My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines

[Midaztouch]

@Midaz
I do not know what is going to be proven by this. Here is the uncut run of the AN1 Timing Setting One. This has all three tests rolled into one. First I switch on the motor brush pair and then run it for 30 seconds. Then I switch off the motor brush pair and switch on the generator brush pair for 30 seconds. Then I switch the motor brush pair back on and this is the test for both brush pairs. After about 30 seconds I switch the camera off. Hopefully it will give you what you want. Although it has been my experience that once someone's mind is made up they won't believe no matter how many times or ways you prove it to them.

Here is the AN1 TS2
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9mp7yxkmsj...ng2CW.wmv?dl=0
Here is the AN2 TS1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eekonalyvv...ng1CW.wmv?dl=0

Let me correct you on how long I have been actively involved in this thread. I started following this thread in November 2012. At first I was skeptical as I read the thread. I decided to order my first 4 goldmine motors in January 2013 and went to Radio Shack and purchased the wire to rewind the rotors. I had my first two replications done by the end of the week following receiving my goldmine motors. I was working at the time and this was just a hobby that I followed with some interest. These two replications were pitiful, I just wired the end caps together with bailing wire.
I have posted pictures of my builds although video documentation is a new venture for me. I was actively building the John Stone Monster Drives when CornBoy got his personal tutelage from Sir John Stone I built my first two at the same time. I have developed software for the Arduino for a test bed. After it was said to be too complex and Dana was having problems with the motor revving I decided to build two more replications, The NSRS wind and then a Y wind 4 Rotor extremely long model of the goldmine. A very difficult and trying replication. All of my replications have been successful and all have had more torque than the standard goldmine. Recently I built all of the Rotors for "The Battle of the Windings" to put to rest the nonsense that I have been hearing from people on this thread since I first started reading it. I myself am certain of the results that I am posting. I have no axe to grind in this competition. I am still learning even from you believe it or not. I have no problem with your winding I think it is viable. I will be applying even more stringent testing to the Imperial when I put both the AN1 and AN2 windings in it. I have decided that both of these rotors are worthy of pursuit. May the best winding win.

Cheers

Garry

Are you kidding me!? I want to believe you but... You have to do a side by side with you connecting and disconnecting motors in the video.

The RPMs jumped over a 1000rmps in BOTH vid's and the amps meter doesn't fluctuate a lot !?
.08 - .09 readings... That is major, incredible, fantastic and out of this world! Prove it without a shadow of a doubt!

Furthermore, you did the quad blink program and no one could get it to work. When they asked for your help, you disappeared! All your work is suspect to me so far. NG!.. If you smell smoke there's usually a fire!

Midaz

Grown men believe in UFOs. Small children believe in flying unicorns.

[HuntingRoss]

Timing 4 pole Pairs

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

[GChilders]

The uncut too good to be true Videos

@Midaz
I do not know what is going to be proven by this. Here is the uncut run of the AN1 Timing Setting One. This has all three tests rolled into one. First I switch on the motor brush pair and then run it for 30 seconds. Then I switch off the motor brush pair and switch on the generator brush pair for 30 seconds. Then I switch the motor brush pair back on and this is the test for both brush pairs. After about 30 seconds I switch the camera off. Hopefully it will give you what you want. Although it has been my experience that once someone's mind is made up they won't believe no matter how many times or ways you prove it to them.

Here is the AN1 TS2
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9mp7yxkmsj...ng2CW.wmv?dl=0
Here is the AN2 TS1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eekonalyvv...ng1CW.wmv?dl=0

Let me correct you on how long I have been actively involved in this thread. I started following this thread in November 2012. At first I was skeptical as I read the thread. I decided to order my first 4 goldmine motors in January 2013 and went to Radio Shack and purchased the wire to rewind the rotors. I had my first two replications done by the end of the week following receiving my goldmine motors. I was working at the time and this was just a hobby that I followed with some interest. These two replications were pitiful, I just wired the end caps together with bailing wire.
I have posted pictures of my builds although video documentation is a new venture for me. I was actively building the John Stone Monster Drives when CornBoy got his personal tutelage from Sir John Stone I built my first two at the same time. I have developed software for the Arduino for a test bed. After it was said to be too complex and Dana was having problems with the motor revving I decided to build two more replications, The NSRS wind and then a Y wind 4 Rotor extremely long model of the goldmine. A very difficult and trying replication. All of my replications have been successful and all have had more torque than the standard goldmine. Recently I built all of the Rotors for "The Battle of the Windings" to put to rest the nonsense that I have been hearing from people on this thread since I first started reading it. I myself am certain of the results that I am posting. I have no axe to grind in this competition. I am still learning even from you believe it or not. I have no problem with your winding I think it is viable. I will be applying even more stringent testing to the Imperial when I put both the AN1 and AN2 windings in it. I have decided that both of these rotors are worthy of pursuit. May the best winding win.

Cheers

Garry

[Midaztouch]

@Midaz and UFO
Those numbers are off of the video I already posted "The Battle of the Windings- The Timing contest". Look it up for yourself. These numbers are off of the clamp ammeter that I used for all of tests. All that I can say is I ran this timing test on both the AN1 and the AN2 numerous times because I couldn't believe it myself. Look up all of the numbers posted in those charts and you will see them as clear as day on the video. Science fiction I suppose it is if you cannot trust the meters but wouldn't that apply to all meters. They simply sample the current. Wow I did not think that you would doubt it. Well if that is the response I get from the people actually involved in this technology I can only imagine what others are thinking. I did not cherry pick the results by the way I ran all of these tests in the same order that they appear. All that I did was cut the middle 10 second section out of each run let the chips fall where they may. Read the numbers off of the meters for yourself. If you wish run the tests yourself, build a model with adjustable timing and see what you come up with yourself. Read em and weep as they say the same set up was used on all of the windings. The same length of copper used on all of them. The only difference is the two commutators for the asymmetric motors, the ability to fine tune the brush position, and the windings themselves.

Cheers

Garry

Garry

You have been around here only for a few months. So maybe you don't know... It's like standard procedure to ask you for a complete video showing both motors reaching those super low AMPS in one vid.

If the skeptics ask you, They ain't nice! With "PROVE IT!!!" in giant bold red letters and them talking their BS.

Since you know the settings, do a continuous vid showing with both motors, one after the other, duplicating your, "TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE", timing .08 amps results. Connect and disconnect your AN1 and AN2 three times. That will clear the air for sure

No excuses, do it for your team. You have the spot light.

Good Luck

Midaz

You must be able to duplicate your results on command or you will be labeled as a "FRAUD". No one is exempt!
That's the magic of Energetic Forum.

[GChilders]

Posting a video???? It has already been done!!!!

@Midaz and UFO
Those numbers are off of the video I already posted "The Battle of the Windings- The Timing contest". Look it up for yourself. These numbers are off of the clamp ammeter that I used for all of tests. All that I can say is I ran this timing test on both the AN1 and the AN2 numerous times because I couldn't believe it myself. Look up all of the numbers posted in those charts and you will see them as clear as day on the video. Science fiction I suppose it is if you cannot trust the meters but wouldn't that apply to all meters. They simply sample the current. Wow I did not think that you would doubt it. Well if that is the response I get from the people actually involved in this technology I can only imagine what others are thinking. I did not cherry pick the results by the way I ran all of these tests in the same order that they appear. All that I did was cut the middle 10 second section out of each run let the chips fall where they may. Read the numbers off of the meters for yourself. If you wish run the tests yourself, build a model with adjustable timing and see what you come up with yourself. Read em and weep as they say the same set up was used on all of the windings. The same length of copper used on all of them. The only difference is the two commutators for the asymmetric motors, the ability to fine tune the brush position, and the windings themselves.

Cheers

Garry

[Ufopolitics]

Imperial P56 All N Asymmetric Winding Possibilities_2

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!!!

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.


I will try sometime this week or next to do this simple testing...not sure, because I have not assembled yet rotor with commutators, nor check for free rotation on casing...therefore, can not guarantee I could make test within that frame of time...so, if any of you having an Imperial wants to check it out, please do that huge favor to our whole Team here...to either consider this type or disregard it as a NOT WORKING METHOD.

The purpose of this Two continuing Posts is to decide the perfect setting from the BEST METHOD for our excellent Imperial Machine...in order that it could be tested against each application we choose to do.

Is understood that those who want to use Imperial as a Prime Mover for a Generator Head...must consider a Winding Set up within the Narrower Margins from first post (Part 1), since the required Speed Range is going to be FIXED between 3600-4200 RPM's, but, with very High Torque Output, required at Heavier Loading/Close to limits output at Generator Head terminals.

As for those looking to install Imperial in any kind of Electric Vehicle, including Motorcycles...the 'opposite' applies, meaning Wider spreading of Bisectors between Two Pairs should be considered.

I particularly feel more comfortable with First Method, since it is really "Flexible" for each application required, the 'odd part' is that we must test room capacity when overlapping coils and see how many turns could fit at the time to finish ending Pairs...have to realize by overlapping we are creating more 'bulge' of copper which tends to reduce space.

I know it is quite some "adventure project" we are getting involved here...but hey, I believe it is worth pursuing what we are all searching for in the end of all this "saga"...


Regards to All


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Imperial P56 All N Asymmetric Winding Possibilities_1

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

[Midaztouch]

@Midaz
Sorry that you are disappointed with the contest so far.

I wasn't disappointed. After all of my hard work, I was relieved! Your work further proves my theory is headed in the correct direction...

Hi RPMs with no torque = razzle dazzle. ALL of the skeptics were beating that drum! The problem was the Torque tests in the past. Pay attention to the thread.

I wish to get on with my modification of the Imperial also. Should have it completed by May 15. And then I will put both of the rotors to work under load. I am certain that under load the AN1 will out perform the AN2 in my Quad.

You might Think you have a good idea what your talking about. The A1MoGen design can match the RPMs of the pair winding, when it comes to 4 magnet motors.

But unlike you who has never tested either motor in a controlled environment, I will. And then I will make both versions known after timing them both to the best performance.

You have to put up a vid of your .08 amp draw. I agree with UFO, it's kind of hard to believe. Prove it!

I do not need to have my ego massaged as I have not boasted about my motor being superior to the master's before actually building one. Such an ego. "Pride goeth before the destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall". I have said that I think both windings are exceptional, and one may outperform the other. All of the ratings that I have read about small motors use the RPM/KV which is how many 1000RPM per Volt. In small motors the load is so light that few manufacturers use HP or Torque ratings in their motors. Large motors are a different.

Ive been here learning in the front row for over 2yrs and I've studies anything I could get my hands on and read, every and anywhere. That's why I made the A1MoGen design... On my own. No help... Tesla mastered this and he's dead. I'm just doing his work.

But honestly I think that the AN1 will outperform even in the torque. But I may be speaking out of school.

You have no idea. Big 4 magnet motors there is a 30% - 40% differance in torque! A1MoGen design wins!... And I already know how to match the RPMs of the pair wind! And, So what your saying, is???...

Well I received a part that I have been wanting to receive for over three weeks. This part will enable to shut the mouth's of those who believe that the symmetrical motor will out perform under load. I knew that this would come up and I had a plan to deal with it all along, just not the ability to implement it. Today I received two 4mm to 4mm u joints to be used to join my 4 rotor y wind motor shaft as a load to my other winds as prime movers to put a load test to see which winding will pull this load best.

Lets get it on!

I do not know but we will all know by the end of the week. I am sure if the AN1 outperforms in this test you will come up with another excuse for the AN2 underperforming. Well I am off to do some more tests.

So, you can shut me up, work with me and follow MY directions when you build MY A1MoGen design. Since, I'm the only person on the planet that has an A1MoGen working

Cheers

Garry

Would you like to make a small bet!? ... I always check the "calculated risk" before I put my money where my mouth is!

It's like Floyd "Money" Mayweather taking a candy "sucker" from a baby Pac-Man... A sucker bet!

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

Gary, Your are always long winded when it come to...ME! You want Midaz!? Well here's your chance.

[Ufopolitics]

Full UFO Kit

Thank you MachineAlive and UFO for linking back to this post. Questions / please clarify:

Don't i need to order Qty = 2 of other items like:
-0515032 brush assembly $34.00?
-0514120 com bracket assembly $58.15?
-0541008 driver end bracket assembly $24.85
-0582036 com bracket cover $4.00

Also what about Motor Body? Is it the Stator Core Assembly with magnets inside the Motor Body?

I am starting with no motor and no parts. Thanks,

-Ward

Hello JC4me,

A UFO Kit contains everything you need to put together an Asymmetric Imperial, except for the wire to wind it...plus some small fasteners...bolts, nuts washers, etc.

The Rotor Assy is just the Armature and Shaft, no commutators, no fan, which is not required since that space would be to install the second commutator.

The Housing Assy comes with Outer Casing (Main Frame), with all Four Stators Magnets installed, plus ONE end Aluminum Cap for the Commutator End, that contains One set of Brushes(4) plus mounting board.

That is why you need an extra Brush Set, plus the Mounting Board

Bearings must be pressed in.

You just need ONE Drive End Bracket (Steel End Plate), that is where you will mount the Brush board and brushes for the second commutator.

Comm bracket cover is just the cover for the Original Brush End plate which is Aluminum.

You will need to watch my first video assembling the whole motor HERE

YT Video Player for link above:

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va4kawoj0-I[/VIDEO]

Forget about first 1:48 Min of video since I am explaining how to extract the rear fan...on an existing OEM Complete Motor assy (UFO Kit was not available then)

Then you watch the final assy and first run.:

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnk2xsbsolk[/VIDEO]

Additional to UFO Kit you will need some small bolts/nuts to reinforce brush brass housings to board, they are riveted from factory...I do not like it for a motor that will go Three times over the RPM's of the OEM (2400)...plus you will need the mounting bolts for brush board to steel drive end plate after drilling holes and Tap a thread on it....I explain it all on videos.

Just get all the mechanical structuring aligned well and smooth,but please do NOT do any winding yet...as the All North supersedes the winding shown on all three tutorial videos, which is North-South Coils...However you could watch videos so you get familiar with winding this motor.

Winding Tutorial 1

Winding Tutorial Part 2

Winding Tutorial 3

Make sure you tell Dyann to pack this with as much bubble wrap and VERY COMPACT as possible, basically the Commutators and the rotor drum.

And to please ADD A FRAGILE SIGN ON THIS, even though is quite heavy.

The UPS guy dropped in the front of my house like dumping a garbage 55 galon drum!!


Hope you get it all fine, let Us know


Thanks


Ufopolitics

[GChilders]

ufo kit

@JC4me
The ufo kit comes with every thing you need except wire, wedges, and the ability to modify the opposite end to fit the second brush holder. Mine came with 2 complete sets of bearings, 2 brush holders each holds 4 brushes, and the stator assembly is the magnets with the steel tubing that mounts the magnets and the brush holder end and the end opposite of the brush holder end. It also comes with two commutators and the rotor. There is not a whole lot of modification to do on this motor compared to the goldmine or radio shack motors.
@Midaz
Sorry that you are disappointed with the contest so far. I wish to get on with my modification of the Imperial also. Should have it completed by May 15. And then I will put both of the rotors to work under load. I am certain that under load the AN1 will out perform the AN2 in my Quad. But unlike you who has never tested either motor in a controlled environment, I will. And then I will make both versions known after timing them both to the best performance. I do not need to have my ego massaged as I have not boasted about my motor being superior to the master's before actually building one. Such an ego. "Pride goeth before the destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall". I have said that I think both windings are exceptional, and one may outperform the other. All of the ratings that I have read about small motors use the RPM/KV which is how many 1000RPM per Volt. In small motors the load is so light that few manufacturers use HP or Torque ratings in their motors. Large motors are a different matter. Even the Imperial does not have a torque rating and only has a horsepower rating along with the usual amp and volt and rpm spec's.
Here are the manufacturers spec's


Show me a single torque spec. It is important, but the application for this motor is probably for a 3/4 to 4 hp tool of some kind. This method will certainly outperform these methods. I wish you good success on this build. But honestly I think that the AN1 will outperform even in the torque. But I may be speaking out of school.
Well I received a part that I have been wanting to receive for over three weeks. This part will enable to shut the mouth's of those who believe that the symmetrical motor will out perform under load. I knew that this would come up and I had a plan to deal with it all along, just not the ability to implement it. Today I received two 4mm to 4mm u joints to be used to join my 4 rotor y wind motor shaft as a load to my other winds as prime movers to put a load test to see which winding will pull this load best. I do not know but we will all know by the end of the week. I am sure if the AN1 outperforms in this test you will come up with another excuse for the AN2 underperforming. Well I am off to do some more tests.

Cheers

Garry

[JC4me]

@dllabarre and all

I'm sure everything has been worked out at imperial, Dyanne emailed me and I had mine shipped this week.

So, here it is again.

DeRosa, Dyann Email: derosad@imperialelectric.com

Just ask for UFO kit and this is what you get.

0510052 rotor core assembly $ 35.00
0502029 stator core assembly $ 49.15
0566001 bearing $4.00
0566000 bearing $4.00
0567028c comms 2@$24.00 $48.00
0515032 brush assembly $34.00
0596081 1/4"x 1" key $2.00
0596093 long bolt 2@2.00 $4.00
0514120 com bracket assembly $58.15
0541008 driver end bracket assembly $24.85
0582036 com bracket cover $4.00

Total $267.15

If you want just the motor, factory, and symmetrically wound , #P56MD003its now $378.50.

Mine should be here any day.

Thank you MachineAlive and UFO for linking back to this post. Questions / please clarify:

Don't i need to order Qty = 2 of other items like:
-0515032 brush assembly $34.00?
-0514120 com bracket assembly $58.15?
-0541008 driver end bracket assembly $24.85
-0582036 com bracket cover $4.00

Also what about Motor Body? Is it the Stator Core Assembly with magnets inside the Motor Body?

I am starting with no motor and no parts. Thanks,

-Ward

[Ufopolitics]

RPM's versus Torque...

The purpose of an electric motor is to convert electrical energy into mechanical energy as efficiently as possible. The measure of that output is torque.

As a novice builder some months ago, I was under the impression that revs equals torque. However. High revs does not necessarily equate to high torque.

There is a belief that calculating RPM/W is a good guide to the motors performance against a benchmark, usually the unmodified OEM baseline.

It's my assertion that the best method of comparison is Torque/Watt ratio. Not RPM/Watt ratio which can mislead.

Happy Hunting

mark

Hello again Mark,

I wanted to just cite your paragraph above...about RPM's versus Torque, for a brief comment.

It is very well known that We can "trade" RPM's and directly convert them into real higher Torque. This is done in every single Hand Power Drill out there as a very simple example, but there is more and less complex methods like Bike's have gears to modify speed/torque...or as an Automotive needs a Transmission to move around town through different driving topography.

Symmetry could make a very fast motor, but with very poor torque, since both parameters are inverse proportioned. Since a Heavy Torque Symmetric would require a very heavy machine (more smaller but heavier coils and heavier magnets) they solve this issue by connecting a high speed motor geared shaft into a very complicated gear box that would "do the job"...of reducing RPM's and achieving a very high torque.

I know you know about this as many here, however, I just wanted to bring up that by having a very high speed machine is an advantage over a slower one for this transferring purposes.

However, IF the machine we connect into that gear box is fast and have more torque than...the OEM, then the Torque will be duplicated to what used to be with just higher Rpm's lower Torque...


Concluding here...yes, RPM's and Torque are directly related as they could be easily converted ...just that simple


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

An-1 & an-2

So that sounds like the single coil subtends 2 poles in AN-2 then in a 5-pole embodiment? And where are the brushes placed, like AN-3, or the thee-pole diagram?

Thanks Midaz

Hello Sam,

Here is a drawing with both versions of the All North Five Poles, the AN-1 (Pairs) and the AN-2 (Single Coils).

[IMG][/IMG]

AN-1 & AN-2 CHARTS TOGETHER:

[IMG][/IMG]

The Higher RPM's from the AN-1 is understood as each motor actuating circuit (Pairs) comprehends Three (3) Poles, versus Single Coils which takes Two (2) Poles...here comes the Throw Out Angle difference that I have explained before.

I believe Garry utilized the same amount of turns and same awg contained in the Pair, and duplicated into the Single Coil, as He did for all other replications, that is why there is no much amp draw difference between them when the sweet spot is found (green high light).

Here it would be very interesting to see the Torque difference or equal mechanical loads applied to both machines.

Hope you see it more clear now...


Regards Friend


Ufopolitics

[Midaztouch]

So that sounds like the single coil subtends 2 poles in AN-2 then in a 5-pole embodiment? And where are the brushes placed, like AN-3, or the thee-pole diagram?

Thanks Midaz

Yes, AN-2 is "the single coil subtends 2 poles in AN-2 then in a 5-pole embodiment"... Coil is the same size as the magnet.

The brushes should be positioned similarly, like the original image below for MAX Torque & Rpms...
Then, look for a Sweet Spot/minor timing adjustment near this brush setting.


Welcome Sampojo

UFO set the image's brushes perfectly

[sampojo]

Re: post 7560 Thanks for tje summary

@Sampojo
I think that both the AN1 and AN2 are hugely successful and it is a little early in the contest to declare one a winner. What I think is developing is unique characteristics in each winding that we may be able to exploit for different purposes. I am still mulling over the results in absolute amazement that the timing could make such a radical difference in power consumption. I expected better results but not such huge differences as I have seen. Many tests remain to be conducted and are scheduled this week as time permits. Having finally gotten to the point of knowing how to document this process efficiently they should go much smoother and easier.

Cheers

Garry

I have 2 nice motors built up now. I have been peaking and tweaking the mechanical issues associated with home-built desigs and have just done an hour break-in run on them. One motor I have just sucessfully redesigned for tuning, my GM quad UP10. I can also run it with a quad-pentium bent-Y NS rotor. The QUP-10 was runnining at about 130degF at the commutator, 110 at the bearing, 85-90 at the magnets. Seems hot to the touch even though the temp gauge says my fingers are the same temp before I touch it. I worry a little about the 130 deg reading in the motor, but maybe its tolerable on motors bigger than hobby size. It was taking about 2.2 amps doing 6600 rpm at 12v. I squeeze the shaft cutting the rpm to about half, and amps go up to about 4. So I think I got a motor or 2 that can run hard now. My double rotor dual stator up-10 is not tunable. But thanks for emphasizing how the TUNING dropped the amps. I think I am going a hunting for that sweet spot. Off-hand were you just essentially trying to find the spot recommended by the UFO timing diagrams or did you find that it was before of after that mark? (reading post 7535 closely now) I will be studying your spread sheets for the effect you mention.

thanks Garry!