My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines

[jeffy39]

Hello out there!

Hello! Is this thread now dead? Where'd everybody go?

[sampojo]

Update

Hi Jeff, yeah kinda eerie. I was hoping to see GChilders next project he wanted to do. I am working on building a small AC generator to be driven by my GM unipolar motors. I will only need to put out a few amps at 12v trying to get about 3600rpm on it. I had to use neo magnets which have been incredible difficult to mount as needed... 6 more to mount and now I need to grind at least one down to fit

Additional info: Redesign of the AC motor required a new rotor, had to reconstruct it once already, faulty design. Progress is slow. I had a great day last week before vacation, actually mounted 3 magnets.

I have a large Baldor motor I will be winding hopefully in the not-to-distant future also...

You have anything going?

[DadHav]

Hello Sam,
It sounds like you're trying to put poles together using the same polarity magnets. This can be really difficult as you say but there is an easy trick. If you can get two of them close enough together to slide a third over the two they will stay side by side (usually). The top magnet naturally needs to go over the magnets where you want them to touch. Careful grinding the magnets, the dust is harmful and vibration as well heat from the grinder can weaken the magnets. I was wondering the same thing about the posts here and on the other guy's forum. I was hoping to hear some encouraging news. Good luck.
John

[sampojo]

Re: Grinding Magnets, temps

Dadhav, Roger that harmful stuff, magetic dust, I am sure once in the lungs, there is no coming out, strange affinity to blood

Looked up magnets on wikipedia, found that neo's are a little more sensitive to heat then ceramics. Neos had a critical temp around 400def(F I think?), while ceramics 900... Always worried about my motors getting too hot around 130-150deg and losing magnetism, but looks like you could fry an egg on them without worrying, as long as the wiring can take the temps... Guess the critical component would be the magnet wire insulation. Epoxy, I use it to hold down the wires, seems can take 200F easy...

[sampojo]

GChilders and Ufo teaming up on his Imperials

PM let me know that having a tough slough of it. Garry got 3 Imperial Ufo kits and they all had unmagetized stators!!! He ended up buying some used ones for parts. Guess it was easier than dealing with Imperial?

Good luck Garry!

[sampojo]

Dad Hav's magent trick

Hello Sam,
It sounds like you're trying to put poles together using the same polarity magnets. This can be really difficult as you say but there is an easy trick. If you can get two of them close enough together to slide a third over the two they will stay side by side ...
John

Just repaired a cracked magnet with this trick, building up a Plastic Weld (This stuff seems harder than epoxy when it dries!) bridge on the exposed end to hold it down on my mini-AC generator rotor. easy peasy cracked end slipped right in with the extra magnet on top!

Thanks John

[sampojo]

RC modelling

Planning some tesla motor redesigns of RC cars and aircraft electric motor powerplants. I am betting on 50% increase in range/time aloft and will be able to test it out and prove performance against the stock power plant. I have bought two car kits and am going out for my model aircraft next.

[sampojo]

power savings projection over edison motor designs

In post 3132, Ufo's Imperial showed 25% excess power generation on his Imperial using his first recommended N-S style of winding. His N-N style winding shows a 40% drop in current demand for roughly the same performance, as I showed in post 7861 and Ufo demonstrated that performance in several of his videos with hobby RS motors. Power delivered is assumed constant and approximately equal for the N-s and N-N motors as videos have shown, with max rpms at no load as the test point, at a given voltage (12v for my case)

therefore

Pe = Power consumed Edison
Pns = Power consumed Asym N-S style
Pnn = Power consumed Asym N-N Style

Pns => 1.25Pe (equal to or greater than since edison motor efficiency is
totally dependent on rpm and CEMF and just left at 100%
for argument's sake) The 25% number comes from 200 extra
watts shown in the power meters that are assumed to not
be present if an edison motor was used. Tesla AC induction
motor and generators are known to be around 90% efficient,
I believe...

Inn = Current draw N-N asym motor
Ins = Current draw N-S asym motor

Inn = (1-0.40)*Ins = 0.60*Ins

Pnn = (Inn**2)*R

Pns = (Ins**2)*R Assume motors are designed the same, Rnn=Rns=R

Pnn/Pns = (Inn**2)/(Ins**2) R cancels

Pnn/Pns = [(0.60*Ins)**2]/(Ins*2) Ins cancels, multiply thru with Pns

Pnn = 0.36*(Pns)

Pnn = 2.778Pns or the NS winding consumes 2.778 times as much power! EDIT (oops THIS is wrong as bistander pointed out)

should have been

Pns = 2.778Pnn NS winding used nearly 3times the power to generate equivalent work, ~30000rpm no load @ 12v


Substituting in the top equation

Pnn/2.778 = 1.25Pe (wrong) comparison of power consumed vs power produced also?

Pnn = 3.47 * Pe ??

Needs rethinking!!! sorry about that

Try this: At 100% efficiency assumption the Edison motor would require 25% more power to equal the Pns work.
Then substitute the VERIFIED power consumed comparison of Pns to Pnn since they are at the same work production level. Since
we assume Pe has 100% efficiency to err on the safe side for comparison purposes, we can interchange Pwork and Pconsumed in the equation, and essentially say it would take a 25% power consumption increase in the Pe (1.25*Pe) to get it to the Pns performance, yielding:

Power consumption to get the same work
Pns = .8*Pe

Substitute Pns to Pnn comparisons at power consumption side of the equation

2.78*Pnn = .8*Pe
Pnn = 0.29 * Pe Power consumed by Pnn less than 1/3 the Pe?

HMMMM....

Incidentally the inverse of .29 is 3.47, same as before....

Did I switch from power output to power consumed before and was unclear? maybe...
Does this mean that the unipolar design could multiply power out by 3.5 times? maybe...

[bistander]

No excess power

In post 3132, Ufo's Imperial showed 25% excess power generation on his Imperial using his first recommended N-S style of winding.

Hi sampojo,

I have looked at (studied, actually) that post and video. I am convinced that he clamps the ammeter onto just one of the two wires coming off the knife switch on the battery negative post. So he reads 43.9A on switch one (one set of brushes). Then when he throws switch two it cuts in the second set of brushes through a wire which bypasses the ammeter. The result is about half of the current is conducted around the clamp meter and not read. The reading is about 18A. He leaves the meter there, reading about half of the battery current. Then when he turns on the load lights, the meter reads 23.45A but the battery current is really double that figure. So instead of 124%, it is really about 63% efficient.

JohnStone brings up the concern of clamping onto only one of the two negative leads in post #3160. Ufopolitics blows him off in post #3163 however goes on to say

it results in a different readout..than the one I was measuring all this time...so...all tests thrown out to garbage can.

His reason was quite different and, imo, stunning. He says:

I have been measuring Amperage on NEGATIVE POLE OF BATTERY....AND THAT IS VERY WRONG!!!...

NEVER, EVER, DC AMPERAGE GETS MEASURED ON THE NEGATIVE SIDE POLE OF LOAD...AS THIS CURRENT...IS...NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS...THAN THE MANIFESTED CURRENT BACK TO BATTERY FROM MY MACHINE (THE EXCESS, THE RESIDUAL)...SINCE...CURRENT "MANIFESTS"...NEVER TRAVELS LIKE VOLTAGE DOES...WELL, IT MANIFESTS AS INPUT AS MY MOTOR REQUEST IT ONLY AT POSITIVE TERMINAL OF BATTERIES...NEVER AT NEGATIVE!!

Ufopolitics

Anybody who believes that about electric circuits loses all credibility dealing with testing, instrumentation and data collection.

I have been searching for a valid load test of one of these motors which shows efficiency. I have found a few and they fall short of 100% by quite a bit and I doubt come up to the level of the Edison motor, as you call it (the OEM motor). I would really like to see you build a new motor and test it against a control unit (unmodified original equipment manufactured motor). Please keep us posted.

Thanks,

bi

[bistander]

Pnn = 0.36*(Pns)

Pnn = 2.778Pns

How do you simply apply the reciprocal? Looks like bad math to me.

Power delivered is assumed constant and approximately equal for the N-s and N-N motors as videos have shown, with max rpms at no load as the test point, at a given voltage (12v for my case)

So at no load, by definition, efficiency is zero because there is no output power (no load). All the input power is lost in the motor. So the motor with 40% more power is actually 40% worse.

Pnn = (Inn**2)*R

The power delivered or converted by the motor can not be described by an I²R figure. That would describe only the loss in the motor due to winding resistance. So the motor with the larger number which you calculated would be the worst. This actually is in line with using no load data as you did. The derivation is based on faulty premise and loaded with error. I'd not draw any conclusions from it.

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Still here...

Hi sampojo,

I have looked (studied, actually) that post and video. I am convinced that he clamps the ammeter onto just one of the two wires coming off the knife switch on the battery negative post. So he reads 43.9A on switch one (one set of brushes). Then when he throws switch two it cuts in the second set of brushes through a wire which bypasses the ammeter. The result is about half of the current is conducted around the clamp meter and not read. The reading is about 18A. He leaves the meter there, reading about half of the battery current. Then when he turns on the load lights, the meter reads 23.45A but the battery current is really double that figure. So instead of 124%, it is really about 63% efficient.

JohnStone brings up the concern of clamping onto only one of the two negative leads in post #3160. Ufopolitics blows him off in post #3163 however goes on to say His reason was quite different and, imo, stunning. He says:



Anybody who believes that about electric circuits loses all credibility dealing with testing, instrumentation and data collection.

I have been searching for a valid load test of one of these motors which shows efficiency. I have found a few and they fall short of 100% by quite a bit and I doubt come up to the level of the Edison motor, as you call it (the OEM motor). I would really like to see you build a new motor and test it against a control unit (unmodified original equipment manufactured motor). Please keep us posted.

Thanks,

bi

Bistander,

By the way...You "sound" so familiar...I would say you are one of the known old conservatives Skeptics from the "Tea Party" on this Forum...behind a "new identity"...but, besides that and related to your comment (which by the way, you have already made here previously)...:

I explained in detail that testing when it was done, with diagrams back and forth...if no one replicated it that is NOT my problem, however, the best way to refuse or accept a shown test is by reproduction/replication on its exact form to my original shown. No words nor viewing a thousand times that video could accept just your "Final Verdict" on this.

Your complete ignorance about Asymmetrical Motors demonstrate clearly with your own wordings in your writing above.

You have posted the same BS before...am tired of this...so I have done a video JUST NOW, with the same exact connections I had done on that previous Testing First Video...just for your mouth to shut up once and for all ...take your time and WATCH IT or "Study it" whatever you like:

SHOWING IMPERIAL N/S AMP DRAW...AGAIN!

Even after a very long time ago, motor does exactly the same thing...consumes about same Amperage readings...except I do not have motor hooked to generator nor bolted to the steel stand, just loose and batteries were seating for months and not charged for this test...still, that make absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in reading amps before load, this discussion was about taking the DC Clamp meter readings on the wrong spot (wire) when turning Switch One and then Switch Two.

I had to leave all I was doing to recreate this set up again...dust motor off...and hook everything so your "Honor" have the opportunity to see the way it was done before, and that there was NOT ANY FRAUD, ANY SCAM, ANY HOAX...JUST THE TRUTH ABOUT THIS MACHINES.

I am too busy at this time working on something very new and very different for everyone to enjoy and use...that this stuff (Motors) comes to a second plane of attention...and you will have the pleasure to see it very soon whenever I am done...right now, if I show you the Machines am working on...well, first, you will not understand how they could possibly generate any power, based on your "Classic" Physics/Electricity/Electromagnetism knowledge...HOWEVER, they all do it...


@ ALL: I understand many think this thread is dead...BUT IT IS NOT!

I am still pending to show the IMPERIAL(S) WIRED with the ALL NORTH CONFIGURATION, am very well aware of that!

And I will be VERY PLEASED to show the HUGE difference in overall performance they can do versus the previous N/S Motor you just have seen on that video above...

But time will come for that as well...


Thanks for your patience and take care you all guys.


Ufopolitics

[wantomake]

Many thanks

Thanks to you,
Ufopolitics, I've read and watched all the post here. I enjoyed replicating your motor and learned much.
I look forward to your new project.

God's speed old friend,
wantomake

[bistander]

Bistander,

By the way...You "sound" so familiar...I would say you are one of the known old conservatives Skeptics from the "Tea Party" on this Forum...behind a "new identity"...but, besides that and related to your comment (which by the way, you have already made here previously)...:

I explained in detail that testing when it was done, with diagrams back and forth...if no one replicated it that is NOT my problem, however, the best way to refuse or accept a shown test is by reproduction/replication on its exact form to my original shown. No words nor viewing a thousand times that video could accept just your "Final Verdict" on this.

Your complete ignorance about Asymmetrical Motors demonstrate clearly with your own wordings in your writing above.

You have posted the same BS before...am tired of this...so I have done a video JUST NOW, with the same exact connections I had done on that previous Testing First Video...just for your mouth to shut up once and for all ...take your time and WATCH IT or "Study it" whatever you like:

SHOWING IMPERIAL N/S AMP DRAW...AGAIN!

Even after a very long time ago, motor does exactly the same thing...consumes about same Amperage readings...except I do not have motor hooked to generator nor bolted to the steel stand, just loose and batteries were seating for months and not charged for this test...still, that make absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in reading amps before load, this discussion was about taking the DC Clamp meter readings on the wrong spot (wire) when turning Switch One and then Switch Two.

I had to leave all I was doing to recreate this set up again...dust motor off...and hook everything so your "Honor" have the opportunity to see the way it was done before, and that there was NOT ANY FRAUD, ANY SCAM, ANY HOAX...JUST THE TRUTH ABOUT THIS MACHINES.

I am too busy at this time working on something very new and very different for everyone to enjoy and use...that this stuff (Motors) comes to a second plane of attention...and you will have the pleasure to see it very soon whenever I am done...right now, if I show you the Machines am working on...well, first, you will not understand how they could possibly generate any power, based on your "Classic" Physics/Electricity/Electromagnetism knowledge...HOWEVER, they all do it...


@ ALL: I understand many think this thread is dead...BUT IT IS NOT!

I am still pending to show the IMPERIAL(S) WIRED with the ALL NORTH CONFIGURATION, am very well aware of that!

But time will come for that as well...


Thanks for your patience and take care you all guys.


Ufopolitics

Thank you for running that test and posting the video. It confirms my theory that the original test ammeter was placed incorrectly. In your most recent test above you did have it placed correctly and it read the entire battery current for both cases. And the current was nearly equal for both cases; 16 to 18 Amperes. However, in the original test, the current dropped to less than one half when you flipped switch 2 to bring in the other brush set; from 44 to 18 Amperes. You had the motor coupled to the alternator and I assume that accounts for the much higher current draw compared to this no load test. It also seems as though you now trust the current reading at the negative battery terminal.

Here are the ammeter readings from the original test:

Readings from latest test:

Battery Amps WITH LOAD INPUT SWITCH ON:



Battery Amps WITH LOAD INPUT AND OUTPUT SWITCHES ON:

[Ufopolitics]

Thank you for running that test and posting the video. It confirms my theory that the original test ammeter was placed incorrectly. In your most recent test above you did have it placed correctly and it read the entire battery current for both cases. And the current was nearly equal for both cases; 16 to 18 Amperes. However, in the original test, the current dropped to less than one half when you flipped switch 2 to bring in the other brush set; from 44 to 18 Amperes. You had the motor coupled to the alternator and I assume that accounts for the much higher current draw compared to this no load test. It also seems as though you now trust the current reading at the negative battery terminal.

Here are the ammeter readings from the original test:

The Meter WAS placed on previous video the same exact way it was NOW placed and shown on today's video.

The Main Motor Amp consumption with ALL FOUR GATES ON is around 17 to 18 Amps as you have seen on BOTH videos.

It can NOT "confirm" your "Theory" because the meter showed a random 43.9 amps at start up...it could be due to many issues and YOU should know better than that.

If I hook the meter (DC Clamp) to each individual Two Gates on each switch, it will read NOT EXACTLY A 50-50 % perfect and IDEAL read out...it may show 12 A on one switch negative cable while 6 Amps on the other cable that goes to the hook up bus bar...wanna see that?

The facts were shown clearly...That Motor is exactly the same as the one shown on original video...and shows exactly the same amp draw NOW as on previous video...same deal.

If I add up the Generator with the two 500 Watts lamps, it would show exactly the same increase...to around 24-25 amps from 17-18 with no load.

The second point is also very important...and that is that by adding the other 'half' of motoring circuit (meaning Two More Gates ON) the Amp draw is about NOTHING to consider of much increase with just Two Gates ON. HOWEVER, RPM'S and TORQUE DO INCREASE A LOT when switch 2 is ON.

It could be clearly observed that DC Clamp keeps jumping up and down in values...that is because the circuits keep opening/closing, so there is NOT a CONSTANT Amp draw detected by a meter designed to capture steady amp population, just because the DC Amps these machines output/reflect are PULSED, NOT LINEAR.

There are not any tools that I know off to measure with exactitude Pulsed Amps.

This OEM Motor is designed to draw 100 Amps at 24V delivering 2500 RPM's...Is written at its spec's sheet.

Final conclusion is that this type N/S Imperial Asymmetric Motor consumes at no load around 17 amps with all 4 gates On. So, obviously by hooking lesser gates would consume less amps.

And, no matter where I hook that meter now, I can not read a 43.9 amp draw...

The All North Imperials will show MUCH LESS Amp draw than what you have seen above...and then some more less.

I would like to end this discussion here...I showed you what this motor consumes with One switch On and with Two Switches On by placing the meter exactly where I did originally with same batteries.

I do NOT have the time, nor the room, nor the desire to start hooking up again, generator head plus lamps in a solid steel rack at this point to repeat -just for your viewing- this old testing.

If you really want to argue seriously about this test then do it the way it is done...by demonstrating it yourself with facts is NOT the way I have shown...so make/wind an Imperial the same way I did (all tutorial videos are still there) , buy a Mecc Alte Brushless Gen head 6K (all spec's are also written on this thread) and hook two five hundred watts incandescent lamps on like I did. Oh, and do not forget the Chicago Energy Meter.

Anything else outside a real proof is pure "theorizing" which is words blown by the wind....nonsense, meaning NADA.

This is it, end of it.

Over


Ufopolitics

EDIT 1: You know better than I do that this brushless generators almost have zero drag when no load is applied to them, only mechanical bearings drag, so it is just impossible motor will show 43.9 amps because of being connected to the shaft of an unloaded generator head.

[bistander]

It can NOT "confirm" your "Theory" because the meter showed a random 43.9 amps at start up...it could be due to many issues and YOU should know better than that.

Hello Ufo,

It is not only that but the original video shows you clearly clamping the meter onto only one of the two wires going to the two switches from the knife switch on battery negative. I suspect this is why JohnStone questioned it.

Also, in the video, it takes about 3 or 4 seconds for the meter to settle in at 43.9A changing very little; only 2 or 3 tenths of a Amp.

I don't know why it was such a high no load reading back then. I believe you said something about a bad bearing in the generator. Even that doesn't seem like a 40+ Amp load. But it was what the meter read.

I am not about to wind a motor like that to repeat your test. I have over the years run dozens of motor-generator tests and rotary converter tests. 63% efficiency on a 36V, 1kW system is much more likely than 124%. If you knew what you were doing and saw 124% efficiency, why didn't you go to extraordinary measures to verify that? How about rerunning the test several times? With a different load amount? In front of an eye witness? I know if I ever demonstrated 124% efficiency on my bench, the experiment would stay intact and unaltered until I was able to get an expert to witness it.

I am not going to convince you and you're not going to change my mind regarding that test unless you demonstrate 124% legitimately. So just end it here.

bi