My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines

[HuntingRoss]

Don't adress me again...

Getting a little tense ?

It seems like Raul/UFO is wasting his time telling YOU the same thing, over and over ....

Ah, yes. The timing for 4 pole pairs. I remember you had something to say about that previously.

Perhaps you can comment on whether P2 is 'ON' or 'OFF' in UFO's images. And

If it is 'ON'...how many degrees need to be passed before it is 'OFF'.

Now I know you'll bluster and avoid the question. I'm just curious to see which device you employ to do so.

PS. The orange story wasn't as profound as previous ones.

Keep Hunting

mark

[grounded]

A1MoGen = Singular Coils, you get less voltage drop also.

sorry for sounding ignorant, im a bit behind with this.

you say singular coils.
is your winding different to ufo's then ?
just a single north wind wrap, is that what you mean ?, per commutator segment.

have you tested both winds out, and found its better with singular coils ?

ive only done a small 5 pole motor, which is 2 poles wrap + 2 poles wrap, per segment.

[Midaztouch]

sorry for sounding ignorant, im a bit behind with this.

Read the last 30 pages. It will help you for your adventure.

you say singular coils.
is your winding different to ufo's then ?

Yes, it's singular coils.

just a single north wind wrap, is that what you mean ?, per commutator segment.

The All North singular coils are the same size or a little bigger than the magnet... Per comm segment

have you tested both winds out, and found its better with singular coils ?

Torque is/was the main issue.

ive only done a small 5 pole motor, which is 2 poles wrap + 2 poles wrap, per segment.

That's great. You will need all the practice you can get if you decide to do a larger motor.

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

[grounded]

ok, cheers midaz.
i think ill re-wind the mini motor, in that case. check out the difference.

do the same rules with these motors apply for wire thickness ?

as in - thick wire for rpm, and thin wire for torque ?

[Midaztouch]

ok, cheers midaz.
i think ill re-wind the mini motor, in that case. check out the difference.

do the same rules with these motors apply for wire thickness ?

as in - thick wire for rpm, and thin wire for torque ?

No one has done a thick and thin wire comparison... That I know of with these ALL North motors. Now that I've thought about it, Machinealive, did his imperial North/South wind design with a thicker wire Gauge. His motor was faster!

Have fun and give it a try. After that, you will be ready for a big motor, for sure!

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

[Ufopolitics]

Your analogy to electric circuit is flawed.




copied from: 6.3 - Magnetic Force and Field

I don't understand your reasoning. Two magnetic South poles repel and so do two negatively charged particles (repel).

Bistander,

While you are posting on My Thread, the wrong stuff, as I see it...I will continue to correct what you are writing here.

First, the Linked Diagram you have cited about Planet Earth is WRONG...the Geographic North Pole is the Magnetic South....and so the Geographic South is the Magnetic North...there both are North's and both South's...on that diagram...wrong sources again.

two negatively charged particles (repel).

"Two negatively charged particles" are meant STATICALLY charged...while Magnetic Fields showing Arrows means a Dynamic Flow...two completely different things.

The only way to compare "A FLOW" is through another electric flow...like Source and Drain.

Sparks are caused by potential difference or voltage. I don't know what you mean by _Negative charged end terminals_, but if the two conductors have little to no potential difference, they will not arc as they are brought together to touch.

Grab two DC Negative terminals from same source you choose...or Two AC Neutral Wires from your wall...Both represent FLOWS, not static charged, isolated particles...then touch them together...nothing happens.

Same thing should occur to two South Poles according to this reasoning...but it don't.


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

sorry for sounding ignorant, im a bit behind with this.

you say singular coils.
is your winding different to ufo's then ?

just a single north wind wrap, is that what you mean ?, per commutator segment.

have you tested both winds out, and found its better with singular coils ?

ive only done a small 5 pole motor, which is 2 poles wrap + 2 poles wrap, per segment.

His 'winding' is only different than mine in that he uses one single coil, instead of Pairs or Groups...the rest is exactly the same thing...two commutators, overlapped windings, upper-lower brushes...same structure, etc,etc

The First and Simpler Asymmetrical Motor exposed here more than two years ago, was based on Single Coils...a Three Pole, my First Design.

So I rather call it a DERIVATIVE from the same exact work I have exposed here.

If you want to go into single coils DERIVATIVE THREAD From The ORIGINAL HERE, and have him explain it to you, then go to:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...c-reactor.html

And expose your work there...


Thanks



Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

No one has done a thick and thin wire comparison... That I know of with these ALL North motors. Now that I've thought about it, Machinealive, did his imperial North/South wind design with a thicker wire Gauge. His motor was faster!

Have fun and give it a try. After that, you will be ready for a big motor, for sure!

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

Machine Alive used 19 awg gauge, that is thinner than 18 awg.

[Ufopolitics]

@ Sampojo,

According to your set up ...there is no way to bring any closer both bisectors from two groups or pairs...so, the only possibility you will have there is to go single coils using either Three Poles or Four Poles overlapped.

You are not seeing any major improvement (magic bullet) because Bisectors are too wide from the two pairs in contact, so there is no gap enough to advance towards more attract nor repulse...like Garry had on his set up.

So, give it a try to Single Coils, now realize that four poles single coils will have more speed than three poles...but Bisectors would be more spread apart...I believe you could do both and test differences.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[GChilders]

Load Test delayed due to illness

@All
I contracted some sort of stomach flu on Friday and have been unable to continue they contest. Feeling out of sorts for the last few days I am finally getting back to my experiments. I spent yesterday afternoon building most of the parts for the load test. I decided to put the Lenz test on the back burner for now until the load test has been concluded. I apologize for the delay.
@Sampojo
I believe that your assumption about the timings is correct. I start in position one with the standard OEM timing. As I explained to UFO this is an unfortunate design on the brush holder as the brushes continue to swing in an arc changing the angle when the rotor is removed. So all of the timing positions from position 1 are relative changes in position from that position. I marked the brush holders with a felt tip sharpie. Then rotated the brush holder the width of the long slot shown in the video for the next mark and marked the second position and then rotated it once more the width of the long slot and marked it with a sharpie for timing position 3. This is a crude method and can be improved upon. Frankly I did not doubt that I would see some performance improvement as I had not tried to time these motors and had more or less ran with the stock timing. The motors worked well and had good rpm and torque even at the stock setting. No one was more surprised than I was at the performance of the new settings. The Load Test that I am about to run should give us a very good indication if this is a valid setting or not. Like I said in an earlier post, this is only the beginning. But it certainly worked amazingly well on this model.
@Midaz
I have wasted enough time on you, I will not be answering any of your posts in the future.

Cheers

Garry

[grounded]

ok, no probs ufo, ill keep the singular coils out of this thread.
thanks for midaz's thread link.

[Midaztouch]

Machine Alive used 19 awg gauge, that is thinner than 18 awg.

Are you sure!? Did you check the posts? I remember that he wanted to use 19 but all he had left to finish a motor was 17awg...


Midaz

[Midaztouch]

@All
I contracted some sort of stomach flu on Friday and have been unable to continue they contest. Feeling out of sorts for the last few days I am finally getting back to my experiments.

Stomach flu... Are you sure you didn't get mentally sick looking for a way to show the magical Sweet Spot of .08 amps

I spent yesterday afternoon building most of the parts for the load test.I decided to put the Lenz test on the back burner for now until the load test has been concluded. I apologize for the delay.

I hope you can show that sweep spot consistently or no one will care about your test results with Lenz.

@Midaz

I have wasted enough time on you, I will not be answering any of your posts in the future.

Garry

You better prove your .08 Or delete it from your result. As it stands, your sweet spot of .08 is in question.

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz

Come correct or don't come at all!

[Ufopolitics]

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

Cheers

Garry

Garry,

Sorry I have missed this post...

I never meant that I did not believe those Amp readings, I know that the All North could do many "surprises", it is all about an excellent Timing, plus a great, drag free build.

I just wanted to make sure it was not a typing error, that's all.

And yes, it is definitively Sci-Fi friend!

One thing I would like whenever you've got a chance is to give the Spec's of the AN-1 as awg and number of turns per coil in the pair...that's all we need to replicate it...the rest is already posted here.


Thanks again for your excellent work on this tests, it has cleared a LOT of Black Clouds.


Regards and wish you feeling excellent !


Ufopolitics

[sampojo]

Re: Comments on no sweet spot for GM QUP-10

@ Sampojo,

According to your set up ...there is no way to bring any closer both bisectors from two groups or pairs...so, the only possibility you will have there is to go single coils using either Three Poles or Four Poles overlapped.

I will be trying to get that about bringing bisectors closer. By "from two groups or pairs", you had defined a single group coil as having the pieces or sub-coils for your unipolar windings. So I am assuming you mean one coil group here and the two sub-coils as in the quad unipolar 10-pole diagram I used, is what you mean as in the "pair" of sub-coils? You were spreading a coil group into even more than just a pair of subcoils but I guess those are considered undesirable now...

You are not seeing any major improvement (magic bullet) because Bisectors are too wide from the two pairs in contact, so there is no gap enough to advance towards more attract nor repulse...like Garry had on his set up.

So, even though initially surprised by Garry's magic amp reading, you seem to have grasped a potential explanation here. I believe you are explaining more at Post 7582.

So, give it a try to Single Coils, now realize that four poles single coils will have more speed than three poles...but Bisectors would be more spread apart...I believe you could do both and test differences.

Regards

Ufopolitics

I guess I am getting good at building this GM window regulator style motor, except my dual stator double rotor is not tunable and its magnets are clipped to fit in a door.

Would the tuning for a dual stator and a quad stator be the same for the 10-pole rotor using single coils? Probably a dumb question, NO is the answer I am thinking.

For the quad stator, would you put the 4-pole single coil in the same location as the overlapped 3-pole pair here?



Since the group winding subtends a total of 4 poles, your 4-pole single coil wind would fit perfect while the 3-pole would shift one pole either way. Any suggestions which way to go for 3? no problemo, probably just go with 4 here for now.

Since my GM dual stator UP-10 is untunable, not worth making it so, I think its time to roll out my 20-pole dual stator Baldor project. Should I go single coil there too? How many poles wide? (8 poles??)

You had approved a group winding for it at one time. Probably OBE by AN1,2 styles now.

And is the initial placement of the tuning the same for the single coil RS/GM 5-pole?

I appreciate your input.

Sam