My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines

[Midaztouch]

An excellent theoretical appraisal of a motor's timing...BUT...let's really understand the diagram being cited as 'incorrect'.

The anatomy of a 12 pole rotor is 30 degree segments. In round numbers, the P1 comm sweeps across the brush from just connecting to just disconnecting in just under* 60 degrees. The brush face is the width of the comm segment.

The 4 pole pairs arrangement places the P1 Coil 2 (P1C2) bisector 120 degrees past the P1 Coil 1 (P1C1) bisector.

The P1C1 bisector could be retarded 30 degrees in the linked image but that places it too close to the north stator bisector.

If we pretend that is feasible at the optimum 5 degrees then we can do the math from stator centre to centre :

5' + 120' + *60' = 185' (* just under 185 degrees)

Which places the just connect at the so called optimum 5 degrees past the north stator bisector and places the disconnect past the south stator bisector...BUT, hold on -



So the 12 pole rotor does not permit the '4 pole pairs' configuration to work as described by my esteemed colleague.

However, as I have mentioned in recent posts, my SC8 motor adopts UFO's lapping pairs architecture which brings the second coil back 30 degrees from that shown in the linked image.

Notwithstanding I have to report (prematurely due to my colleagues insistence) the motor only develops 61% of the OEM and sadly is NOT



Happy Hunting

mark

Mark

What I wrote in my last two posts, Examples #1 & #2, is correct. Adjusting the timing also involves moving/adjusting the brushes. It's the FACTS/Specs that we tried to tell you and explain to you many times last year. 5° is ONLY for Learning purposes

Your SC7 is within our timing specs. Study my 2 previous posts that use two examples/images from your beginning builds that are incorrect. Then try pair SC9 anyway you want, within specs. You will see major differences.

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

The key word "BISECTOR". Bisector of the Coil & Bisector of the Magnet

[Midaztouch]

Sure!

Let's take a look at your image below.

"TIMING"

1.) First thing that is important is for everyone to see and understand. How to set the timing due to rotation. First, it's always the closest coil to the brush going towards rotation. The coil's bisector must be past the magnet's bisector. We used 5° past the magnet's bisector as a guideline for learning purposes only. It could be more or less than 5° pass the magnet bisector.

2.) Secondly, we must check the End Timing to make sure it fits. The brush has to be almost at the end of the beginning commutator segment but still in contact. That would give you two commutator segments in contact. The last coil, which is closest to the magnet's bisector and will soon be disconnected from the brush. The last coil must be 100% disconnected from the power supply before it's bisector becomes aligned with the magnet's bisector.

EXAMPLE #2

As you can see from the image below, the first coil's timing(dark blue P1 first coil's bisector) is incorrect ( first coil's bisector is BEFORE the magnet's bisector).

By adjusting the timing, you should have ALOT better performance!

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

The key word "BISECTOR". Bisector of the Coil & Bisector of the Magnet

[HuntingRoss]

Sure!

Let's take a look at your image below.

"TIMING"

1.) First thing that is important is for everyone to see and understand. How to set the timing. It's always the closest coil to the brush going towards rotation. The coil's bisector must be past the magnet's bisector. We used 5° past the magnet's bisector as a guideline for learning purposes only. It could be more or less than 5° pass the magnet bisector.

2.) Secondly, we must check the end timing to make sure it fits. The brush has to be almost at the end of the beginning commutator segment but still in contact. That would give you two commutator segments in contact. The last coil, which is closest to the magnet's bisector and will soon be disconnected from the brush. The last coil must be 100% disconnected from the power supply before it's bisector becomes aligned with the magnet's bisector.

As you can see from the image below, the end timing(light blue P2 last coil's bisector) is incorrect(end coil's bisector is past the magnet's bisector).

By adjusting the timing, you should have ALOT better performance!

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

An excellent theoretical appraisal of a motor's timing...BUT...let's really understand the diagram being cited as 'incorrect'.

The anatomy of a 12 pole rotor is 30 degree segments. In round numbers, the P1 comm sweeps across the brush from just connecting to just disconnecting in just under* 60 degrees. The brush face is the width of the comm segment.

The 4 pole pairs arrangement places the P1 Coil 2 (P1C2) bisector 120 degrees past the P1 Coil 1 (P1C1) bisector.

The P1C1 bisector could be retarded 30 degrees in the linked image but that places it too close to the north stator bisector.

If we pretend that is feasible at the optimum 5 degrees then we can do the math from stator centre to centre :

5' + 120' + *60' = 185' (* just under 185 degrees)

Which places the just connect at the so called optimum 5 degrees past the north stator bisector and places the disconnect past the south stator bisector...BUT, hold on -

The last coil must be 100% disconnected from the power supply before it's bisector becomes aligned with the magnet's bisector.

So the 12 pole rotor does not permit the '4 pole pairs' configuration to work as described by my esteemed colleague.

However, as I have mentioned in recent posts, my SC8 motor adopts UFO's lapping pairs architecture which brings the second coil back 30 degrees from that shown in the linked image.

Notwithstanding I have to report (prematurely due to my colleagues insistence) the motor only develops 61% of the OEM and sadly is NOT

ALOT better performance!

Happy Hunting

mark

[Midaztouch]

Perhaps you could explain what is wrong with the timing of this arrangement and why I would find it necessary to test it agian

Happy Hunting

mark

Sure!

Let's take a look at your image below.

"TIMING"

Example #1

1.) First thing that is important is for everyone to see and understand. How to set the timing due to rotation . First, it's always the closest coil to the brush going towards rotation. The coil's bisector must be past the magnet's bisector. We used 5° past the magnet's bisector as a guideline for learning purposes only. It could be more or less than 5° pass the magnet bisector.

2.) Secondly, we must check the End Timing to make sure it fits. The brush has to be almost at the end of the beginning commutator segment but still in contact. That would give you two commutator segments in contact. The last coil, which is closest to the magnet's bisector and will soon be disconnected from the brush. The last coil must be 100% disconnected from the power supply before it's bisector becomes aligned with the magnet's bisector.

As you can see from the image below, the end timing(light blue P2 last coil's bisector) is incorrect (End coil's bisector is PAST the magnet's bisector).

By adjusting the timing, you should have ALOT better performance!

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

The key word "BISECTOR". Bisector of the Coil & Bisector of the Magnet

[HuntingRoss]

Your timing was incorrect on this one also and you used the split rotor. When did you do the testing agian and post the results?

Perhaps you could explain what is wrong with the timing of this arrangement and why I would find it necessary to test it agian [sic]

Happy Hunting

mark

[HuntingRoss]

I cannot think of a good measuring device for the torque of these motors. The shafts are only 4 millimeters in diameter and won't hold much in vibration without bending.

Hi Gary

As you are only looking for comparative results, not absolute, then a simple windlass arrangement will give you a benchmark between all the motors to be tested.

Hang a spring balance from a fixed object. Tie string or fine gauge magnet wire to the balance and wrap two or three times around the shaft and attach a small weight to the free hanging end to maintain tension in the string/wire.

The wind of the string should be such that the energised motor will increase the load on the balance. The hanging weight does not want to be too heavy otherwise it may stall the motor.

For completeness you could reverse the wind of the string and measure the reduction in load.

It's simple and dirty but probably adequate for the purpose.

Happy Hunting

mark

[Midaztouch]

@all
The most important lesson that I have learned this week in the Battle of the Windings is how critical the timing is to all of the asymmetrical type of motors. In every case 5 degrees of timing can radically change the performance of the motors. I come from the background of automotive technology and have always known that timing is so critical in an automobile engine. I never thought that it would be so critical in an electric motor. I have been testing and retesting the timings on these machines all week and have found the results almost unbelievable as to the differences that it makes. The one advantage that my replications have over most that I have seen is that I can retard the timing up to 10 degrees and in most of my embodiments advance it up to 10 degrees. The exception being my first embodiment in which I can only get about 5 degrees advance. When the sweet spot is found the amps in plummet like a rock. You will see this when I release the videos upon completion of all of the timing tests. This is the second time that I am working through the tests. I made an error in the first run because of my unfamiliarity with the clamp ammeter. I noticed on some of the tests the ammeter was retaining a reading and not zeroing out before the test. I reread the manual and there is a button for relative (rel) on the meter that zeros out the reading. This brought down the amp readings on all of the timing tests. When you see how the all north performs against the stock gold mine motor you will be amazed. In the second timing test the amps drop from 850 milliamps to 110 milliamps!!!! The RPM dropped to slightly above 8300 rpm. This compared to the retested stock motor which came in slightly above 3600 rpm at right around 300 milliamps. And still maintained good torque features. I cannot think of a good measuring device for the torque of these motors. The shafts are only 4 millimeters in diameter and won't hold much in vibration without bending. You can take my word that in the grab test they do just fine. Now this is at 12 volts. Way below the maximum voltage for the stock motor and who knows what the maximum voltage of the redesigned motor will be. 1/3 of the amperage in and over double the RPM and still has respectable torque. The question that needs to be answered is how have you handled the timing of the motor??!! If you are having high amp readings I challenge you to make an embodiment like I have to be able to experiment with the timing. These motors are still in the experimental stages and need to be thoroughly tested in various timings. The results will astound you!!!!

Cheers

Garry

Gary

Excellent!!!! That right! It's all about the timming people!

[Midaztouch]

Mark,

Your timing was incorrect on this one also and you used the split rotor. When did you do the testing agian and post the results?

[GChilders]

Timing Adjustment

@all
The most important lesson that I have learned this week in the Battle of the Windings is how critical the timing is to all of the asymmetrical type of motors. In every case 5 degrees of timing can radically change the performance of the motors. I come from the background of automotive technology and have always known that timing is so critical in an automobile engine. I never thought that it would be so critical in an electric motor. I have been testing and retesting the timings on these machines all week and have found the results almost unbelievable as to the differences that it makes. The one advantage that my replications have over most that I have seen is that I can retard the timing up to 10 degrees and in most of my embodiments advance it up to 10 degrees. The exception being my first embodiment in which I can only get about 5 degrees advance. When the sweet spot is found the amps in plummet like a rock. You will see this when I release the videos upon completion of all of the timing tests. This is the second time that I am working through the tests. I made an error in the first run because of my unfamiliarity with the clamp ammeter. I noticed on some of the tests the ammeter was retaining a reading and not zeroing out before the test. I reread the manual and there is a button for relative (rel) on the meter that zeros out the reading. This brought down the amp readings on all of the timing tests. When you see how the all north performs against the stock gold mine motor you will be amazed. In the second timing test the amps drop from 850 milliamps to 110 milliamps!!!! The RPM dropped to slightly above 8300 rpm. This compared to the retested stock motor which came in slightly above 3600 rpm at right around 300 milliamps. And still maintained good torque features. I cannot think of a good measuring device for the torque of these motors. The shafts are only 4 millimeters in diameter and won't hold much in vibration without bending. You can take my word that in the grab test they do just fine. Now this is at 12 volts. Way below the maximum voltage for the stock motor and who knows what the maximum voltage of the redesigned motor will be. 1/3 of the amperage in and over double the RPM and still has respectable torque. The question that needs to be answered is how have you handled the timing of the motor??!! If you are having high amp readings I challenge you to make an embodiment like I have to be able to experiment with the timing. These motors are still in the experimental stages and need to be thoroughly tested in various timings. The results will astound you!!!!

Cheers

Garry

[HuntingRoss]

Sorry, I forgot that you did some pair testing in the past but from your notes and images, your test results were invalid because the time was incorrect.

That image of the motor that you linked was re-wound with the correct timing...you'll remember that UFO apologised for misleading me on the timing mark for the motor.

Happy Hunting

mark

[HuntingRoss]

Mark

By using group coils, one pole bigger than the magnet/5 rotor poles on the SC7, you were able to meet the OEM with gearing for torque and have extra RPMs.


Do you have enough equipment/power supply to run a watts for watts comparison on the OEM and SC7?

Will you try the All North Pairs next? It's the next logical indicator step.
A.)pairs coils same size as magnet/4 poles
B.)pairs coils one pole bigger than the magnet/5 poles


Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

Sorry, I forgot that you did some pair testing in the past but from your notes and images, your test results were invalid because the time was incorrect.

Hi Midaz

I have wound nearly every permutation of groups, poles and pairs...and SC7 is the closest to the OEM torque I have managed and after the last two days of testing the OEM and SC7 on the 120 tooth sprocket I think I might be able to squeeze a little more torque from an SC7 re-wind.

I wound #6 all north versions of the 2 comm Asymm motor (Beast) with a couple of type variations in between...none came close to the OEM. All had amazing revs but not sufficient to pass the test.

I now have #9 N/S versions of the SC motor and one type variation and SC7 is the front runner...so I'm going to try and perfect that for the moment.

I also accept that the SC wind is a hybrid, a compromise on the Asymm method, but its advantages are what makes it simple for people with no motor experience. There is no need for a sacrificial motor, no shafts to press out and press in, no comm to prize off and press on and align. Just one set of extra brushes and rewire. The one thing it absolutely can't do is the all north configuration.

This is a limiting factor, but on the up side, it does avoid magnetic drag as the north coil leaves the south stator. And, there must also be the acceptance that an all north motor does manifest south poles on the rotor poles between the energised coils. This is one of the reasons why I have pursued this method because it reinforces what occurs naturally in the all north motor anyway.

Not sure what you mean by 'watt for watt comparison' that I haven't already provided. The OEM ~ SC7 comparison is 27W ~ 40W.

I fitted the 120 tooth sprocket to the 12.5" dirt bike wheel and the SC7 took it to 495 rpm which gives a no load speed of around 17mph...the amps were just as the 24v test previously, 1.53A. The OEM took it to 277rpm @ 1.05A.

It demonstrates that gearing does not affect the power characteristics of the motor. The other tweak for the gearing is to introduce a transfer gear which will push the gearing from 13.3:1 to 22:1 which will enhance the torque and bring the no load speed down. Once I have a platform to road test the gearing arrangement I can remove the transfer gear if the road speed is too low.

Happy Hunting

mark

[Midaztouch]

Added my theory for simple comparison of motor results to post #7416 http://www.energeticforum.com/272203-post7416.html

Happy Hunting

mark

Mark

By using group coils, one pole bigger than the magnet/5 rotor poles on the SC7, you were able to meet the OEM with gearing for torque and have extra RPMs.

OEM~1.13A~3840rpm~27W~8.8kg
SC5~3.60A~13128rpm~90W~5.7kg
SC6~2.13A~8506rpm~53W~5.9kg
SC7~1.59A~6772rpm~40W~7.5kg

Do you have enough equipment/power supply to run a watts for watts comparison on the OEM and SC7?

Will you try the All North Pairs next? It's the next logical indicator step.
A.)pairs coils same size as magnet/4 poles
B.)pairs coils one pole bigger than the magnet/5 poles


Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

Sorry, I forgot that you did some pair testing in the past but from your notes and images, your test results were invalid because the time was incorrect.

[HuntingRoss]

Added my theory for simple comparison of motor results to post #7416 http://www.energeticforum.com/272203-post7416.html

Happy Hunting

mark

[sampojo]

third rewind trifilar unipolar quad 10-pole

what a botch getting out those epoxied windings Ran my quadfilar version for about a minute and it was smoking that new epoxy and up to 120 degF super fast. Resistance per coil was .6-.7 ohm I think. 3-4Amp draw, when my well running dual stator double rotor of this style only was taking 1.3A.

Going strictly by the numbers, 22' trifilar 32ga wire calculates at about 1.2 ohms. Think I got it right where I want it.



Enough room for the wooden stays or hedges I like to use now. I need to redesign the wire exit ports and the way the brush endplates fasten to the motor body to give me easy tuning. When following Ufo's directions about winding one coil and then winding the coil on the opposite side next, it has given well balanced rotors...

[Midaztouch]

@All
I want to test the following standard tests for small motors. 1)RPM/Voltage This is a very important test and although it is not a true measure of the efficiency of the motor it is a good indicator. 2)RPM/Watts This is a better indicator of the efficiency of the motor but still is not totally accurate. These tests will be conducted with a direct connection to the battery and are a very poor indicator of the abilities of the asymmetric motor as we are not taking advantage of the superior design which allows us to collect and recycle the energy that is in the motor. Also I want to test the temperature; ambient, bushing and case. This will give us an idea of how much energy is being converted into heat within the motor.
The other tests that I want to include have more to do with the unique abilities of the asymmetrical windings. I consider asymmetrical windings to be those that allow us to collect more from the environment than we are expending in powering the motor. The term commonly used is COP Coefficient Of Performance. A COP of 1 is supposedly the highest value any system is suppose to be able to achieve. The only way that is possible to exceed this is by picking up energy from the environment. Wind exists and has power to move a wind mill, a wind generator, or a sail boat and because little or no energy is introduced on our part the system may have a COP of an infinite value. This is not free energy. It will cost us some money to build a system to collect this energy. I may sound like Captain Obvious at times when I say something like "the energy is already in the environment but only when the wind is blowing". The same can be said for Solar, in the form of Solar Panels, and Gravity, in the form of water mills. These can be considered substantial boosts to energy but only work when the wind, sun, or water are providing the energy to the system. They could be better described as fuel less forms of energy. You do not need gasoline, diesel, alcohol, wood, or coal to power them.
There is a unique capability of a coil to bring energy into itself from the environment. This is why all coils are called inductors. They have resistance, and they have some capacitance but they have this unique ability to suck up energy as an electromagnetic field is collapsing. Thus electricity is being inducted into the coil, by it's design. All asymmetrical motor designs take advantage of this ability, as do generators and alternators, ignition coils, transformers, LC tank circuits, and LCR tank circuits. Having said all of that these are the tests that I want to perform to make a decision on which of these windings is a true winner. The winner will be decided by it's ability to recharge the batteries that are giving it power. The winding that returns the most charge is the winner, pure and simple. I have built enough of these motors to know that they all out perform the symmetrical motor in torque and RPM/Volt. The question in my mind is, "Which can recharge the batteries the most, so that the life of a battery charge can be extended or deemed completely unnecessary?"
So here are the tests that I will perform to hopefully get a handle on this before I wind the Imperials.
1)Lenz test. I will wire a incandescent light in the form of a 12 volt signal lamp to the generator side of the motor, The motor with the least decrease in the RPM of the motor wins. This is the winding that the Lenz effect has the least effect upon the motor. Thus it should create more energy to charge the batteries.
2)Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) v/s Incremental Increases in Frequency (IIF). This test will be conducted by adding a capacitor and a couple of diodes to the circuit and test to see which method fills the capacitor the quickest throughout the rpm range of the motor. The winding that fills the capacitor with the lowest time elapsed and the method PWM Or IIF will be the winners. I will describe the difference between the two methods when the test is conducted.
3.The last test I want to conduct is the advantages and disadvantages of a dual system v/s wiring the brushes in series. I cannot see any advantage to the method of wiring the brushes in series, but perhaps I am missing something. When I have wired these gold mine motors in series the motors always take a hit on the rpm. I will also explain this test in more detail later. Usually we increase the voltage by wiring more batteries in series. I have been using independent systems. One for the generator side and one for the motor side. The increase in torque with both methods is significant. I wish to document this effect with this test and compare the results side by side. I know that batteries do not like being charged while they are being drained. The idea here is similar to the Tesla switch, as one system is running the motor the other is collecting energy and then the roles are reversed. At some point the capacitor mentioned in the previous test is filled and when that system begins to be used to power the motor, the capacitor is emptied into the idled system battery. One battery charging and the other drained to run the motor.
These tests will give me enough confidence to wire the Imperial. They will not be conclusive and will probably not satisfy everyone. If you wish to test other things go right ahead. No one is stopping you from conducting tests, and sharing your results here. I am not here to jump through the hoops that you put in front of me. I have a number of projects waiting for me to complete and the more time that I spend on the gold mine motors, the less I have to spend on the really important ones. I have Imperials waiting to be wound, and quads waiting to be converted to electric power. I will share my findings, take or leave it, I really do not care which you decide to do. There is a saying that I like a lot, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". I will never be able to convince the doubters that this works. I can only hope that you will give this technology a chance. It may change your mind. I want to get my quads converted. And then move into testing additional findings there. After one of the Quads is converted, I will take it to a dynamometer, and have it thoroughly tested for Horsepower and Torque. I will share my findings then. Torque on these tiny motors is meaningless, They were not designed with torque in mind. The Imperial is a different story. That motor is designed for torque. Massive rotor with a much larger diameter, large diameter wire, to handle massive amounts of voltage and amperage. Large, powerful magnets that will give a huge amount of torque to the motor.
I am finished with rebuilding the rotor for the AN2 that was damaged during the burn in period. Before I burn it in, I have decided to do a short video on the timing innovations that I have put into these embodiments in order to dial in different effects. By the end of the week I hope to release the first group of tests. I am still working out the details of the first videos in my mind. There are a lot of points that I wish to cover and explore. What constitutes a winner to me once again is a powerful motor that recycles the energy and reenergizes the batteries that are driving it. Energy wasted by conversion to heat is a non-starter for me.

@Midaz
Here are a couple of photos of the rebuilt rotor that you asked for.

Shows the two commutators



A few different view points with rotor rotated.

Cheers

Garry

Gary

I appreciate all the time and effort that you are putting in.

The term commonly used is COP Coefficient Of Performance. A COP of 1 is supposedly the highest value any system is suppose to be able to achieve. The only way that is possible to exceed this is by picking up energy from the environment. Wind exists and has power to move a wind mill, a wind generator, or a sail boat and because little or no energy is introduced on our part the system may have a COP of an infinite value. This is not free energy. It will cost us some money to build a system to collect this energy. I may sound like Captain Obvious at times when I say something like "the energy is already in the environment but only when the wind is blowing". The same can be said for Solar, in the form of Solar Panels, and Gravity, in the form of water mills. These can be considered substantial boosts to energy but only work when the wind, sun, or water are providing the energy to the system. They could be better described as fuel less forms of energy. You do not need gasoline, diesel, alcohol, wood, or coal to power them.

Lately, I've been look at permanent magnets in the same light as wind, solar and water. Although PM magnets are not 100% environmentally natural.

If this doesn't change peoples minds, nothing will.



Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz