My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines

[Ufopolitics]

Relatively speaking I think the transition diagram for my quad stator 10-pole has the same orientation. I have slightly altered the 2 diagrams to show how I understand the timing settings. On both diagrams I am looking at the same angle theta actually equal to 48 degrees, drawn around the left Motor brush.

This first one is with the G1 winding and G1 commutator element:



Now this is with the single coil winding, and again looking at the timing for the left motor brush but using the coil on the same side as G1, but is now labelled C6. The brush however is of course really activating commutator element G1, which should most likely belong to C1 coil element.



Your diagram shows the wiring for each coil now going to the opposite side of the rotor. While it seems the "symmetry" here may allow these to be interchanged, I would find keeping the near coil to the left motor brush as C1 instead of C6 much easier to wind since the coil is closer to the brush side of the motor then.

Does it have to be as shown or is this just a slight oversight, where it would be better for winding if C1 and C6 should actually be reversed?


Thanks!

Sam,

The ONLY reason why I did this design based on Single Coils was because of your set up, which -as I explained before- is Unique.

There are No Ten Pole Rotor spinning within a Four Stator Housing. Normally it should have been a Twenty Pole, then a Pair Wind or Group Wind would be the perfect set up.

Now, as you notice there is absolutely no time, not enough sweeping angle for Generation stage to develop properly.


Besides that, I highly recommend to use as much wire as you could there, and as finer as you could get as preferably Multi-Filar strands.

Otherwise it would be another "Heater Element" as Mark (Hunting Ross) built based on the a1 mogEn.

About the reversing C1 to C6 you are right, I just did not change the original commutator elements labeling from the old group diagram. But you know , and realized...all this hooking wires to elements is completely relative as I also mentioned before. Just have to look for the best convenient end related to brush positioning.


Regards friend


Ufopolitics

[Midaztouch]

Come on Raul/UFO

What!? Are you going to do like you did before!?

Use racial slurs
profanity
Belittling
doctored emails
Post my home address
home telephone number
Private email addresses
All cellphone info
Other Members personal info
Fake medical records
Then lie to the admin and ask them to ban me

What next from you!?

I'm helping people do the singular coil = A1MoGen motors correctly! I don't want to fight with you. I'm just helping. You had a mistake. If you want all the credit, you can have it but DONT mess up my A1MoGen design.

Be cool

Midaz

[Ufopolitics]

UFO

The only Chance we have to get maximum performance and extra brushes, is with the singular coils = A1MoGen.

Why don't you go to your Thread and keep doing 'your advertisement' about the a1 mogen there?

Who said "We" need "extra-brushes"?...You did?

It's seem to me that pair winds and group winds there is NO possibility of adding extra brushes to collect the collapsing field without hindering asymetric motors.

"It seems to You" pair and group windings...bla,bla,bla...are just "Your" assumptions, you have not build any of those types, therefore can not tell absolutely nada about them.

Not to waste anyone's time... shouldn't checking the extra brush and Singular Coils be the main/top priority!?

Midaz

But You DO ARE wasting everyone's time here.

Garry Childers clearly demonstrated the A2 (Your Single Coil 'Design') even taken to a small motor is far Inferior to the A1 Pairs, by over 3000 RPM's above, same amp draw because it was the EXACT same amount of wire, therefore, same resistance, therefore same amps. However the TOTAL result as Speed is far superior.

Mark (Hunting Ross) demonstrated the 12 Pole model He built based on 'your design' is better used for a Heater appliance, as it is a huge Amps hungry motor.

The single coils take much less space, right, as a more compact field, right also, however, it does that around a smaller amount of core mass of rotor than any pair or group wind does, therefore, Single Coils does not have the same Heat Sinking Capacity and much less throw out angle (less speed).

Wouldn't you agree?

NO, I DO NOT AGREE!...I have stated that a long time ago, I just do not understand why do you keep addressing me ever again after all the BS you have pulled out here?

Did you 'forget'?...CAUSE I DID NOT!

You keep disturbing this thread!

You keep disturbing excellent people here that are doing SUPERB Testings like Garry Childers.

If I answered to your posts was in order for OTHERS not to get confused with all your BS questions.

I appreciate if you do not address to me anymore.

I would be ignoring all your post here from now on.

AS I ALSO RECOMMEND ALL OTHER MEMBERS ATTENDING THIS THREAD TO DO


YOU HAVE YOUR OWN THREAD, SO, GO THERE AND EXPOSE THERE ALL YOUR "ADVANTAGES" AND "SERIOUS" TESTINGS.


Ufopolitics

[HuntingRoss]

Brush width

Hi Sam

Can you comment on the exact width of your brushes relative to the size of your comm segments please. A comm segment being 36º wide.

Happy Hunting

mark

[Midaztouch]

Hey Sam

The width of your brushes is very important for the critical angles! Are your brushes the same size as a commutator segment?



Follow me... If I were you, I would wind your motor with 3poles Singular Coils = A1MoGen!
Remember, I set the guildline for the A1MoGen ="Singular Coils are the same size as the magnet."

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

[sampojo]

Question about the reversed locations of C1-C6

Hey Sam,

First You have there a "Unique" design...a Four (4) Stator and a Ten (10) Pole Rotor...no such a design in our 'marketplace'...
Normally a Four Stator Symmetric Machine would start at Sixteen (16) to Twenty (20) Poles and up...So, You have a very 'Narrow Margin" to play with expanded Groups or Pairs...reason why I recommended to go Single Coils.

So it is not the fact of "undesirable" Pairs nor Groups now...but you are trying to reach for the lowest amperage draw or the sweet spot, and I see you have not enough Angle to play towards Attraction without leaving much space at repulse.



Yes, exactly the fact that Garry had reached a very ultra low amp draw at very high RPM's...means We could reproduce this "phenomena" at any level within any Asymmetrical Structure Design.

The "Potential Explanation" I have given before here...it is 'no secret'...it is about adjusting the Firing to occur more towards the South Stator (Attract Mode) than the North (Repulse)

Now, if you have a very CLOSE Angle between Both Pairs, Groups or even Single Coils Bisectors being fired by two commutator elements contacting both Motor Brushes to the 90º Bisector Angle from two N-S Stators (your case of four stators)...Then, no matter how much you try to fire further away from North...you are very limited before passing with "Leaving" Circuit Bisector the South Stator Center line (Bisector).



Look at your Settings above...out of the Fixed 90º from Stators Bisectors you have more or less around 85º from Bisector of Repulse Group to Bisector of LEAVING Group at Attract. That is too narrow margin to look for sweet spots.

Now, getting back at Garry's set up with the Five (5) Pole Radio Shack AN1...He had approximately 144º between both Pairs Bisectors ON, within 180º from the Two Stators Bisectors...which means He had somewhere around 36º to play searching for the sweet spot...or 18º from North and 18º to South Attract in 'Neutral Position'... And as He mentioned before...the best timing occurred more towards attract mode...which could have been 21º away from North...and 15º to attract at South Stator...or somewhere around that combination.

¿Comprende?




You gotta have room to move brushes searching for the sweet spot...or else you are fixed again, even if you narrow the two bisectors with single coils...

You answered yourself on that question...by putting the SAME 10 pole Rotor from a Two Stator to a Four Stator...you are narrowing the Interaction Angles fro 180º to 90º...



[IMG][/IMG]

Note on the Four Pole Coils Diagram above...the Angle between both 'Circuits' being fired, are reduced now from 85º previously to 36º...meaning, you could get further away from North (less repulse) and still not passing the South Stator Bisector...

Now, the "Perfect Neutral" position for this case would be setting the 36º exactly in the center of 90º angle from stators...right?...and that would be 90-36=54/2=27º...meaning you would start firing exactly 27º away from North of C1 and 27º closer to South Stator Bisector of C2.

So, firing closer C2 Bisector to the Attract South Stator Bisector, say at 20º...would set your repulse at 34º right?

Concluding here...I believe your sweet spot should be from that Neutral spot towards closing the gap to the Attract Stator...As I am sure that in higher percentage of attract mode, your motor amps would start dropping real low.

Is up to you to MARK your LIMIT ANGLE for Attract Mode...once Bisectors starts getting too close...and motor starts slowing down.




Any "untunable" machine would NOT be a good learning tool my friend...leave those for when we are ready to set a fixed sweet spot...cause we already know how to set it even with our eyes closed...

Every time you change by expanding or narrowing coils, pairs or groups ...everything must change as far as alignment and timing...

If I were you, I will try before to work with an adjustable model...a simple one, before moving to Baldor...This Ten Poles and Four Stator could be a great learning tool to find the Gap where that sweet spot is...





My pleasure friend


Ufopolitics

Relatively speaking I think the transition diagram for my quad stator 10-pole has the same orientation. I have slightly altered the 2 diagrams to show how I understand the timing settings. On both diagrams I am looking at the same angle theta actually equal to 48 degrees, drawn around the left Motor brush.

This first one is with the G1 winding and G1 commutator element:



Now this is with the single coil winding, and again looking at the timing for the left motor brush but using the coil on the same side as G1, but is now labelled C6. The brush however is of course really activating commutator element G1, which should most likely belong to C1 coil element.



Your diagram shows the wiring for each coil now going to the opposite side of the rotor. While it seems the "symmetry" here may allow these to be interchanged, I would find keeping the near coil to the left motor brush as C1 instead of C6 much easier to wind since the coil is closer to the brush side of the motor then.

Does it have to be as shown or is this just a slight oversight, where it would be better for winding if C1 and C6 should actually be reversed?


Thanks!

[Midaztouch]

UFO

The only Chance we have to get maximum performance and extra brushes, is with the singular coils = A1MoGen.

It's seem to me that pair winds and group winds there is NO possibility of adding extra brushes to collect the collapsing field without hindering asymetric motors.

Not to waste anyone's time... shouldn't checking the extra brush and Singular Coils be the main/top priority!? Wouldn't you agree?

Midaz

[Ufopolitics]

With the Singular Coils = A1MoGen, I believe that you can add extra brushes to collect the collapsing field... There is plenty of room to add the extra brush with no interface.

Look at the CAD. They fit with with room to find that "Sweet Spot". Don't you think so!?

Midaz

Re read my previous post as I have edit it.

It must be tested.

The best answer to any questions is only found through real testing.

[Midaztouch]

As soon as P2 and P16 gets fully disconnected from Input, this coils would be in a kind of "limbo", where their previously oriented domains with North direction would get somehow in a 'loose status' just for nano seconds, then easily influenced by both South Stators Magnetic Fields...this would cause a Counter Orientation of the ferromagnetic comprehended core, which would be completely "compatible" with the natural collapsing field and Voltage polarity reversal.

IMO, at this early, primitive stage is too soon and too close to start collecting energy (by setting extra brushes), since it may create "Influence Conflicts" with the Coils being energized by direct input, since they are too close.

I recommend to set the Generator Brushes further away as possible from this 'conversion' stage, and as closer as possible before entering the next Input Cycle, this way we will 'suck out' all the reversed plus the induced energies, leaving a "Blank" clean Coil to receive next input, with much less sparking.

However, all this are just assumptions based on magnetism and electrical behavior 'theories' as well as "not theories but reality", however, complex interactions requires that all of this must be tested/checked at different angles in order to determine which setting will deliver better performance and output.

Just my opinion.


Ufopolitics

With the Singular Coils = A1MoGen, I believe that you can add extra brushes to collect the collapsing field... There is plenty of room to add the extra brush with no interface.

Look at the CAD. They fit and with with room to find that "Sweet Spot". Don't you think so!?

Midaz

[Ufopolitics]

Thank you. That's very nice

BUT...

Can you add extra brushes to either designers to collect the collapsing field? I don't want to reduce the performance of the machine/magnetic drag.

In your opinion, is it possible to do what I'm saying?

Midaz

As soon as P2 and P16 gets fully disconnected from Input, this coils would be in a kind of "limbo", where their previously oriented domains with North direction would get somehow in a 'loose status' just for nano seconds, then easily influenced by both South Stators Magnetic Fields...this would cause a Counter Orientation of the ferromagnetic comprehended core, which would be completely "compatible" with the natural collapsing field and Voltage polarity reversal.

We must realize that every time a ferromagnetic core approaches a magnetic field Pole, the field will "expand" and that specific Pole will take over that portion of the core under the inflluence.

IMO, at this early, primitive stage is too soon and too close to start collecting energy (by setting extra brushes), since it may create "Influence Conflicts" with the Coils being energized by direct input, since they are too close.

I recommend to set the Generator Brushes further away as possible from this 'conversion' stage, and as closer as possible before entering the next Input Cycle, this way we will 'suck out' all the reversed plus the induced energies, leaving a "Blank" clean Coil to receive next input, resulting in much less sparking.

However, all this are just assumptions based on magnetism and electrical behavior 'theories' as well as "not theories but reality", however, complex interactions requires that all of this must be tested/checked at different angles in order to determine which setting will deliver better performance and output.

Just my opinion.


Ufopolitics

[Midaztouch]

Hello to All,

I forgot to write on above Diagram that Generator Brushes (as Generating Pairs and related Comm Elements) are not included- meaning "painted", for sake of simplicity to just clearly explain about Motoring Actions.

It is well understood that Imperial is a Four (4) Brushes and Four Stators Structure.

Ufopolitics

Thank you. That's very nice

BUT...

Can you ADD extra brushes to either designs to collect the collapsing field? I don't want to reduce the performance of the machine/magnetic drag.

In your opinion, is it possible to do what I'm saying? Because anything besides that would be a waste of time. Don't you agree!?

Midaz

[Ufopolitics]

Imperiall Structure

Hello to All,

I forgot to write on above Diagram that Generator Brushes (as Generating Pairs and related Comm Elements) are not included- meaning "painted", for sake of simplicity to just clearly explain about Motoring Actions.

It is well understood that Imperial is a Four (4) Brushes and Four Stators Structure.

Ufopolitics

[Midaztouch]

Hello to All,

Ok, below is something else I wanted to share here...it is a Diagram of Imperial Motor with Two Different Max Interaction Angles, just by a difference of an extra shared pole ...I chose to Fragment/Split the Rotor, since both arrangements apply to Two different winding types.

And secondly, my bad, the single Brush of Imperial does comprehend about Two Commutator Elements. It is corrected now, on Diagram below.

[IMG][/IMG]

In above Diagram I have chosen Five (5) Pole Coils in each Pair, since this is about overlapped coils. The main difference is about the spreading or contracting of Pair Bisectors by lapping with 2 or 3 poles shared or in common.

I have highlited in red the Max Interact Angles from starting Coil of "Entering" Pair (Repulse) to "Leaving"-end Coil from Second Pair (Attract) for both 'scenarios' displayed.

It is clearly seen that by just one rotor pole difference at intersection, creates a pretty considerable difference at final Max Interact Angles. (38.59º versus 50.83º)...but that is NOT ALL...

Note the 38º (left side) arrangement have All Four Bisectors VERY COMPACT, right next to each others, resulting in a very compact therefore strong Magnetic Field.

As in this contracted arrangement delivering a more compact field... We have much more play WITHIN the 90º Angle from N-S Stator Bisectors to search for the best timing.

I like this set up for Higher Torque...however, speed would be a bit slower than the 50º Angle at Right side of Graphic.

If You notice, the only difference of Total Poles Involved at this Max Interaction...is just One extra Pole. (8 to 9)...so the speed difference would be very small between both types.

We could reduce even more this lap winding by having up to Four Poles in common at Pairs...however...something start happening that may have some unpredicted results...Bisectors from Pairs start intersecting at same space...and until tested, we would not be able to tell if this would result in benefits or decrease of performance.

IMO, the left arrangement would be a very strong Machine...very flexible angle to Set Timing, searching for that "sweetest spot", without sacrificing torque because of such compact magnetic fields.


Regards to All


Ufopolitics

Can you add extra brushes to either designers to collect the collapsing field? I don't want to reduce the performance of the machine/magnetic drag.

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

[Ufopolitics]

Imperial P56 Two Diff Max Interact Angles

Hello to All,

Ok, below is something else I wanted to share here...it is a Diagram of Imperial Motor with Two Different Max Interaction Angles, just by a difference of an extra shared pole ...I chose to Fragment/Split the Rotor, since both arrangements apply to Two different winding types.

And secondly, my bad, the single Brush of Imperial does comprehend about Two Commutator Elements. It is corrected now, on Diagram below.

[IMG][/IMG]

In above Diagram I have chosen Five (5) Pole Coils in each Pair, since this is about overlapped coils. The main difference is about the spreading or contracting of Pair Bisectors by lapping with 2 or 3 poles shared or in common.

I have highlited in red the Max Interact Angles from starting Coil of "Entering" Pair (Repulse) to "Leaving"-end Coil from Second Pair (Attract) for both 'scenarios' displayed.

It is clearly seen that by just one rotor pole difference at intersection, creates a pretty considerable difference at final Max Interact Angles. (38.59º versus 50.83º)...but that is NOT ALL...

Note the 38º (left side) arrangement have All Four Bisectors VERY COMPACT, right next to each others, resulting in a very compact therefore strong Magnetic Field.

As in this contracted arrangement delivering a more compact field... We have much more play WITHIN the 90º Angle from N-S Stator Bisectors to search for the best timing.

I like this set up for Higher Torque...however, speed would be a bit slower than the 50º Angle at Right side of Graphic.

If You notice, the only difference of Total Poles Involved at this Max Interaction...is just One extra Pole. (8 to 9)...so the speed difference would be very small between both types.

We could reduce even more this lap winding by having up to Four Poles in common at Pairs...however...something start happening that may have some unpredicted results...Bisectors from Pairs start intersecting at same space...and until tested, we would not be able to tell if this would result in benefits or decrease of performance.

IMO, the left arrangement would be a very strong Machine...very flexible angle to Set Timing, searching for that "sweetest spot", without sacrificing torque because of such compact magnetic fields.

Only issue we may face here is "ROOM" to fit all required Pairs, since this would be a very 'populated' winding...meaning turns MUST BE VERY TIGHT.

The 50º winding type is much more "RELAXED"...since wider spread wires along rotor poles.


Regards to All


Ufopolitics

[Midaztouch]

[IMG][/IMG]


[IMG][URL=http://s1251.photobucket.com/user/ufopolitics/media/ALL_NORTH_IMPERIAL%2056/REAL_IMPERIAL_MEASUREMENTS_zpsmm4lxpcn.png.html][/IMG]

That was absolutely all I needed to say or write here...


Ufopolitics

The first pic inaccurate. The brushes on the Imperial are the width of 2 commutator segments... Not 1 comm segment.

If possible, you need the correct critical angles with magnets and their bisectors showing. It will help future builders to understand.

Suggestion: 3 frames; P1 start, P1 middle and P1 disconnect... That will give a fuller picture of the critical angles.


Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz