My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines

[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!

[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

[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

[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]

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]

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

[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

[HuntingRoss]

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!

And I replied :

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.

And you say that it -

should have ALOT better performance!

But it didn't.

Happy Hunting

mark

[HuntingRoss]

Adjusting the timing also involves moving/adjusting the brushes.

You can move and adjust whatever you like. If you don’t understand the basic architecture of a motor and the constraints it presents then theorising achieves nothing.

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

Firing just after the north bisector and releasing just before the south bisector has to be less than 180 degrees. Not more. It’s fundamental to the understanding.

Then try pair SC9 anyway you want, within specs. You will see major differences.

SC9 is a 5 pole lapping pairs configuration “within specs” and it is a very weak motor with virtually no voltage output.

I shall write up my SC8, SC9 and SC5.1 motors one evening soon.

Happy Hunting

mark

[HuntingRoss]

your test results were invalid because the time was incorrect.

Your timing was incorrect on this one also

the end timing(light blue P2 last coil's bisector) is incorrect

There is a heavy reliance upon the word 'incorrect'. It does two things. Firstly it implies that it can be done 'correctly' and secondly it is a futile attempt to elevate the one delivering the remark as being superior to the one receiving it, reinforced by another demeaning remark

we tried to tell you

Now the first image cited as incorrect, the 'All north 3 pole pairs' IS incorrect. The fault was picked up at the time of the original post, an apology was offered by UFO, the motor was re-wound with the correct timing, reported and importantly we all moved on.

The second image cited as incorrect, the 'All north 4 pole pairs' IS NOT incorrect because it can not be corrected as explained at length in my post #7451.

Now. To claim the superior high ground of judgment, it should be immediately obvious to the one doing the judging that the limitations of the 12 pole rotor will not permit the adjustments claimed to improve the performance of the design. Worse. Despite highlighting the uncorrectable limitations of the rotor my supposed superior still protests that the theory

is correct.

And further diminishing any credibility to level discernible criticism at anyones work.

For clarity. The theory is sound. But it's the correct application of theory that makes it worthy of attention. Not the misapplication.

Happy Hunting

mark

[GChilders]

Torque

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

@mark
I find this an almost worthless measurement for torque. Torque is only really important at acceleration primarily from a stop and secondarily uphill under load. As for stalling a running motor this is worthless imho. Secondly in all of the tests that I have made the single pair of brushes i.e. the motor or the generator side have more torque than the stock goldmine has. When I couple both sets of brushes under power the torque is increased phenomenally and rpm are only modestly increased. The reason you think that the symmetrical arrangement has more torque is because you have a poorly timed motor, with as the saying goes "One hand tied behind its' back." UFO has posted many examples of these motors with all of the pairs of the brushes being used as motor brushes. In the case of the goldmine asymmetric there are two pair of brushes that can be used to power the motor during acceleration, trust me it makes a huge difference in the torque. In your tests I did not see significant amounts of torque in any of the examples. 6 to 8 kilograms of torque, compared to U.S. measurements would only be in the range of 12 to 18 pounds of torque. Secondly torque is not measured in a simple scale. It has to be laid against a measurement pounds per foot, per inch, or kilograms per meter, or centimeter. There has to be lever involved for torque to mean something. When I have finished with the conversion of one of my quads I will publish lbft torque readings and horsepower ratings. I am satisfied with the torque I feel when I grab the shaft on these small motors. I can grab the shaft of the stock goldmine motor with my thumb and forefinger and stall the motor, I cannot do this with the asymmetrical windings. That is enough for me, if it is not satisfactory for you, you will have to wait until I have a motor that I do not want to waste time on. I am planning on large conversions. Larger than a scooter so obviously I want a motor that out performs the symmetrical winding.

Cheers

Garry

[Midaztouch]

Mark

You were told how to set the timing correctly the first time. You just misinterpreted the posts. It wasn't UFO's fault. I understood everything he wrote to you clearly. He apologized, to keep you going but he didn't need to. (Remember, you were the only one building something at that time.) Setting the Timing has been very difficult for rookies, myself included, thats why the rest of us tried to help you but you would not listen.


Every design of the Asymmetric motors; group, pairs & singular coils have produce a fair amount of Voltage out... Always! If the single commutator doesn't produce voltage out in pairs.... It's another design flaw for SC.

5° is NOT "The Optimal Setting", it was just a learning guideline. Like It was said many times before.

I built my first motor 2 Yrs ago. It was pairs. The same thinking for Setting the Timing then, is the same as now. It's the asymmetric motors fact/specs.
Again Below...

1.) First coil's BISECTOR, in rotor rotation, is the beginning timing. It must be AFTER the magnet's bisector

2.) Secondly the last coil's BISECTOR must be disconnected from the power source BEFORE it aligns with the next magnet's bisector.

3.) Lastly, adjust the brush housings for front & rear brushes alignment and then find the timing for Optimal Performance or what you need.


This is how WE have been Setting the Timing for the asymmetric motors/generators for years. There is nothing wrong!

If you still question us/me on how we set the timing for Asymmetric Motors!? Read and reread this entire thread for the Full Picture! I had to read it 4x completely before I made the A1Mo-Gen.

Keep moving forward

Midaz

You can lead a mule to water but you can't make it drink.

[sampojo]

Re: GChilders testing proposals Post 7438 on use of batteries

Looking at statement about batteries not liking to be charged and discharged simultaneously...

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 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....
Cheers

Garry

This arrangement sounds interesting and am not in complete understanding. However I am contemplating some tests and am thinking about using just capacitors. I don't know if there is some drawback, but it is simple concept. I think they could easily handle the floating charge/discharge operation.

[HuntingRoss]

You were told how to set the timing correctly the first time. You just misinterpreted the posts.

Interesting. So the following is my misinterpretation -

...and in your 12 Pole:

[IMG][/IMG]

....and your needle to adjust timing here is based on the common slot at Pairs Center, where P# are written.

[IMG][/IMG]

There was a mistake I made when I wrote that your 'needle' to align timing was the center of both coils, as you have pointed in your above diagram...I apologize for this mistake.

It is wrong, in Pairs there are Two Separate Bisectors that We must consider when making the proper timing alignment, each Coil have a separate Bisector right at the center, in this case (4 poles coils) it would be the center slot between the 2+2 poles.

In the above Diagram (my Diagram) I have pointed out the Bisector for P1, Coil 1 as P1(1)BISECTOR

Every design of the Asymmetric motors; group, pairs & singular coils have produce a fair amount of Voltage out... Always! If the single commutator doesn't produce voltage out in pairs.... It's another design flaw for SC.

SC9 is the first motor I have built that displayed virtually no voltage output. SC6 is the first motor I have built which produces more than the PSU input. You could explain why this is not obvious when you read my results.

5° is NOT "The Optimal Setting", it was just a learning guideline.

You would have to call it 0° at the north stator bisector connect and call it 0° at the south stator bisector disconnect for the 'incorrect' motor timing to fit the 'theory' of timing. Call it 1° at either end and the geometry of the motor will not fit the 'theory' and therefore is not 'incorrect' because it is not correctable.

If you still question us/me on how we set the timing for Asymmetric Motors!?

I've already said the theory is sound, it's your application of it that is questionable. Somehow the laws of maths and geometry evade the 'theory' of winding an Asymm motor. You can't connect after and disconnect before the stator bisectors with a rotor design that makes that journey in 180° minimum.

You can lead a mule to water but you can't make it drink.

Who is the mule and whio is the water in this Orange story ?

Happy Hunting

mark

[HuntingRoss]

I find this an almost worthless measurement for torque.

Fair enough Garry. It wasn't supposed to be a measurement for torque, it was offered as an indication...a repeatable load applied at the radius of the shaft (torque).

DC Motors

When the shaft is fully loaded and not allowed to move, the speed is zero and the motor is producing its stall torque (ST), the maximum possible torque.

Happy Hunting

mark

[Edit. I should probably add that the inspiration for this idea is not mine. It is a simplified Prony test.]