My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines

[Ufopolitics]

@ufo
T1 is the setting that goldmine has selected for the goldmine motor. Unfortunate design in the brush holders makes it very difficult to calculate their starting angle for the brushes because the brushes come together at a different angle when the rotor is removed. So all of the other timing positions are relative to that position. You are correct in that T2 and also T3 favor the attraction mode of the motor winding. T2 is approximately 5 to 7 degrees rotation towards the south stator this definitely favors the attraction mode. T3 is approximately 10 to 14 degrees rotation towards the south stator.
T3 and T4 are the exact opposite in relation to T1. They both favor the repulsion mode. Midaz can't seem to grasp this simple fact that the ideal position for AN2 is the T1 timing position. One final note on this. These are very crude timing positions. I have not had enough time to try to dial these in. In the automobile industry a 5 to 7 degree jump would be unheard of. Here 1 degree could make a huge difference in performance. Taking the AN2 for example this rotor could find better performance by going in the center of position 1 or 2 and testing it and then trying the center of the position 2 or 3. Time constraints will only let me go so far with these tests. I think the point has been made though. Finding the sweet spot through testing can yield significant improvement in the motor's efficiency.

I have a number of tests that are scheduled this week that will begin to exploit the asymmetrical side of our motors. This is going to get very interesting indeed.

Cheers

Garry

Hey Garry,

Normally in Two Stator small motors the Symmetry Plane sets their brushes to Divide the Stators by their Bisector...maybe a few degrees to either side...but typically it is a normal setting, that is why I assumed it was similar to our Neutral Timing.

But you are doing great friend, keep going you will get there!

Now, are you sure your AN1 and AN2 did 0.08 Amps with that Input Volts and output those RPM's?...because that is VERY LOW Amps Garry!

It looks like Science Fiction friend!


Take care


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Now you can use the same formula we discussed earlier.

Weight (LBS) x RPM/5252 = Horsepower X .756 = Output Watts
:

You have a serious error in your formula. It is Torque (LB. FT. ) not weight which is multiplied times RPM to calculate power.

[Midaztouch]

T3 and T4 are the exact opposite in relation to T1. They both favor the repulsion mode. Midaz can't seem to grasp this simple fact that the ideal position for AN2 is the T1 timing position.

I got what you were saying. When you get to the 4 magnet motors. Will your 2 magnet findings matter much?


TORQUE vs wattage was the ONLY concern in the past for the 5pole.
These motors are unique. I not cared about the wattage no load... It's all about Underload for me!

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

[HuntingRoss]

Mark,

On your first Motor built, you were having issues on pulling one of the commutators...so you 'decided' to build Two Stators and Two sets of Magnets and join two embodiments...Now, that, for whatever reason is not an exact Replication of the Asymmetric Motor.

I have NEVER joint Two Rotors, nor Two sets of Magnets in my whole 'history' here at Energetic Forum...but you did.

Then you tried all kind of different approaches in the windings which diverge completely from what I have been showing here...First, because like I said before...I have never done that kind of "fusion".

Here, that I know off, maybe one or two experienced Members have done it...and I know Dana (Prochiro) has done it in a smaller version...as I believe Sam (Sampojo) as well...and both replications were successful.

This is correct UFO. The 'Beast' series of motors was two OEM motors back to back just as Sampojo's build. The hardware worked perfectly well. The different windings also gave excellent RPM...the torque was lacking.

Is your new SC7 a Two Rotor and Two Stator Assembly still?

All the SC series are completely standard OEM motors except one extra pair of brushes are added, then wound to suit (pairs/groups) etc.

But the bottom line here is that recently you have shown a Motor Diagram I said it will have issues with the Timing...and You accepted it was the 'Geometry' not allowing it...

The bottom line is 'someone' dug up an old schematic, which was wrong for reasons we do not need to discuss. The motor (way back then) was then wired to correct for the error. Just recently the schematic was called incorrect thereby suggesting it could be done correctly. It remains a fact of simple geometry that the 12 pole motor can not be wired as a 4 pole pairs motor and comply with the 'connect/disconnect' requirements for efficient function.

And now you are saying they are all fine tuned all the sudden?

What did you do now?...did you overlapped coils?...did you set smaller commutators?

Interestingly, and somehow, ALL my motors have been branded because of one old schematic. BUT the point that seems to be missed is this...none of my current motors are 'pairs'. If I try a 'pairs' configuration again it would need to be lapping by two poles (at least). So there is nothing sudden about the about the motors just tested. They were designed with correct timing AND they were built with correct timing.

Happy Hunting

mark

[HuntingRoss]

Mark,

I already tried that 'option' with Diodes once...and it happens on a motor exactly as yours...a 12 pole:

It may look very nice, and yes, a LOT of WORK...BUT IT DON'T WORK!

Sorry!

OK. Thanks UFO. The journey continues.

Carry on Hunting

mark

[sampojo]

Re: 7537 Midaz post about my questions on AN-1,2,3 Gchilders tests

Sampojo

My design is the Singular Coil that is the same size as the magnet or a little bigger than the magnet... (NOT a one pole coil, like AN3)...
One pole coil is only for the 3pole motor/no choice .

AN2, my design, the coil was the same size as the magnet. The singular coils covered two poles per coil.

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

From the original image below, the singular coils are the same size as the magnet On repulsion mode... Highest TORQUE with high RPMs

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

[dyetalon]

You have a serious error in your formula. It is Torque (LB. FT. ) not weight which is multiplied times RPM to calculate power.

Yes, you are correct. Sorry for the error.

[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!

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.