My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines

[Ufopolitics]

@UFOPolitics
My question is does the electricity that is being fed to the motor coils begin to flow the millisecond that the brush touches the commutator element? This violates most electricity laws. Electricity always takes the path of least resistance. I do not think that there will be a very long period where two neighboring commutator elements will be energized simultaneously with the exact same amount of resistance between the coils brushes and wires leading into them. Just food for thought.

Cheers

Garry

Garry, you definitively have a good point there.

And if we add the mechanical bouncing of a spring mounted brush...at every air gap...then we start complicating the "scenario" even more...

What I have done before and had excellent results is to install a 1K resistor from segment to segment...this, besides reducing sparking/arcing a lot...if we add them just at bottom commutator the output voltage increases quite some...

So far the "Clean CAD's" Diagrams could never predict the actual issues found in every real development...

We are working from neat and clean theories when it comes to designs...then find the unpredicted results from reality.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[HuntingRoss]

Just because of your constant personal failures on dual commutator machines...does not need to be "extended" into "General Comments" like above Mark.

But that's the funny thing UFO. You see my exploits as 'constant personal failure' whilst I see my knowledge and experience growing in a new discipline. As the well known phrase goes, that's a hundred ways not to make a light bulb. The world would be a darker place if people were so easily discouraged by such negative comments.

You appear to be sensitive to my comment about the single comm. I make no claims that it is better or worse than double comm, simply the conclusion that was drawn was not derived from the question that preceded it. That is basic science principles.

But what I have said about the single comm build is this. It is a very simple way for novice builders to get into a new subject and learn without the added technical issues of chopping and joining the motors which experienced builders would be more comfortable tackling.

I also conclude that we still do not agree on the basis for estimating the 'OFF' times for motor design being you have not responded to my last post on the topic.

Happy Hunting

mark

[Ufopolitics]

But that's the funny thing UFO. You see my exploits as 'constant personal failure' whilst I see my knowledge and experience growing in a new discipline. As the well known phrase goes, that's a hundred ways not to make a light bulb. The world would be a darker place if people were so easily discouraged by such negative comments.

You appear to be sensitive to my comment about the single comm. I make no claims that it is better or worse than double comm, simply the conclusion that was drawn was not derived from the question that preceded it. That is basic science principles.

Mark,

What is NOT "basic Science principles" is that even being warned by many here, mainly from me about the wrong settings on your timing angles, by keeping ON the leaving coil passing south bisector...you STILL proceeded to test this known to be failed tests...and then post results which made look "your beast" as a very weak machine.

But what I have said about the single comm build is this. It is a very simple way for novice builders to get into a new subject and learn without the added technical issues of chopping and joining the motors which experienced builders would be more comfortable tackling.

The Single Commutator would never, ever could be compared to dual commutator machines.
Single Commutator represents Symmetry, Dual Commutator represents Asymmetry...Night and Day difference!
In the very beginning of this Thread a member built the single comm three poles...at that time there were all the differences established between both types.

I also conclude that we still do not agree on the basis for estimating the 'OFF' times for motor design being you have not responded to my last post on the topic.

Happy Hunting

mark

No We don't have it...now you came up that those 2º left over for timing on Sampojo model were considering the 20º established on the Off Timing ...not mentioned at that time, but now.

How could we just "GUESS" your ways of displaying your words?

It should have been written as 22º left to do timing!...not just "2º"
It tends to Confusion not to mention the 20º...those two degrees left sets ALL Calculations in the ridiculous side...meaning not good.

The 20º OFF limit was established as an approximated convention, not meaning it could NOT be less or it could NOT be more. However, any TOTAL Angles left between last coil bisector to South Stator Bisector MUST BE mentioned at all times!

The 20º OFF limit is mainly DICTATED by speed and voltage applied as the structure type of each different Machine, so it is understood it is NOT A GENERAL RULE!.



Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Simple Geometry Applied to Asymmetric Motors

Hello to All,

This Post is related to previous debates about sweeping angles between Switching Area versus Magnetic Interaction Angles...since it seems there are still confusion about it...

A while back Veproject1 open a Thread called "The Two Circles Paradox"

The main video was "Aristotle's wheel paradox"

The solution was simple...however, many could not see where was the confusing concept.

The same exact thing applies to the way we "see" a Commutator Switch level circle and Brush, versus a Magnetic Interaction level circle which is always bigger.

Previously, on the Five Film Strips I have uploaded (shown below), We agreed that Commutator Segment sweeps TWICE its Circumference Size related to the Brush size, meaning the Coil being energized (ON) for twice the commutator arc segment circumference...

[IMG][/IMG]

However, this fact, when we compare same Angle to a larger Radius Rotor ...things "change".

So, I put together this Diagrams with "Circles Paradoxes" related to Commutator/Brush Angles, versus Rotor Coils/Stators Angles:

[IMG][/IMG]

On Part 1 above, Left Image, is shown the simple way we calculate an Arc Segment (s) based on Radius (r) and given Angle Theta.
On Right Image, we see the same application for a Motor where Commutator/Rotor Ratio is 1:2, so Commutator is r=1" and Rotor is r=2"
Then a Rotor Pole Arc (s2) would be TWICE the Commutator Arc (s1)

Then we have Part 2 Diagram:

[IMG][/IMG]

On Right Image above we see a Four Pole Coil...of Arc Segment s3, which is greater than, Eight Times the size of the Arc Circumference from Commutator Segment.

I displayed "greater than" and not "equal to" sign, because we must add here the slot gap distance between each pole.

Which means that...No matter if a Brush of the same face/size as comm. segment, takes TWICE that sweep angle at ON Time at Commutator Circle Level...That Time ON only means One Eight (1/8) of the Total Magnetic Interaction Sweeping Angle taking place at that Four Pole Coil.

I have written here previously that ALWAYS a Commutator Radius will be Smaller than Rotor Radius...it is an established operating equation that applies to Symmetry and Asymmetry whenever designing motors.

Therefore, the Angles established at Switch/Commutator/Brush Segments would always take MUCH LESS TIME than the Time of each Magnetic Interaction angle takes to fully develop from that Switch ON-OFF sweep angle/time.

If we go by Bisectors on this example...then, Bisector from that Coil would be set greater than (>) Four (4) Times the Commutator/Brush segment sweeping area.

Setting the ON-OFF Time to be s2= 0.35 travel distance (which is TWICE the size of comm. segment based on Diagram= 0.175)...And Bisector being 4 times s1, or (0.175 X 4)= 0.7 which is exactly TWICE the ON-OFF distance traveled.




Regards



Ufopolitics

[HuntingRoss]

I also conclude that we still do not agree on the basis for estimating the 'OFF' times for motor design being you have not responded to my last post on the topic.

No We don't have it...now you came up that those 2º left over for timing on Sampojo model were considering the 20º established on the Off Timing ...not mentioned at that time, but now.

How could we just "GUESS" your ways of displaying your words?

No need to guess. It was mentioned at the time...

That means your connected comm has to sweep approximately 36 + 27 = 63º from connection to disconnection. Working with a combined 'ideal ON / OFF' angle of 25º, gives you 88º. Thats leaves 2º for timing adjustments.

Working with a combined 'ideal ON / OFF' angle of 25º.

It should have been written as 22º left to do timing!...not just "2º"
It tends to Confusion not to mention the 20º...those two degrees left sets ALL Calculations in the ridiculous side...meaning not good.

I accept from the tone of your response that it was not written to your liking. But it was written. More than that, you could have inquired how the 25º was divided between 'ON' and 'OFF'. But you didn't.

The 20º OFF limit was established as an approximated convention, not meaning it could NOT be less or it could NOT be more. However, any TOTAL Angles left between last coil bisector to South Stator Bisector MUST BE mentioned at all times!

The 20º OFF limit is mainly DICTATED by speed and voltage applied as the structure type of each different Machine, so it is understood it is NOT A GENERAL RULE!.

I accept that it is not written in tablets of stone, that it is approximate. You should have noted that I have always stated that my method for calculating the 'OFF' time is an ESTIMATE...an approximation to enable the 'would be' designer a guide to setting the initial timing before winding the motor.

Despite the fact that the 'OFF' angle is an approximation, I didn't think we would want to actively fine tune the motor in that zone.

Notwithstanding, if this confused anyone...Apologies. It was unintentional.

On a better point. It can be seen (or it should have been noted) that my method of calculating the timing for the 10 pole motor agrees with UFO's method of calculating and achieves the same result. It seems futile to avoid agreement when the methods of calculation all point to agreement.

If we want to illustrate 'confusion', consider the following quote -

[IMG][/IMG]

Now, the "Perfect Neutral" position for this case would be setting the 36º exactly in the center of 90º angle from stators...right?...and that would be 90-36=54/2=27º...meaning you would start firing exactly 27º away from North of C1 and 27º closer to South Stator Bisector of C2.

So, firing closer C2 Bisector to the Attract South Stator Bisector, say at 20º...would set your repulse at 34º right?

Concluding here...I believe your sweet spot should be from that Neutral spot towards closing the gap to the Attract Stator...As I am sure that in higher percentage of attract mode, your motor amps would start dropping real low.

So the 'sweet spot' should be found when the C1 bisector is between 27º and 34º from the north stator bisector. Does anyone want to ESTIMATE where the C2 bisector 'OFF' angle is ? OK, I'll do it.

It is between 27º (ON angle) + 36º (Magnetic Interaction Angle) + 27º (brush angle) = 90º past the North Stator Bisector
And 34º (ON angle) + 36º (Magnetic Interaction Angle) + 27º (brush angle) = 97º past the North Stator Bisector

And here's a clue. The South Stator Bisector is 90º past the North Stator Bisector.

---S---

But I shall be clear. This discussion is not about the 10 pole motor. It never was. It is about the 12 pole 4 pole Pairs motor.

What is NOT "basic Science principles" is that even being warned by many here, mainly from me about the wrong settings on your timing angles, by keeping ON the leaving coil passing south bisector...you STILL proceeded to test this known to be failed tests...and then post results which made look "your beast" as a very weak machine.

Once again inferring that the incorrect timing of my 4 pole pairs motor was correctable...IF ONLY I'D LISTENED...but alas by the time this all reared its ugly head so many weeks and months later, I knew more about the subject. Specifically the 12 pole 4 pole Pairs motor is uncorrectable...It can never be timed correctly.

For those that have not followed the explanations so far -

The 'OFF' angle for the second coil of P1 is 5º (ON angle) + 120º (magnetic interaction angle) + 57º (time on the brush) = 182º past the north stator bisector. Which is 22º past our APPROXIMATE 'OFF' limit and 2º past the south stator bisector.

Good Hunting

mark

[Ufopolitics]

[IMG][/IMG]

Note on the Four Pole Coils Diagram above...the Angle between both 'Circuits' being fired, are reduced now from 85º previously to 36º...meaning, you could get further away from North (less repulse) and still not passing the South Stator Bisector...

Now, the "Perfect Neutral" position for this case would be setting the 36º exactly in the center of 90º angle from stators...right?...and that would be 90-36=54/2=27º...meaning you would start firing exactly 27º away from North of C1 and 27º closer to South Stator Bisector of C2.

So, firing closer C2 Bisector to the Attract South Stator Bisector, say at 20º...would set your repulse at 34º right?

Concluding here...I believe your sweet spot should be from that Neutral spot towards closing the gap to the Attract Stator...As I am sure that in higher percentage of attract mode, your motor amps would start dropping real low.

[...]

So the 'sweet spot' should be found when the C1 bisector is between 27º and 34º from the north stator bisector. Does anyone want to ESTIMATE where the C2 bisector 'OFF' angle is ? OK, I'll do it.

It is between 27º (ON angle) + 36º (Magnetic Interaction Angle) + 27º (brush angle) = 90º past the North Stator Bisector
And 34º (ON angle) + 36º (Magnetic Interaction Angle) + 27º (brush angle) = 97º past the North Stator Bisector

And here's a clue. The South Stator Bisector is 90º past the North Stator Bisector.

---S---

Good Hunting

mark

Mark,

I will just RE-QUOTE BELOW the ONLY PART I keep getting from you...No matter how many times I Insist You do NOT Add Switch Angle from Brush/Segment to Magnetic Interaction Sweep...JUST BECAUSE, THEY COEXIST, ROTATE, MOVE, TURN WITHIN THE SAME EXACT TIME/SPACE...Then You tell me I am "misrepresenting what you're saying!!!

It is between 27º (ON angle) + 36º (Magnetic Interaction Angle) + 27º (brush angle) = 90º

Regardless, you keep adding this "brush angle" to Magnetic Interaction Angle,which happens to take place right WITHIN THOSE 36 DEGREES!!
...are you for real man?...

Let me guess...did you even see my previous post? did you read that?...am sure you did NOT...or maybe you did not understand it?


And, here I am ending my discussion with you Mark related if you do add or you don't...finished....We were supposed to end this argument way before getting again on the same boat.

I realize I am completely wasting my time every second I spent writing to you...

You have been so far the more stubborn person, that I have EVER dealt with...and the glass is full.

It is time for others to build and show...over

Now "transfer" all of your posted arguments with me here...and take them to your close friend Midaz the Hijacker of this Thread...like you have been doing lately...adding more fuel to the fire..

ASK ME IF I GIVE A "WHO"?

And last...If You have any Machines, which are based on a SINGLE COMMUTATOR...AM ASKING NOT TO EXPOSE RESULTS HERE...

[HuntingRoss]

From the following post. Comm segment is 36º and brush width is 27º. Stator bisector is 90º.

Ten (10) pole rotor, Ten (10) commutator segments and Four (4) Stators analysis.

Based on Single Coils wound by four poles each and overlapped as I have proposed before, he had 36º from C1 Bisector to C2 Bisector...and the same between C6 and C7 apart at 180º.

[IMG][/IMG]

I am starting to Fire C1-C6 Bisectors EXACTLY AT 8º Angle away from North Stators Bisectors. Which means C2-C7 Bisectors are located at 46º [8º+36º=44º-90º=46º] away from South Bisector (this residual angle not shown on Diagram)

[IMG][/IMG]

Notice the C2 bisector is 46° away from the south bisector when C1 fires at 8° !

The rotor has to advance 27° to disconnect C2 !... 46° - 27° = 19°

Your 'ON' angle is 8°
Your 'OFF' angle is 21°
Your MIA as you're calling it is 36°

This means your diagram only advanced 25° when the brush is 27°. I would have made the 'OFF' angle 19°. But I'm not disagreeing with the principle by which you arrived at these figures. It is what I've been saying all along.

The other way I have been looking at it is this.
The 'ON' angle is 8°
The 'ON' comm segment has to advance 36° (its face width) + 27° (the face width of the brush) giving an 'OFF' angle of 19° (90 - 8 - 36 - 27)

90° (Stator bisector) - 8° (ON angle) - 21° (OFF angle) - 36° (coil bisectors or MIA) = 25°

This is how far the rotor advances in the diagram, but it should have been 27° which is the brush width.

Just process the information given.

I have been repeatedly told this is incorrect yet it always delivers the correct 'OFF' angle. This isn't coincidence. It's first grade geometry.

This is how you can ESTIMATE the timing of your design PRIOR to winding.

Happy Hunting

mark

[Ufopolitics]

Reality is a Bítch...

From the following post. Comm segment is 36º and brush width is 27º. Stator bisector is 90º.

The main reason why I am answering here, is in order that other Members do not get confused by your wrong data posted on this Thread.

And Now you are trying to make my Calculations wrong by exactly Two Degrees!!??...This is really becoming funny now!!...Well then...let's get into the small, very small details in reality...

First off, your above quoted statement is WRONG, you can never EXACTLY divide a Commutator Segment by the EXACT formula of 360º/#of poles. I see that you do it every time, including in your twelve poles, see your previous post below:

Here is the dilemma for a 12 pole 4 pole pairs motor, and a few questions for you :

The comm segments are 30° wide

Maybe you did not notice, but there must ALWAYS be a SEPARATION between commutator segments, called "GAP", and that gap must NEVER be just a "Hair" so we could disregard it, otherwise carbon residues will easily get compacted on the first turns, shorting the whole commutator in one single copper/carbon continuous conducting ring, motor is then..."gone with the wind...fried"

So, your "assumption" that in a ten pole every segment would be 36º is NOT possible, there MUST BE -at least, and being 'conservative'- a gap of One Degree (1º)...and that makes each segment around 35º NOT 36º.

Also, You must realize that by having exactly Ten (10) of those "Gaps"...it means exactly a Total of 10º of "Non Contact Area" at commutator.

Remember Sampojo did not measure his brush...He just wrote it was "about" 3/4 of Commutator Segment...Then Brush is not EXACTLY 27º either, but 26.25º...that is 0.75º off.

[IMG][/IMG]

Notice the C2 bisector is 46° away from the south bisector when C1 fires at 8° !

The rotor has to advance 27° to disconnect C2 !... 46° - 27° = 19°

Wrong again!!...You must realize that by simple Elementary Math adding and subtracting...One Degree (1º) of Air Gap...Plus another One Degree (1º) of Brush on top of C1 Commutator Segment (and I am being very conservative here as well)...comes out to exactly Two Degrees (2º)...Then:

1+1=2 Right?...or do you want to argue also about this result?

If Brush is 27º minus 2º that comes out exactly to 25º...

27-2=25 Do you agree with this simple subtracting or...?

90° (Stator bisector) - 8° (ON angle) - 21° (OFF angle) - 36° (coil bisectors or MIA) = 25°
This is how far the rotor advances in the diagram, but it should have been 27° which is the brush width.

Rotor ONLY needs to advance 25º...and being conservative about 2º of brush area that travel away from C2 segment edge...

My Diagram was as accurate as a Swiss Watch!!

And even these Two Degrees (2º) are pure "theory" not considering brush worn out edges, which occur the minute motor starts breaking in...as well as copper segments edges, start becoming rounded...In realty, this two degrees expand to above three degrees with normal motor wear.

In reality...Brushes travel within a channel path...that must have some play as well, providing a smooth spring riding in-out during operation...rotation-acceleration forces contribute to round edges normally with just a few minutes of work.

Just process the information given.

I have been repeatedly told this is incorrect yet it always delivers the correct 'OFF' angle. This isn't coincidence. It's first grade geometry.

This is how you can ESTIMATE the timing of your design PRIOR to winding.

Happy Hunting

mark

Should I better say...that you are the one who will need to process the real information I have provided above...Mark?

The more you post your way of looking/calculating all this the wrong way...the more I understand why your "beasts" never performed as expected.

The only thing I really agree with you in this whole post, you wrote it above and below...

It's first grade geometry...

Even though...1+1=2 goes back to first grade of elementary schooling...


Keep hunting...


Ufopolitics

[sampojo]

Re: 7791 GChilders: Does electricity start to flow when brush initially touches com..

@UFOPolitics
My question is does the electricity that is being fed to the motor coils begin to flow the millisecond that the brush touches the commutator element? This violates most electricity laws. Electricity always takes the path of least resistance. I do not think that there will be a very long period where two neighboring commutator elements will be energized simultaneously with the exact same amount of resistance between the coils brushes and wires leading into them. Just food for thought.

Cheers

Garry

This makes me want to summarize the discussions on brush width and bring up an important scientific principle of abstracting information to keep it comprehendable. I would say that each coil's current as Garry alludes to, may be somewhat of a bell shaped curve. And as there is a smooth transition of full current flow from one to the other coil as the brush slides over the comms. So to bring in all the other angles, whether a bush is spanning 2 comm segments and partially energizing two coils, is an unnecessary complication in regards to finding the best timing angle. Whether the timing angle is defined from the point of first contact or from where the comm is centered on the brush angle doesn't matter, but we just need to decide on a common definition. I like to think of the time when the brush is centered on the comm segment as optimum, as just one coil is energized at that point and it is at its midpoint and maximum strength. The complication of brush overlap energizing multiple coils may possibly be disregarded.

As a nemisis of mine says, "Hope this helps."

PS: I think the current waveform is actually trapezoidal... And probably doesn't matter much...

[HuntingRoss]

@ UFO

I don't mind being corrected, although technically I wasn't making a mistake. I was ESTIMATING a result...And I had already said previously about the 2º -

But I'm not disagreeing with the principle by which you arrived at these figures. It is what I've been saying all along.

And it will not have escaped your attention that my 'up close' diagrams of the comm and brush interaction displayed the 2º difference attributed to having a 1º gap.

Of course it is easier to distract attention away from the fact that you will not state on the record how anyone can estimate the 'OFF' angles for their motor designs. And you still avoid saying anything on the subject.

There are copious amounts of images and words on what you consider is wrong with my ESTIMATE, but nothing on how to actually do it.

All these pages of disagreement would have never happened if you had said, Mark you're wrong, and here is how you do it. Job done.

So we have many pages of Mark you're wrong. And not one word on how you would actually ESTIMATE it.

But of course we can't escape the fact that you did agree with me after all the disagreement when you posted the two images for the 10 pole motor. To disguise that fact you are now picking on the difference between ACCURACY and ESTIMATE.

That's fair enough, but I'll take the fact that we finally agreed and your response to that was...Don't post my single comm here again.

I don't mind playing schoolyard rules, it's your thread after all.

Happy Hunting

mark

[HuntingRoss]

I think whether the timing angle is defined from the point of first contact or from where the comm is centered on the brush angle doesn't matter, but we just need to decide on a common definition. I like to think of the time when the brush is centered on the comm segment as optimum, as just one coil is energized at that point and it is at its midpoint and maximum strength. The complication of brush width might be irrelevant.

Hi Sam

I agree that a common definition would not only help but simplify this enormously. All the preceding pages are filled with theory and at best my approach delivers a quick estimate of where final coil bisectors are likely to disengage so we can avoid a mistake at the design stage of winding the motor.

I could settle on the standard of 'brush and comm centered' for the purpose of timing standardisation.

Unfortunately that would not solve the woes of the 12 pole 4 pole pair wind.

Happy Hunting

mark

[Ufopolitics]

This makes me want to summarize the discussions on brush width and bring up an important scientific principle of abstracting information to keep it comprehendable. I would say that each coil's current as Garry alludes to, may be somewhat of a bell shaped curve. And as there is a smooth transition of full current flow from one to the other coil as the brush slides over the comms. So to bring in all the other angles, whether a bush is spanning 2 comm segments and partially energizing two coils, is an unnecessary complication in regards to finding the best timing angle. Whether the timing angle is defined from the point of first contact or from where the comm is centered on the brush angle doesn't matter, but we just need to decide on a common definition. I like to think of the time when the brush is centered on the comm segment as optimum, as just one coil is energized at that point and it is at its midpoint and maximum strength. The complication of brush overlap energizing multiple coils may possibly be disregarded.

As a nemisis of mine says, "Hope this helps."

PS: I think the current waveform is actually trapezoidal... And probably doesn't matter much...

Hello Sampojo,

Ok, according to Garry's observation based on the first "touch" from brush on segment...it could be a "non full conductivity" for nano seconds...just at that minimal time stage, however, as segment travels more into brush, there would be a "half and half point", where brush is centered at the gap between two segments, then current flow would be even to both circuits.

So to bring in all the other angles, whether a brush is spanning 2 comm segments and partially energizing two coils, is an unnecessary complication in regards to finding the best timing angle. Whether the timing angle is defined from the point of first contact or from where the comm is centered on the brush angle doesn't matter, but we just need to decide on a common definition.

This Motors do a 2 segment contact then a 1 segment contact (1/2/1/2/1/2/1...) at all times during operation...and timing must include setting/controlling both stages.

Unfortunately this "dual segment contact" is unavoidable...whether it occurs only when brush is fully centered between two segments or just entering into contact. This is a Max Flow stage, because we have two circuits (Coils, Pairs or Groups) energized in parallel, there is a fluctuation in resistance, voltage and amps compared to just one circuit On.

Related to Timing, I believe it is critical and of the essence, that we do not allow an energized circuit bisector to pass the attracting stator bisector at all while is still on. So we must consider this fact, at the time to "switch off" the ending/leaving circuits. No matter if we want to look at individual circuits entering-leaving...or both at the same time.

There are many things we could do to make sure this off stage operates as we want...first is about setting correctly the chosen segments to be connected related to brush/stator positioning, then spinning rotor to make sure it disengages in time.

If looking at two circuits energized at the same time is kind of confusing...then we could do it based on just one circuit...it don't matter, as long as we do -at least- two adjacent segments analyzing them individually one after the other.

The main "NO Rule" that must PREVAIL here is simple, I have stated it in several occasions...and that is NOT to allow a Rotor circuit bisector to PASS the Attracting Stator Bisector while is still ON. No matter if you analyze one at a time or two at a time.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[HuntingRoss]

In the very beginning of this Thread a member built the single comm three poles...at that time there were all the differences established between both types.

I haven't seen the write up for this motor but looking at a rough schematic I drafted this morning it can not work like the current single comm design I am working with.

My guess is it worked by earthing the shaft and tie one lead wire to that with the other connected to a brush.

My first single comm motor did just that and it was very weak compared to the OEM.

The single comm motor I built yesterday afternoon and prony tested this morning at 10v has 30% more torque than the OEM and 100% more RPM under the same load.

Also, a 3 pole could not have independent generator brushes like the 12 pole model I'm working with.

So all in all the 3 pole is a sad motor for comparison of the single comm model.

If anyone has a link to that motor I would appreciate a look at it. I haven't been able to find it.

Happy Hunting

mark

[Ufopolitics]

The new "Dynamic Duo"...of Clowns

It is obviously a good gossip and entertainment lately on this Scientific Forum...just like a soap opera now dramatized by clowns...could any of you imagine that?

Well then pay a visit to the HIJACKED THREAD

Now it is about Two Clowns...which have zero successful experiences on Asymmetrical Machines.

One of them, Midaz (Richard Bates) the Big Mouth and Big Tongue connected to a very small brain...that only has built ONE Motor in his entire life...has turned all the sudden in the "Know it All" , "The Expert" related to ALL kind of BS confusing terms related to "zero torque"..."zero magnetic drag"...and a bunch of non sense that now extends beyond the only motor he has ever and poorly wound.

The Clown Midaz has shown absolutely ZERO proof to provide at least a minimal test where he put his Big Moth to work and demonstrate it in the real world.

And then another clown (Mark Ross) has just joined the previous Monologue Show on the Hijacked Thread from main Clown.

Mark Ross latest post...responds my previous post below...

To then write a very stupid comment, that all it does is create confusing among the serious builders on this Thread:

There is one important point I didn't pick up on.

If the design in my previous post is indeed supposed to motor with all the brushes...then we have N / S / N / S field configuration which makes this quote a little hard to sustain :

Negative Mark,

Dual Commutator Machines has been proven to be FAR superior to ANY single commutator designs, no matter how far you get into "trying" to make them better.

The coils will need to flik-flak every quarter turn and that sounds like A LOT of "constant colliding of electrons/flux"

Maybe that is the elephant you're referring to ?

Good Hunting

mark

There is no "Flick-Flacking" of any Pink Elephants there guy...

The excellent CAD Diagram that you are referring to is below:

[IMG][/IMG]

Your VERY WRONG COMMENTS ABOVE...ALL ARE DOING IS:

For all the experienced Imperial Builders on this thread, all you are doing is demonstrating your continuous "ASS-umptions" on grounds you are completely ignorant about.

But for all NEW READERS, Your "ECHOING" to the Main Clown BS, are creating HUGE CONFUSION, by posting all this ridiculous comments based on ZERO REAL EXPERIENCE on the motors you BOTH are referring to.

The Motor shown above is a completely different structure where you have not stepped yet with your small and fragile feet...now you are experimenting on the Single Commutator Old crap, just because your frustrations and Failures with Dual Commutator Asymmetric Machines from the only CHEAP CHINESE Twelve Pole Two Stator BS you have been working on for a while...after doing a lot of clumsy structures by joining two motors by the shaft...what an "Apparatus"...

For your knowledge, that Motor uses TWO INPUTS for MOTORING...and TWO FOR OUTPUT.

AND...even if We feed from ALL FOUR GATES, for your lack of previous and basic knowledge, every time any type of COIL, INDUCTOR or BOBBIN is cut/stopped from supplying its feeding voltage, it NORMALLY REVERSES VOLTAGE POLARITY...SO, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO FORCED REVERSAL BY OUTER SOURCES, BUT "NATURALLY" DONE FROM ITS INTRINSIC REACTIONS.

Obviously you still need to keep "HUNTING" for more knowledge...BUT FIRST THAN ALL...You need VAST REAL BUILDING ON SEVERAL OTHER STRUCTURES to get you in a "Suitable Experience" to be able to comment related to such machines.

What a poor and sad position you have adopted now Mark!...it is incredible that now you are serving as the "ECHO" to such IGNORANT PERSON, like Midaz the Clown.


What a "TONIGHT SHOW" You guys are performing...it is HILARIOUS!



WHENEVER, ANY OF YOU TWO, CLOWNS, SHOW ME/US A REAL VIDEO, WITH REAL TESTINGS, PROVING ALL YOUR CRITICS TO MY WORK...THEN , MAYBE THEN, SOMEONE WILL PAY SOME ATTENTION TO ALL BS WRITTEN ON THAT HIJACKED THREAD...

BUT, UP TO NOW...IT IS JUST A LOT OF "AIR"... A LOT OF NOISE AND NO ADVANCE WHATSOEVER!


PROVE ME WRONG!!

IF ANY OF YOU TWO COULD BE ABLE TO...WHICH I HONESTLY DOUBT...A LOT!!

HOWEVER, IT IS THE ONLY WAY THAT ALL YOUR COMMENTS WILL BECOME REAL, HONESTLY!!

[Ufopolitics]

@Mark
Mark I have tried to understand your argument and can see your confusion. The single coil bisector and multi coil bisector and group bisectors are a point and not an angle. By offsetting this point on the stator bisector a few degrees and having the coil energized at this point the rotor will rotate in the direction of the offset. It will rotate to the opposite pole stator bisector and when the center of the stator bisector lines up with the coil bisector the motor will stop rotating if not disconnected from the power prior to that point. Because the magnetic forces will have their strongest attraction at that point. The magnets will center themselves on each other. Do you not understand this principle? It is paramount in understanding the way the asymmetrical motors work.

Cheers

Garry

Nope Garry, Mark obviously do NOT understand that basic principle you just wrote above...it is the main reason why NONE of his previous Dual Asymmetric twelve pole did NOT work at all.

The difference is very simple...look at your work displayed here on a much smaller motor?...a Five (5) Poles for GOD SAKE!

Then look at his bigger machine performance!!

This Technology works "in crescendo" meaning the bigger the machine, the greater the results...it is a VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT, for any Normal Mind to digest!

The MORE INDEPENDENT COILS in the whole Armature...the more the power and speed, the cooler the motor will operate!

The MORE Time OFF per each independent circuit in a second of rotation...the MORE RADIANT will enter the Machine...and so on and on and on...

It WAS and IS very OBVIOUS He has no idea about such SIMPLE PRINCIPLE you have described in very few words above...

But, unfortunately, He does NOT admit He, Mark Ross is completely WRONG!

Just like a Drunkard or a Junkie...would never admit they have a "problem".


I gave up, really...it is just another "Type of Delusion" here...and I am not his Psychoanalyst...



Kind Regards



Ufopolitics