello Raul I have finished my Imperial modifications and am ready to wind the rotor. I have sent a very short video in a PM to you. I am deviating slightly on the winding and needed your input on a couple of fine points. This is a really fine motor. Wish they had not started gouging people with the new guy.
If you have the time would appreciate a response.

Cheers

Garry

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

Can you explain how you came to this conclusion? Did you measure it?

bi

Bistander,


First, knowing your ways to look and understand Energy, Magnetism...Induction...etc,etc and etcetera...


Why do you want me to waist my precious time answering your question above??!!

Second, even if I would explain it...you will never understand it...

Therefore...my answer would be like my prior post to you...remember?

You are very right...and whatever you say is the real deal...since you are going to the perfect sources...

I am wrong...

Take care and keep searching....best of luck


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

......
The MORE Time OFF per each independent circuit in a second of rotation...the MORE RADIANT will enter the Machine...and so on and on and on...

Hi Ufo,

Can you explain how you came to this conclusion? Did you measure it?

bi

[Ufopolitics]

@Mark
Mark I have tried to understand your argument and can see your confusion. The single coil bisector and multi coil bisector and group bisectors are a point and not an angle. By offsetting this point on the stator bisector a few degrees and having the coil energized at this point the rotor will rotate in the direction of the offset. It will rotate to the opposite pole stator bisector and when the center of the stator bisector lines up with the coil bisector the motor will stop rotating if not disconnected from the power prior to that point. Because the magnetic forces will have their strongest attraction at that point. The magnets will center themselves on each other. Do you not understand this principle? It is paramount in understanding the way the asymmetrical motors work.

Cheers

Garry

Nope Garry, Mark obviously do NOT understand that basic principle you just wrote above...it is the main reason why NONE of his previous Dual Asymmetric twelve pole did NOT work at all.

The difference is very simple...look at your work displayed here on a much smaller motor?...a Five (5) Poles for GOD SAKE!

Then look at his bigger machine performance!!

This Technology works "in crescendo" meaning the bigger the machine, the greater the results...it is a VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT, for any Normal Mind to digest!

The MORE INDEPENDENT COILS in the whole Armature...the more the power and speed, the cooler the motor will operate!

The MORE Time OFF per each independent circuit in a second of rotation...the MORE RADIANT will enter the Machine...and so on and on and on...

It WAS and IS very OBVIOUS He has no idea about such SIMPLE PRINCIPLE you have described in very few words above...

But, unfortunately, He does NOT admit He, Mark Ross is completely WRONG!

Just like a Drunkard or a Junkie...would never admit they have a "problem".


I gave up, really...it is just another "Type of Delusion" here...and I am not his Psychoanalyst...



Kind Regards



Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

The new "Dynamic Duo"...of Clowns

It is obviously a good gossip and entertainment lately on this Scientific Forum...just like a soap opera now dramatized by clowns...could any of you imagine that?

Well then pay a visit to the HIJACKED THREAD

Now it is about Two Clowns...which have zero successful experiences on Asymmetrical Machines.

One of them, Midaz (Richard Bates) the Big Mouth and Big Tongue connected to a very small brain...that only has built ONE Motor in his entire life...has turned all the sudden in the "Know it All" , "The Expert" related to ALL kind of BS confusing terms related to "zero torque"..."zero magnetic drag"...and a bunch of non sense that now extends beyond the only motor he has ever and poorly wound.

The Clown Midaz has shown absolutely ZERO proof to provide at least a minimal test where he put his Big Moth to work and demonstrate it in the real world.

And then another clown (Mark Ross) has just joined the previous Monologue Show on the Hijacked Thread from main Clown.

Mark Ross latest post...responds my previous post below...

To then write a very stupid comment, that all it does is create confusing among the serious builders on this Thread:

There is one important point I didn't pick up on.

If the design in my previous post is indeed supposed to motor with all the brushes...then we have N / S / N / S field configuration which makes this quote a little hard to sustain :

Negative Mark,

Dual Commutator Machines has been proven to be FAR superior to ANY single commutator designs, no matter how far you get into "trying" to make them better.

The coils will need to flik-flak every quarter turn and that sounds like A LOT of "constant colliding of electrons/flux"

Maybe that is the elephant you're referring to ?

Good Hunting

mark

There is no "Flick-Flacking" of any Pink Elephants there guy...

The excellent CAD Diagram that you are referring to is below:

[IMG][/IMG]

Your VERY WRONG COMMENTS ABOVE...ALL ARE DOING IS:

For all the experienced Imperial Builders on this thread, all you are doing is demonstrating your continuous "ASS-umptions" on grounds you are completely ignorant about.

But for all NEW READERS, Your "ECHOING" to the Main Clown BS, are creating HUGE CONFUSION, by posting all this ridiculous comments based on ZERO REAL EXPERIENCE on the motors you BOTH are referring to.

The Motor shown above is a completely different structure where you have not stepped yet with your small and fragile feet...now you are experimenting on the Single Commutator Old crap, just because your frustrations and Failures with Dual Commutator Asymmetric Machines from the only CHEAP CHINESE Twelve Pole Two Stator BS you have been working on for a while...after doing a lot of clumsy structures by joining two motors by the shaft...what an "Apparatus"...

For your knowledge, that Motor uses TWO INPUTS for MOTORING...and TWO FOR OUTPUT.

AND...even if We feed from ALL FOUR GATES, for your lack of previous and basic knowledge, every time any type of COIL, INDUCTOR or BOBBIN is cut/stopped from supplying its feeding voltage, it NORMALLY REVERSES VOLTAGE POLARITY...SO, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO FORCED REVERSAL BY OUTER SOURCES, BUT "NATURALLY" DONE FROM ITS INTRINSIC REACTIONS.

Obviously you still need to keep "HUNTING" for more knowledge...BUT FIRST THAN ALL...You need VAST REAL BUILDING ON SEVERAL OTHER STRUCTURES to get you in a "Suitable Experience" to be able to comment related to such machines.

What a poor and sad position you have adopted now Mark!...it is incredible that now you are serving as the "ECHO" to such IGNORANT PERSON, like Midaz the Clown.


What a "TONIGHT SHOW" You guys are performing...it is HILARIOUS!



WHENEVER, ANY OF YOU TWO, CLOWNS, SHOW ME/US A REAL VIDEO, WITH REAL TESTINGS, PROVING ALL YOUR CRITICS TO MY WORK...THEN , MAYBE THEN, SOMEONE WILL PAY SOME ATTENTION TO ALL BS WRITTEN ON THAT HIJACKED THREAD...

BUT, UP TO NOW...IT IS JUST A LOT OF "AIR"... A LOT OF NOISE AND NO ADVANCE WHATSOEVER!


PROVE ME WRONG!!

IF ANY OF YOU TWO COULD BE ABLE TO...WHICH I HONESTLY DOUBT...A LOT!!

HOWEVER, IT IS THE ONLY WAY THAT ALL YOUR COMMENTS WILL BECOME REAL, HONESTLY!!

[HuntingRoss]

In the very beginning of this Thread a member built the single comm three poles...at that time there were all the differences established between both types.

I haven't seen the write up for this motor but looking at a rough schematic I drafted this morning it can not work like the current single comm design I am working with.

My guess is it worked by earthing the shaft and tie one lead wire to that with the other connected to a brush.

My first single comm motor did just that and it was very weak compared to the OEM.

The single comm motor I built yesterday afternoon and prony tested this morning at 10v has 30% more torque than the OEM and 100% more RPM under the same load.

Also, a 3 pole could not have independent generator brushes like the 12 pole model I'm working with.

So all in all the 3 pole is a sad motor for comparison of the single comm model.

If anyone has a link to that motor I would appreciate a look at it. I haven't been able to find it.

Happy Hunting

mark

[Ufopolitics]

This makes me want to summarize the discussions on brush width and bring up an important scientific principle of abstracting information to keep it comprehendable. I would say that each coil's current as Garry alludes to, may be somewhat of a bell shaped curve. And as there is a smooth transition of full current flow from one to the other coil as the brush slides over the comms. So to bring in all the other angles, whether a bush is spanning 2 comm segments and partially energizing two coils, is an unnecessary complication in regards to finding the best timing angle. Whether the timing angle is defined from the point of first contact or from where the comm is centered on the brush angle doesn't matter, but we just need to decide on a common definition. I like to think of the time when the brush is centered on the comm segment as optimum, as just one coil is energized at that point and it is at its midpoint and maximum strength. The complication of brush overlap energizing multiple coils may possibly be disregarded.

As a nemisis of mine says, "Hope this helps."

PS: I think the current waveform is actually trapezoidal... And probably doesn't matter much...

Hello Sampojo,

Ok, according to Garry's observation based on the first "touch" from brush on segment...it could be a "non full conductivity" for nano seconds...just at that minimal time stage, however, as segment travels more into brush, there would be a "half and half point", where brush is centered at the gap between two segments, then current flow would be even to both circuits.

So to bring in all the other angles, whether a brush is spanning 2 comm segments and partially energizing two coils, is an unnecessary complication in regards to finding the best timing angle. Whether the timing angle is defined from the point of first contact or from where the comm is centered on the brush angle doesn't matter, but we just need to decide on a common definition.

This Motors do a 2 segment contact then a 1 segment contact (1/2/1/2/1/2/1...) at all times during operation...and timing must include setting/controlling both stages.

Unfortunately this "dual segment contact" is unavoidable...whether it occurs only when brush is fully centered between two segments or just entering into contact. This is a Max Flow stage, because we have two circuits (Coils, Pairs or Groups) energized in parallel, there is a fluctuation in resistance, voltage and amps compared to just one circuit On.

Related to Timing, I believe it is critical and of the essence, that we do not allow an energized circuit bisector to pass the attracting stator bisector at all while is still on. So we must consider this fact, at the time to "switch off" the ending/leaving circuits. No matter if we want to look at individual circuits entering-leaving...or both at the same time.

There are many things we could do to make sure this off stage operates as we want...first is about setting correctly the chosen segments to be connected related to brush/stator positioning, then spinning rotor to make sure it disengages in time.

If looking at two circuits energized at the same time is kind of confusing...then we could do it based on just one circuit...it don't matter, as long as we do -at least- two adjacent segments analyzing them individually one after the other.

The main "NO Rule" that must PREVAIL here is simple, I have stated it in several occasions...and that is NOT to allow a Rotor circuit bisector to PASS the Attracting Stator Bisector while is still ON. No matter if you analyze one at a time or two at a time.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[HuntingRoss]

I think whether the timing angle is defined from the point of first contact or from where the comm is centered on the brush angle doesn't matter, but we just need to decide on a common definition. I like to think of the time when the brush is centered on the comm segment as optimum, as just one coil is energized at that point and it is at its midpoint and maximum strength. The complication of brush width might be irrelevant.

Hi Sam

I agree that a common definition would not only help but simplify this enormously. All the preceding pages are filled with theory and at best my approach delivers a quick estimate of where final coil bisectors are likely to disengage so we can avoid a mistake at the design stage of winding the motor.

I could settle on the standard of 'brush and comm centered' for the purpose of timing standardisation.

Unfortunately that would not solve the woes of the 12 pole 4 pole pair wind.

Happy Hunting

mark

[HuntingRoss]

@ UFO

I don't mind being corrected, although technically I wasn't making a mistake. I was ESTIMATING a result...And I had already said previously about the 2º -

But I'm not disagreeing with the principle by which you arrived at these figures. It is what I've been saying all along.

And it will not have escaped your attention that my 'up close' diagrams of the comm and brush interaction displayed the 2º difference attributed to having a 1º gap.

Of course it is easier to distract attention away from the fact that you will not state on the record how anyone can estimate the 'OFF' angles for their motor designs. And you still avoid saying anything on the subject.

There are copious amounts of images and words on what you consider is wrong with my ESTIMATE, but nothing on how to actually do it.

All these pages of disagreement would have never happened if you had said, Mark you're wrong, and here is how you do it. Job done.

So we have many pages of Mark you're wrong. And not one word on how you would actually ESTIMATE it.

But of course we can't escape the fact that you did agree with me after all the disagreement when you posted the two images for the 10 pole motor. To disguise that fact you are now picking on the difference between ACCURACY and ESTIMATE.

That's fair enough, but I'll take the fact that we finally agreed and your response to that was...Don't post my single comm here again.

I don't mind playing schoolyard rules, it's your thread after all.

Happy Hunting

mark

[sampojo]

Re: 7791 GChilders: Does electricity start to flow when brush initially touches com..

@UFOPolitics
My question is does the electricity that is being fed to the motor coils begin to flow the millisecond that the brush touches the commutator element? This violates most electricity laws. Electricity always takes the path of least resistance. I do not think that there will be a very long period where two neighboring commutator elements will be energized simultaneously with the exact same amount of resistance between the coils brushes and wires leading into them. Just food for thought.

Cheers

Garry

This makes me want to summarize the discussions on brush width and bring up an important scientific principle of abstracting information to keep it comprehendable. I would say that each coil's current as Garry alludes to, may be somewhat of a bell shaped curve. And as there is a smooth transition of full current flow from one to the other coil as the brush slides over the comms. So to bring in all the other angles, whether a bush is spanning 2 comm segments and partially energizing two coils, is an unnecessary complication in regards to finding the best timing angle. Whether the timing angle is defined from the point of first contact or from where the comm is centered on the brush angle doesn't matter, but we just need to decide on a common definition. I like to think of the time when the brush is centered on the comm segment as optimum, as just one coil is energized at that point and it is at its midpoint and maximum strength. The complication of brush overlap energizing multiple coils may possibly be disregarded.

As a nemisis of mine says, "Hope this helps."

PS: I think the current waveform is actually trapezoidal... And probably doesn't matter much...

[Ufopolitics]

Reality is a Bítch...

From the following post. Comm segment is 36º and brush width is 27º. Stator bisector is 90º.

The main reason why I am answering here, is in order that other Members do not get confused by your wrong data posted on this Thread.

And Now you are trying to make my Calculations wrong by exactly Two Degrees!!??...This is really becoming funny now!!...Well then...let's get into the small, very small details in reality...

First off, your above quoted statement is WRONG, you can never EXACTLY divide a Commutator Segment by the EXACT formula of 360º/#of poles. I see that you do it every time, including in your twelve poles, see your previous post below:

Here is the dilemma for a 12 pole 4 pole pairs motor, and a few questions for you :

The comm segments are 30° wide

Maybe you did not notice, but there must ALWAYS be a SEPARATION between commutator segments, called "GAP", and that gap must NEVER be just a "Hair" so we could disregard it, otherwise carbon residues will easily get compacted on the first turns, shorting the whole commutator in one single copper/carbon continuous conducting ring, motor is then..."gone with the wind...fried"

So, your "assumption" that in a ten pole every segment would be 36º is NOT possible, there MUST BE -at least, and being 'conservative'- a gap of One Degree (1º)...and that makes each segment around 35º NOT 36º.

Also, You must realize that by having exactly Ten (10) of those "Gaps"...it means exactly a Total of 10º of "Non Contact Area" at commutator.

Remember Sampojo did not measure his brush...He just wrote it was "about" 3/4 of Commutator Segment...Then Brush is not EXACTLY 27º either, but 26.25º...that is 0.75º off.

[IMG][/IMG]

Notice the C2 bisector is 46° away from the south bisector when C1 fires at 8° !

The rotor has to advance 27° to disconnect C2 !... 46° - 27° = 19°

Wrong again!!...You must realize that by simple Elementary Math adding and subtracting...One Degree (1º) of Air Gap...Plus another One Degree (1º) of Brush on top of C1 Commutator Segment (and I am being very conservative here as well)...comes out to exactly Two Degrees (2º)...Then:

1+1=2 Right?...or do you want to argue also about this result?

If Brush is 27º minus 2º that comes out exactly to 25º...

27-2=25 Do you agree with this simple subtracting or...?

90° (Stator bisector) - 8° (ON angle) - 21° (OFF angle) - 36° (coil bisectors or MIA) = 25°
This is how far the rotor advances in the diagram, but it should have been 27° which is the brush width.

Rotor ONLY needs to advance 25º...and being conservative about 2º of brush area that travel away from C2 segment edge...

My Diagram was as accurate as a Swiss Watch!!

And even these Two Degrees (2º) are pure "theory" not considering brush worn out edges, which occur the minute motor starts breaking in...as well as copper segments edges, start becoming rounded...In realty, this two degrees expand to above three degrees with normal motor wear.

In reality...Brushes travel within a channel path...that must have some play as well, providing a smooth spring riding in-out during operation...rotation-acceleration forces contribute to round edges normally with just a few minutes of work.

Just process the information given.

I have been repeatedly told this is incorrect yet it always delivers the correct 'OFF' angle. This isn't coincidence. It's first grade geometry.

This is how you can ESTIMATE the timing of your design PRIOR to winding.

Happy Hunting

mark

Should I better say...that you are the one who will need to process the real information I have provided above...Mark?

The more you post your way of looking/calculating all this the wrong way...the more I understand why your "beasts" never performed as expected.

The only thing I really agree with you in this whole post, you wrote it above and below...

It's first grade geometry...

Even though...1+1=2 goes back to first grade of elementary schooling...


Keep hunting...


Ufopolitics