My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines

[bistander]

[IMG][/IMG]

So, this two images above represent the "Magnetic Circuit" as we all have observed for 224 years...IGNORING "BLOCH", DOMAIN OR DIELECTRIC WALLS...

But, even more errors were added besides the wrong 'lines of force' formation by iron filings...Oh no!...but they further on 'concluded' without any substantial proof that the FLOW will take place FROM NORTH TO SOUTH...as seen the arrows above following a ONE WAY direction...

This concept when translated into 'typical' electric circuits will mean that North is the "Source" while South is the "Drain"...Or even say North is Positive (+) and South is Negative (-) right?...right...so then...explain to me why we still have a very solid repulsion field between two South Poles?...

We shouldn't have "any flow" at all, between two Drain sides without any "Source" being involved.

Even more simple...Two Negative charged end terminals will NOT do absolutely NADA...not even a very dim spark when making contact...

Then, concluding Two South Poles should do as well...absolutely nada, no attraction nor repulsion either...(according to 'stated' direction of flow)

We all know this 'no field interaction' between two South poles never takes place...Two South Poles will repel as stronger as Two North Poles...it is a FACT!

Your analogy to electric circuit is flawed.




copied from: 6.3 - Magnetic Force and Field

I don't understand your reasoning. Two magnetic South poles repel and so do two negatively charged particles (repel).

Even more simple...Two Negative charged end terminals will NOT do absolutely NADA...not even a very dim spark when making contact..

Sparks are caused by potential difference or voltage. I don't know what you mean by _Negative charged end terminals_, but if the two conductors have little to no potential difference, they will not arc as they are brought together to touch.

[sampojo]

Tuning Test Results GM QUP-10 embodiment

No magic bullet found so far in Quad Stator embodiment. I was looking for the spike down in amperage as found by GChilders in his dual stator 5-pole conversions.

Review: This motor is built out of GM window regulator components into an aluminum 2' pipe, converting it to a Quad Stator. The rotor is a 10-pole and is wound using trifilar 32ga wire, with the coils coming in at a calculated 1.22 ohms, using 6'/ohm metric for for 32g wire. each coil had about 22' of wire. End plate construction allows tunability only constrained by brush wire length, as the brush wires must exit thru the motor body as opposed to the endplate, since the quad brushes took all available real estate there. I found I am able to avoid higher temps at the brushes, with lower amperage with the extra .2 ohms. As it has broken in the amp draw has dropped and the rpms risen, now maxing out close to 7000 and the brush temp about 122degF.

Test picture shows optimum performance at 11.6v, 1.58A, using a 60w 12v power supply. Two of the 4 brush sets are receiving power.



Using Ufopolitics wiring diagram to display results:



The zero degree position is Ufo's recommended setting on his diagram. From there I notched 1/8" hash marks, 4 on one side in the direction of rotation, and 3 opposite to rotation. This is approximately 7 deg. per mark. I found pretty much a smooth degradation from optimum as I moved away from the 0, "zero" setting.


Findings: Amp draw increased proportionally and rpm dropped as tuning was adjusted away from the initial position. Although amp draw increased a factor of 2 and 3 times as tuning was moved 21 and 28 deg away from optimum, No factor of 10 or more improvement was found.

PS: tried a few 1/2 hash mark positions also, no suprises.

[Ufopolitics]

Twice you reinforce the point that P2 must be FULLY Disconnected.
We agree on the rotor geometry angles.
We agree on the stator geometry angles.

Yes that is just great we agree on those points-angles.

From your diagram we set the P1C2 bisector at 5º to start the 'ON' time...not P2C1 which I think is a typo.

It was a 'typo', you are correct it is P1C2

Therefore we agree on the minimum time 'ON' angle of 5º.

Yes, great we agree again...

But it is self apparent from your schematic that with P1 just entering the brush with P1C2 at 5º, P2 is still fully connected. It has 6.428º (call it 6º) before it fully disconnects. That moves P1C2 from 5º to 11º.

So it is no longer 20º for P2C1 but 14º. From previous posts this was considered not ideal.

Ok, so it was good enough having three agreements in a raw...now I disagree with you.....because you are just adding the 'switcher displacement angle' to the magnetic interactions angle...just because the "switch" is outside the 64.85 degrees from the EM Interactions taking place.(see image below as the one you are referring to):

[IMG][/IMG]

However, on the 12 pole motor when you consider the rotor geometry as 150º and P1 just entering the brush, P2 is still fully connected. It has 30º before it fully disconnects. That moves P1C2 from 5º to 35º...adding rotor geometry of 150º...It exceeds the 180º requirement to disconnect before reaching the south bisector and you conclude 'WE MUST DISREGARD THIS METHOD'.

[....]

Hunting

mark

Let's stop 'jumping' from 28 to 12 poles Machines Mark...pls...let's keep on the 28 poles Imperial.

So on Image below...I want you to do your Math, the same "method"...and tell me the total angles that we have to adjust timing there...Obviously you overlook this image because I have uploaded on previous post, and you did not quoted at all...

[IMG][/IMG]

What about another commutator element connection from P1-P2 terminals?...plus brush rotation to meet the desired timing?

See below Image Mark...a closer approach to original argument-discussion, but keeping "The Switch" WITHIN the 65º Angle of the EM Interactions...

[IMG][/IMG]

Now...are you still adding the Comm Element plus Brush displacement Angles on the Two Images above Mark?

What I want you to note by those Two Images (actually all three) above...is that the switching angles could be moved within an unlimited area regardless of the EM Interaction Angle, (not affecting it at all) so...could be after (post), within (Aligned to EM) or even before (pre-retarded) to our convenience, however, the EM Momentum displacement still, will be taking place within the specific/required Space/Time, which is actually THE SAME for All Three Images on this Post...

We are just changing "around" the "Switch" position, by stretching the connecting wires just 'a bit'...then moving the Brushes to meet those contact plates...

It is a completely relative "item"(the switching circuit)...just like we could set the actual, physical ON-OFF switch... anywhere we decide in any electronic/electric device or equipment...

Just hoping to have the 'final agreement'...


Ufopolitics

[HuntingRoss]

So, on this Method We MUST TEST FIRST before engaging into Full Winding, by checking IF P2 and P16 (Leaving Pairs according to Rotation) get FULLY Disconnected BEFORE even reaching each related Coil#1 Bisector NOT TO ALIGN with South Bisector Stator!!!

That is the reason of magenta 'enclosed region' for CRITICAL TIMING SETTING

I have set Coil#1 in each Pair for being the one closer to Commutator Element to be connected to, as this would be the First Coil We start winding from each Pair.

NOW, IF WE DO NOT FULLY DISCONNECT P2 & P16 BEFORE IT REACHES SOUTH STATOR BISECTOR...WE MUST DISREGARD THIS METHOD AND SWITCH BACK TO PREVIOUS OVERLAPPED METHOD, WHICH OFFERS MORE ADJUSTMENTS.

Twice you reinforce the point that P2 must be FULLY Disconnected.

I am glad We agree up to a certain point, which is 360/28=12.857...as well as Five (5) Total Poles from start repulse bisector PIC2 to P2C1 create a 64.85º Angle. But let´s be even simpler here, so let´s round up 64.85 to exactly 65º

We agree on the rotor geometry angles.

...but NOW, let's go from North Stator Bisector to South Stator Bisector...and we have exactly 90º.

We agree on the stator geometry angles.

We set P2C1 Bisector away by 5º (towards rotation) related to North Stator Bisector , meaning we are now at 70º...and now...just the simplest math on this world...

How much is 90º-70º=?

Yes, exactly that... 20º, that's how far we are from South Stator Bisector.

We have 20º to play from either side of both stator's bisectors (which is 90º)

From your diagram we set the P1C2 bisector at 5º to start the 'ON' time...not P2C1 which I think is a typo.

Therefore we agree on the minimum time 'ON' angle of 5º.

But it is self apparent from your schematic that with P1 just entering the brush with P1C2 at 5º, P2 is still fully connected. It has 6.428º (call it 6º) before it fully disconnects. That moves P1C2 from 5º to 11º.

So it is no longer 20º for P2C1 but 14º. From previous posts this was considered not ideal.

However, on the 12 pole motor when you consider the rotor geometry as 150º and P1 just entering the brush, P2 is still fully connected. It has 30º before it fully disconnects. That moves P1C2 from 5º to 35º...adding rotor geometry of 150º...It exceeds the 180º requirement to disconnect before reaching the south bisector and you conclude 'WE MUST DISREGARD THIS METHOD'.

I really have absolutely NO IDEA WHY...You have to "KEEP ADDING" Commutators and Brushes angles to 65º from MAX EXTERIOR INTERACTION ANGLES...

...The only thing the switches are supposed to accomplish...is to Disconnect or Connect when they are commanded to do so.

Agreed. The leading edge of the comm segment connects on one side of the brush and disconnects when the trailing edge of the comm segment leaves the other side of the brush. The brush width has to be considered in the equation because P2 has to advance over the brush before it can FULLY Disconnect.

However, I admire the fact that you DO have the 'audacity' (not to say the balls..)... to start shooting at me...

Please do not see this as shooting at you. It is important for others to understand these interactions. As a novice those many months ago I didn't realise this simple truth. Fortunately I wasn't designing motors, I was building them to pattern. Now I'm designing configurations and testing performance.

Your quotes above make it clear that the 'ON' time starts from P1 just connecting to the brush to the time when P2 is fully disconnected from the brush. It is self apparent within those two criteria that the angle for P2 being on the brush MUST be added to the critical angles between the two relevant magnet bisectors.

I have been repeatedly accused of being unable to time my motors because I am confused. The simple fact is this...these factors are out of everyones control. All comm segments, in principle, are connected to the brush from the leading edge of the comm entering the brush to the trailing edge leaving the brush.

Hunting

mark

[Midaztouch]

When you have 2 coils which have 4 coil sides and it is obvious that 2 of those coil sides cancel each other out, it is a no brainer to eliminate those 2 coil sides and go with a single coil of twice the span.

A Single Coil would have much less "span angle" or as I call it Throw Out Angle. You can not just use one single coil and wrap it around EIGHT POLES of that Rotor, it is too wide of a semi air core, half and half steel and air desig

UFO!

6 poles coil for the A1MoGen = "singular coils" will be close the RPMs of the Pair Winds and 7 poles might be faster... "span angles" is not very important because the RPMs are almost the same.


*TORQUE*

ALSO the singular coils = A1MoGen will have around 30% - 40% MORE TORQUE than pair wind... Torque is very important.

FACT: The A1Mo-Gen = singular coils wins huge in toque!

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

Cat & Mouse

[Ufopolitics]

Serious Geometrical Error(s)...

Excellent graphics as always UFO which paint the picture perfectly...AND...we agree, it seems.

I didn't want to go into fractions of degrees when broad principles establishes the point, but I can.

I referred to 'pole angles' as 'A' being 1/28 of 360°...which is 12.857°
The angle between P1C2 and P2C1, I referred to this as 'Z' being '5A' ...which is 64.285°
I notice you have indicated the brush width as being approximately 50% of the comm segment width, not full width as it is in my 12 pole motor. This reduces the sweep angle 'sA' before P2 disconnects from 12.857° to...6.428°

So

X + Z + sA + Y = 7A = 90°

Substituting

X + 64.285° + 6.428° + Y = 90°
X + Y = 19.287°

X is tunable in the region of 5° from previous posts AND
Y wants to be in the region of 20°

Which adds to more than 19.287°

Of course for the 12 pole 2 stator motor X and Y can not squeeze up to accommodate -

'Z' being '5A' being 5/12 of 360° ...which is 150°
The brush width being the comm width 'sA'...which is 30°

So

X + Z + sA + Y = 180°

Substituting

X + 150° + 30° + Y = 180°
X + Y = 0°

And therefore is not achievable.

However the 12 pole motor configured as '4 pole pairs' does work, I've done it. But it is determined by the flawed geometry to be inefficient as the leading coil remains energised past the magnet bisector and therefore contributes drag.

Good Hunting

mark

Mark,

Why you complicate yourself so much?

It is so simple to look at without ANY Commutator nor Brushes.

I am glad We agree up to a certain point, which is 360/28=12.857...as well as Five (5) Total Poles from start repulse bisector PIC2 to P2C1 create a 64.85º Angle. But let´s be even simpler here, so let´s round up 64.85 to exactly 65º

That is all I need friend...no more angles within rotor nor commutator...but NOW, let's go from North Stator Bisector to South Stator Bisector...and we have exactly 90º.

Now let's 'fit' 65.0º of Rotor Interaction Angle within 90º of Stators...from N1 to S1 Stator (which is only Half of Total Rotor Interaction, remember this is a Four(4) Stator)

We set P2C1 Bisector away by 5º (towards rotation) related to North Stator Bisector , meaning we are now at 70º...and now...just the simplest math on this world...

How much is 90º-70º=?

Yes, exactly that... 20º, that's how far we are from South Stator Bisector.

We have 20º to play from either side of both stator's bisectors (which is 90º)

The Commutator for this Motor is based on 56 Elements, NOT 28....Therefore, every Single Pair must attach to TWO Elements.

But this fact does not matter here, we are "fitting" the real magnetic interactions from Rotor within Stator configured Angles.

You can NOT add EVEN 1º MORE TO 64.85º or even rounding to 65º, that is the Rotor MAX Interaction Angle based on Two Pairs being fired at same timing, when it is just one Pair being fired this Angle REDUCES TO Approx. 52º (4 Poles from Bisector to Bisector on One Pair =12.85º X 4= 52º)

I really have absolutely NO IDEA WHY...You have to "KEEP ADDING" Commutators and Brushes angles to 65º from MAX EXTERIOR INTERACTION ANGLES, IF all those Commutator/Brushes Angles are COMPLETELY RELATIVE, as COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO MAGNETIC INTERACTIONS!!??


The wires from Pair Coils to be attached to Commutator Elements-Brushes...I could flex, pull, stretch, Turn them left or right...up or down and connect them wherever I please to do...within interacting angles, or away by 10, 20, 50 100 degrees...it DOES NOT MATTER...that is just an ON-OFF Switching...as a matter of fact one could be in Japan, while the other one in Ireland...don´t care....or be Remote Control by all means...it does NOT ADD NOR SUBTRACT to the REAL MAGNETIC INTERACTIONS taking place.

[IMG][/IMG]

Switches are VERY Relative here, We could install them anywhere... like shown above... Brushes turn, wires expand and reach connections to Comm elements...Commutators turn ...above setting is right at center of Pair Intersection...the MAIN SIDE To Observe here are the MAGNETIC INTERACTIONS taking place between Rotor Coils and Stators.

The only thing the switches are supposed to accomplish...is to Disconnect or Connect when they are commanded to do so.

I have set different positioning of brushes and comm elements here related to every machine different configuration settings...choosing the position would be better to adjust without major complications...making it simple for building.

This confusion you are showing...all is doing is confirming that all your previously built motors have also, something very and seriously wrong within their interactions/timing settings...reason why all your under performance readings.

However, I admire the fact that you DO have the 'audacity' (not to say the balls..)... to start shooting at me,the bringer of this type of winding...and who have a few naked, Imperial Rotors in his Garage...plenty of wire and many, many Geometrical Angle Rulers, and software CAD'S , HD Cameras to demonstrate you ARE WRONG...

Please, think about all this...and do not waste my time insisting now on a Motor Structure you have not even started to work with...?




Ufopolitics

[HuntingRoss]

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

Excellent graphics as always UFO which paint the picture perfectly...AND...we agree, it seems.

I didn't want to go into fractions of degrees when broad principles establishes the point, but I can.

I referred to 'pole angles' as 'A' being 1/28 of 360°...which is 12.857°
The angle between P1C2 and P2C1, I referred to this as 'Z' being '5A' ...which is 64.285°
I notice you have indicated the brush width as being approximately 50% of the comm segment width, not full width as it is in my 12 pole motor. This reduces the sweep angle 'sA' before P2 disconnects from 12.857° to...6.428°

So

X + Z + sA + Y = 7A = 90°

Substituting

X + 64.285° + 6.428° + Y = 90°
X + Y = 19.287°

X is tunable in the region of 5° from previous posts AND
Y wants to be in the region of 20°

Which adds to more than 19.287°

Of course for the 12 pole 2 stator motor X and Y can not squeeze up to accommodate -

'Z' being '5A' being 5/12 of 360° ...which is 150°
The brush width being the comm width 'sA'...which is 30°

So

X + Z + sA + Y = 180°

Substituting

X + 150° + 30° + Y = 180°
X + Y = 0°

And therefore is not achievable.

However the 12 pole motor configured as '4 pole pairs' does work, I've done it. But it is determined by the flawed geometry to be inefficient as the leading coil remains energised past the magnet bisector and therefore contributes drag.

Good Hunting

mark

[Ufopolitics]

Hello UFO,

I knew I would not convince you.

...I was thinking the same exact thing...I would not convince you, no matter my "pretty images"...

That is why I addressed those who would be attempting such a winding. And I suggested they give it a try.

Now, that is wrong Bistander, you have absolutely no right to "influence" others from My Thread here, with your old, ancient science laws...let them experience by themselves...they have been doing it before without you here...trying to "warn" about old concepts.

I did not say the two coils would cancel, but rather that the two coil sides in the common slot would cancel. This equates the 2 coil pair magnetically to a single coil of twice the span. Equal magnetic properties using less copper and being more efficient.

So...let me see if I understand you...You are saying just "That Portion" of each coils would cancel...right?...cancel what to zero?

1- Magnetic Field?

2-Electric Fields?

3-Current flowing through that particular end?

It is not the coils (in their entirety) which produce torque and generate voltage in the dynamo, but rather the coil sides. That is the portion of the coil which is perpendicular to the flux and perpendicular to the motion. In the radial gap motor like we have here, that means that only sections of the coils which are parallel to the shaft do anything constructive. The rest of the coil, commonly called end-turns, is useless magnetically and only needed to complete the electric circuit.

The wrong Concepts again...and again...plus I see you have even some "confused theories" there...what the old physics refers to as "productive side of coils" (Vertical running wires) Relates to Energy Generation (Induction) NOT Motoring Action, not Coils generating A Magnetic Field.

When you have 2 coils which have 4 coil sides and it is obvious that 2 of those coil sides cancel each other out, it is a no brainer to eliminate those 2 coil sides and go with a single coil of twice the span.

Precisely, a Single Coil would have much less "span angle" or as I call it Throw Out Angle. You can not just use one single coil and wrap it around EIGHT POLES of that Rotor, it is too wide of a semi air core, half and half steel and air design.

Maybe your pretty pictures and interesting patterns relate to some phenomena of which I am unaware. However my education and understanding of the principles, like you say, are shared by millions

Unfortunately so....and it is sadly true...

...and have provided the foundation for an electric machine industry which has illuminated and powered the world for over a century with exceptional efficiency. I'll stick with what I know works.

As for this coil question: Easy enough to find out. Somebody winding one of these cores up, please check it out.

bi

Yes, have "provided" the foundation for an electric machine industry...yes...but based on what kind of "PRIME MOVER" has been required for so long to just "TURN" those Generators built for over two Centuries?

Unfortunately, many Generator Designs have being conceived during all this long time...however, all based on the same old, methods...same old concepts.

They all still, require the "herculean" farting machines to run them all...what a wasted time!!!

Efficiency?...please...show me FIRST the "efficiency" of an ICE (Internal Combustion Engine)...and yes, of course... go to the "latest, state of the art" machines...to find out...be my guest...


Anyways...is over...keep thinking the way you are...just get ready for what is coming soon......cause you are one who are not going to be able to discern it...am sure of that as I am writing here now!

But read well my final words below:

...CONFORMISM AND ACCEPTANCE ABOUT ALL THE ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC RULES FOR SO LONG, HAVE BEEN OUR WORST ENEMY FOR ADVANCE, FOR THRIVING, FOR EVOLUTION...

You are a clear example of such Conformism and Acceptance about the "established sciences"...reflected clearly in your last words..


Take care


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

At risk of isolating myself still further.

There are the 'fine' points for consideration and there are the 'broad strokes' of understanding...this is the 'blunt' end of a triangle where general principles live...the sharp end is the 'finer' points.

When designing the timing of a motor the general principles include understanding the geometry of the motor configuration. In this case 28 poles = (360/28)° per pole. The brush will most likely be, or near to be, the full width of the commutator segment. The commutator segment will be (360/28)° wide. To avoid messy fine detail I will call this width 1/28 or more simply angle A.

The 'ON' time for timing our coils can be considered in TWO ways...they are identical expressions of the same thing, simply stated in different ways.

ONE.1 - P1C2 bisector must be past the North Stator bisector according to rotation as P1 comm just enters the brush. I'll call this angle X.
ONE.2 - P2C1 bisector must be before the South Stator bisector according to rotation when the P2 comm just leaves the brush. I'll call this angle Y.

Method ONE therefore considers Coil Pairs P1 and P2 'ON' time from the point of P1 connection upto the point at which P2 has swept off the brush. The sweep angle for P2 is sA. This is the point at which the trailing edge of P2 leaves the brush.

The angle between P1C2 and P2C1 is defined by the geometry of the wind. I'll call this angle Z.

TWO.1 - P1C2 bisector must be past the North Stator bisector according to rotation as P1 comm just enters the brush. I'll call this angle X.
TWO.2 - P1C1 bisector must be before the South Stator bisector according to rotation when the P1 comm just leaves the brush. I'll call this angle Y.

Method TWO therefore ONLY considers Coil Pair P1 'ON' time from the point of P1 connection upto the point at which P1 has swept off the brush. The sweep angle for P1 is 2sA. This is the angle between the leading edge of P1 entering the brush and the point at which the trailing edge of P1 leaves the brush.

The angle between P1C2 and P1C1 is defined by the geometry of the wind. I'll call this angle W.

The 3 periods of one Coil Pair, method TWO is (just connecting, fully connected, just disconnecting) which is the exactly the same as expressing the connection of P1 (just connecting) and the passage of P2 (fully connected, just disconnected). Or more simply, P1 (just connecting), P2 (fully connected) and P3 (just disconnected).

To express these TWO methods as simple formulae -

W = 4A
Z = 5A
sA = A

ONE. X + Z + sA + Y = 7A
TWO. X + W + 2sA + Y = 7A

Substituting for W, sA and Z

X + 5A + A + Y = X + 4A + 2A + Y = 7A = 90°

Considering the effect of P2 is just understanding the effect of P1, (1/28)° in the future. Understanding that P3 has just disconnected is just understanding the future of P1 (2/28)° in the future.

All that is required to understand the 'OFF' time is to appreciate that every coil group is connected to its comm segment for just under 2 pole angles. In this case (2/28)° past the P1C1 'ON' position.

This has been presented in 'broad strokes'. The finer detail should also consider that brush width affects 'ON' time. The narrower the brush width the shorter the 'ON' time. Another major consideration is the geometry on the face of the brush. A new brush will not hug the comm for it's full width which has the same affect as narrowing the brush. The seating of a brush will affect the timing of a motor as the brush becomes a closer fit to the comm segments.

Unless I have made a SERIOUS error. There appears to be a fundamental flaw in the timing of '4 pole pairs' geometry. Lapping pairs is the only solution I see to '4 pole pairs' motors.

Good Hunting

mark

[IMG][/IMG]


[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

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


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

This Two Coils are Projecting Both a North INDEPENDENT FIELD Towards the interacting area to Stators, and the Fact that just in a very small portion (side as you cite) of its structure they have "Opposite Current Flows", do not mean the WHOLE Coil is just going to cancel to Zero.

In order for Two Coils to Zero Out or "Cancel" their Magnetic Fields:

Hello UFO,

I knew I would not convince you. That is why I addressed those who would be attempting such a winding. And I suggested they give it a try.

I did not say the two coils would cancel, but rather that the two coil sides in the common slot would cancel. This equates the 2 coil pair magnetically to a single coil of twice the span. Equal magnetic properties using less copper and being more efficient.

It is not the coils (in their entirety) which produce torque and generate voltage in the dynamo, but rather the coil sides. That is the portion of the coil which is perpendicular to the flux and perpendicular to the motion. In the radial gap motor like we have here, that means that only sections of the coils which are parallel to the shaft do anything constructive. The rest of the coil, commonly called end-turns, is useless magnetically and only needed to complete the electric circuit.

When you have 2 coils which have 4 coil sides and it is obvious that 2 of those coil sides cancel each other out, it is a no brainer to eliminate those 2 coil sides and go with a single coil of twice the span.

Maybe your pretty pictures and interesting patterns relate to some phenomena of which I am unaware. However my education and understanding of the principles, like you say, are shared by millions and have provided the foundation for an electric machine industry which has illuminated and powered the world for over a century with exceptional efficiency. I'll stick with what I know works.

As for this coil question: Easy enough to find out. Somebody winding one of these cores up, please check it out.

bi

[Ufopolitics]

The Real Cancellation of Magnetic Fields...

I have seen where UFO does not believe in magnetic circuits and as such, I doubt he recognizes Ampere's Law as valid because the left side of the equation is a magnetic circuit. So this addresses others who may consider this coil configuration.

Bistander,

You are completely bounded to the 'Old School" friend...Your based info from the wrong sources that have been established for over 200 years, and I understand it...all I ask is a little "Open Mind" here...

FIRST, I DO BELIEVE IN MAGNETIC CIRCUITS, BUT, NOT ACCORDING TO THE OLD ESTABLISHED "DATA", since this "Data" WAS and still IS WRONG!

I will start teaching (or at least "trying to") and show this stuff from the basic, simple data we had WRONG for so long.

You (as million people out there) are 'bound' to the wrong magnetic field model:

[IMG][/IMG]

Above: Magnetic Field seen through iron particles and a piece of paper, 'denoting' the Field Configuration, therefore, the Model was translated into:

[IMG][/IMG]

So, this two images above represent the "Magnetic Circuit" as we all have observed for 224 years...IGNORING "BLOCH", DOMAIN OR DIELECTRIC WALLS...

But, even more errors were added besides the wrong 'lines of force' formation by iron filings...Oh no!...but they further on 'concluded' without any substantial proof that the FLOW will take place FROM NORTH TO SOUTH...as seen the arrows above following a ONE WAY direction...

This concept when translated into 'typical' electric circuits will mean that North is the "Source" while South is the "Drain"...Or even say North is Positive (+) and South is Negative (-) right?...right...so then...explain to me why we still have a very solid repulsion field between two South Poles?...

We shouldn't have "any flow" at all, between two Drain sides without any "Source" being involved.

Even more simple...Two Negative charged end terminals will NOT do absolutely NADA...not even a very dim spark when making contact...

Then, concluding Two South Poles should do as well...absolutely nada, no attraction nor repulsion either...(according to 'stated' direction of flow)

We all know this 'no field interaction' between two South poles never takes place...Two South Poles will repel as stronger as Two North Poles...it is a FACT!

However...We all accepted this very wrong THEORIES.

Now, please, allow me to "ENLIGHTEN" your mind, by Enlightening the Real Magnetic Field Spectrum:

When magnets are screened under a Magnetic Viewing Film...then the whole "picture" changes COMPLETELY

[IMG][/IMG]

In above Image we see CLEARLY how North and South Poles are NOT CONNECTED AT ALL!!, They just travel back to the MAIN SOURCE OF ANY MAGNET...The Dielectric Plane.

Therefore, North Polarization is a Completely Independent Circuit from South Pole.

This could also be demonstrated from FERROCELL Viewing...

[IMG][/IMG]

And by Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Screening:

[IMG][/IMG]

SAME THING, BUT BETTER, I mean much better way to analyze a Magnetic Field from Polarized Light Divergence...and not from iron particles which magnetize just like the magnet is oriented...then, absolutely clear they are gonna form "bridges" between.

All of this SOPHISTICATED MODERN METHODS demonstrate that North and South are TWO COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT "CIRCUITS", ONLY "connected' to the center "counter-space" plane that exist in every single magnetic field out there.

Now, do you understand all of the above??!!...because if you don't...then you will never accept the way magnetic 'circuits' really work...THEREFORE...You will NEVER be able to understand all this New Technology.

And... I will be completely wasting my Time...

The way I understand the diagram and surrounding description, 2 coils wound in the same direction are placed in between comm segments to form an armature "element". These 2 coils are in series with each other and each spans 4 armature teeth with a side of each coil sharing a common armature slot. That is shown in the diagram as a slot labelled P1 for the dark blue coil pair on the left. Slot P1 is at about the 9:00 o'clock position. Side 1 of the lower dark blue coil of the pair is 4 slots counterclockwise from P1 and side 2 of the upper dark blue coil of the pair is 4 slots clockwise from P1. So side 2 from the lower coil shares slot P1 with side 1 of the upper coil of the dark blue pair. These 2 coil sides have equal and opposite direction current flowing in them. Therefore they cancel out. Those 2 coils sides contribute no torque production. All they do is add heat and drop voltage.

It is much better to use a single coil with its 2 sides 8 slots apart. Less copper will be needed for the same torque production and higher generated voltage will be seen due to reduced coil resistance. Better still, save a bit more copper and increase torque a tad by making the single coil span only 7 slots. Over corded coils are rarely a good idea.

So as UFO says, in red, test it out. Compare the coil pair to a single coil of twice the span, same turns, same timing.

The "way you understand" how this Two Coils standing next to each others, running opposite side "flow":

These 2 coil sides have equal and opposite direction current flowing in them. Therefore they cancel out. Those 2 coils sides contribute no torque production. All they do is add heat and drop voltage.

Negative, I can proof this Method Works perfectly fine, anytime...then, would that change the way you "think" about this "Old School"?!

This Two Coils are Projecting Both a North INDEPENDENT FIELD Towards the interacting area to Stators, and the Fact that just in a very small portion (side as you cite) of its structure they have "Opposite Current Flows", do not mean the WHOLE Coil is just going to cancel to Zero.

In order for Two Coils to Zero Out or "Cancel" their Magnetic Fields:

[IMG][/IMG]

On above Img, we see first on LEFT a Coil Circuit (C1) energized according to terminals shown, and magnetizing an Iron Cylinder, then producing a Magnetic Field and each respective INDEPENDENT Vectors of Force...One for N, and other for South.

Well, on RIGHT IMG, the same exact Coil (C1) plus another one, (C2) identical in feeding source, EXCEPT, it is reversed Spatially or Geometrically therefore generating Identical in strength, BUT Opposite Directions Vectors of Force.

Magnetic Field is then "KILLED" gone, history...cancelled to an exact ZERO.

But, in order for this to Occur...there must be some critical properties that must be present.

1- Both Coils must be Projecting completely Opposite Vectors of Force (B-Fields) coming out from THE CENTER OF COILS.

2-Both Coils MUST BE SHARING the SAME EXACT FERROMAGNETIC CORE. Meaning Both Fields must be generated WITHIN THE SAME EXACT 3D GEOMETRY. (in order that Dielectric Planes are set identically at Center of Geometry)

Anything "outside" this Two required Statements above, including to even 'distort' the opposite projecting Angles from both Vectors of Force will result in a Non Zero, nor cancelling of both forces.

We have been doing this "fooling" of cancellation between two independent circuit coils on this Thread back and forth, and all along ALL the Asymmetric Models shown to work BEAUTIFULLY!!

We have "BENT" Magnetic Fields Vectors of Force to avoid Cancellation by exactly a perfect "U TURN" at 180º, 90º, 45º etc,etc...right at, or before the Shafts of each Asymmetric displayed rotor here.

You just have not 'noticed' those facts...

Keep "trying" to understand this New Technology...you still have a looong way to go...and wish you the best of luck!...

Just at least try to be a little "Open Minded" believe me...it will help a lot!

OH!...and if you have the time...please allow me to HIGHLY recommend to go to:

UNCOVERING THE MISSING SECRETS OF MAGNETISM

Please, download the FREE E-BOOK, from Ken Wheeler and do me a big favor...read it.

Then come back here again to discuss...so we are -at least- on 'similar' levels of understanding.


Ufopolitics

[JC4me]

Hello to All,

Previously I have shown a possibility of overlapping the Pairs in the All North Imperial shown below:

[IMG][/IMG]

This 'Overlapping' of the All North Pairs were seen working fine before in the AN1 Model smaller Radio Shack Five Poles, done by Garry Childers, by doing this we are bringing to a more compact formation of All Four Coils Bisectors taking place when we are firing Two Pairs.

[IMG][/IMG]

We see above a frame from the video of the Five Pole 3D Model, it is noticed that each Coil in the Pair is sharing One(1) Common Pole, meaning, overlapping by one pole. That was the AN1 Configuration.

However, when applying this concept from a five pole rotor and two stators to a 28 pole rotor and four stators...we have much more possibilities to play with searching for better Gaps to time machine, looking for that 'Sweet Spot' reducing Amps draw, without sacrificing Top Performances from RPM's and Torque.

In above Diagram of Imperial, each Coil in the Pair is wrapped around Five Poles, as there are Three (3) common poles 'Shared' between both coils in the Pair, and we understand this is "modifiable", by interlacing/overlapping coils either closer together or further apart, in order to expand or contract all four bisectors, by having either more common coils or less common coils.

So, We can have up to Four (4) Common Poles in the Pair (very compact Bisectors, Widest margin to set timing) or up to just One (1) Common Pole (Max Expanded Arrangement of Bisectors, Narrowest Margin to set Timing).

However, We must understand that by narrowing Bisectors (more shared or common poles) We are reducing the Throw Out Angles which would cause a reduction in overall speed or RPM's...and a Gain in Torque...BUT, again, We have quite some probabilities to test there.

This is it, for the All North Imperial Overlapped Coils in the Pair ...However, I will show in a continued post, another way to wind the All North, not overlapped, which is simpler to do...You guys decide which way to test first.


Regards to All


Ufopolitics

Thanks UFO and Gary and Richard,
This Imperial 28 poles with 5 pole groups and 3 overlap, could this be called 28-5AN3, or just AN3?

"This is it" - the best all-North for generator or fixed RPM applications is what i derived, and the next second post is a Beta trial for better electric vehicle, maybe testing would show, if someone does it soon, i read.

I've watched the Winding Tutorial videos 1-3. Please tell me why did you route wires at top Commutator across two adjacent segments? I am stumped. Thanks for warning not to wind anything yet, and that all-North is best, and 28-5AN3 best for Imperial with fixed RPM's.

I called Imperial today when Dyann did not reply; she is out of office and checking e-mail, but the other lady there knew not about the "UFO Kit". I could have provided all the part numbers, but just asked her to see if Dyann could help take this kit order this week, and today is Friday now.

I chose this Imperial wind because UFO kindly advised it as easiest per available in pieces as a kit. This huge motor i might never be able to use well, so i assume a generator load, or a Bedini 1984 Free Energy Generator type setup. Still worth it just to learn this easier. I suppose i could try the Beta wind. I'm already thinking i should wind at least two, and have one stock to show how much it sucks. Must throttle down spending.

and

PS - I am stuck trying to self-run a Window Motor with Lockridge style coil orientation, almost ready to try generator coil shorting and un-shorting to charge Cap's faster to sustain the battery better with the famed electron current / ion current hysteresis. Hopefully before adding an energizer on the output shaft. If anyone JB Planetary Motor / 1984FEG savvy, please PM me. If you can think of a way to Asymm a Window Motor, besides abandoning bi-polar switching as i already have, let me know. I saw the Asymm Brushless vid, and so maybe there is an asymmetric Window Motor way.

Thanks again,

-Ward

[Midaztouch]

I have seen where UFO does not believe in magnetic circuits and as such, I doubt he recognizes Ampere's Law as valid because the left side of the equation is a magnetic circuit. So this addresses others who may consider this coil configuration.

The way I understand the diagram and surrounding description, 2 coils wound in the same direction are placed in between comm segments to form an armature "element". These 2 coils are in series with each other and each spans 4 armature teeth with a side of each coil sharing a common armature slot. That is shown in the diagram as a slot labelled P1 for the dark blue coil pair on the left. Slot P1 is at about the 9:00 o'clock position. Side 1 of the lower dark blue coil of the pair is 4 slots counterclockwise from P1 and side 2 of the upper dark blue coil of the pair is 4 slots clockwise from P1. So side 2 from the lower coil shares slot P1 with side 1 of the upper coil of the dark blue pair. These 2 coil sides have equal and opposite direction current flowing in them. Therefore they cancel out. Those 2 coils sides contribute no torque production. All they do is add heat and drop voltage.

It is much better to use a single coil with its 2 sides 8 slots apart. Less copper will be needed for the same torque production and higher generated voltage will be seen due to reduced coil resistance. Better still, save a bit more copper and increase torque a tad by making the single coil span only 7 slots. Over corded coils are rarely a good idea.

So as UFO says, in red, test it out. Compare the coil pair to a single coil of twice the span, same turns, same timing.

Just to expand a little on bistanders thoughts.

A1MoGen = Singular Coils, you get less voltage drop also.



Quick up date on the A1MoGen EV build with battery configurations.
(Front sprocket on the A1Mogen must be aligned with the rear sprocket for perfect chain alignment... after spring vacation.)
[VIDEO]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fVPJpfpG968[/VIDEO]

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

[bistander]

Coil sides cancel

Ok, so We also have this "Fixed" Method, (separated, not overlapped) coils, by wrapping every Four (4) Poles Coils in the Pair:

[IMG][/IMG]

So, on this Method We MUST TEST FIRST before engaging into Full Winding, by checking IF P2 and P16 (Leaving Pairs according to Rotation) get FULLY Disconnected BEFORE even reaching each related Coil#1 Bisector NOT TO ALIGN with South Bisector Stator!!!

I have seen where UFO does not believe in magnetic circuits and as such, I doubt he recognizes Ampere's Law as valid because the left side of the equation is a magnetic circuit. So this addresses others who may consider this coil configuration.

The way I understand the diagram and surrounding description, 2 coils wound in the same direction are placed in between comm segments to form an armature "element". These 2 coils are in series with each other and each spans 4 armature teeth with a side of each coil sharing a common armature slot. That is shown in the diagram as a slot labelled P1 for the dark blue coil pair on the left. Slot P1 is at about the 9:00 o'clock position. Side 1 of the lower dark blue coil of the pair is 4 slots counterclockwise from P1 and side 2 of the upper dark blue coil of the pair is 4 slots clockwise from P1. So side 2 from the lower coil shares slot P1 with side 1 of the upper coil of the dark blue pair. These 2 coil sides have equal and opposite direction current flowing in them. Therefore they cancel out. Those 2 coils sides contribute no torque production. All they do is add heat and drop voltage.

It is much better to use a single coil with its 2 sides 8 slots apart. Less copper will be needed for the same torque production and higher generated voltage will be seen due to reduced coil resistance. Better still, save a bit more copper and increase torque a tad by making the single coil span only 7 slots. Over corded coils are rarely a good idea.

So as UFO says, in red, test it out. Compare the coil pair to a single coil of twice the span, same turns, same timing.

[sampojo]

motor temperature of Garry's Goldmines

I would be very curious about the running temperature of the Goldmines AN-1 or 2. If you think the motors can sustain continuous operation type tests where they come up to a stable temperature without burning up, I would like to ask if you can work it in, to take the temperature of an OEM, an AN running at the next best (higher amp) setting and the low amp setting, and see there differences.

If it is running on more radiant energy at the low amp setting, it would be "cold" electricity. So not only would it be running cooler due to lower amps, but be cooled by the cold electricity too. I think the electricity's cold effect is because it is taking electrical energy from the environment, which manifests as a temperature reduction. Maybe there is a surprise to be found here.

My QUP-10 motor runs a little hot, started some tuning tests, break-in runs, etc. And it feels very hot holding it in my hand. I take its temperature on the body, says 99 deg. What? thats just body temperature, how could that feel hot? fingers temp says 96 before I touch it. Nerves must be feeling the higher heat content of the metal. Brushes at 128. shaft/bearing 110. All these must be OK for a motor, not hurt the magnets? hopefully Back at it by the weekend...

@Ufo: Re: Post 7576 AN-1 & AN-2 comparison is PERFECTO. I had totally missed AN-2's performance on the video. Didn't see it until the spreadsheets were posted.