My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines

[Ufopolitics]

Yes, this was incorrect scaling on your part. Mark's drawing increased the commutator and brush in the same proportion.



You increased the brush size by a factor of 2 and the comm by 4. Using half the arc distance on the large comm (15º opposed to 30º) then gives a time of 2.5mS vs 5mS for the smaller comm. Faster, not slower, contrary to this statement.



See diagram in previous post for left image.

bi

This was an argument about COILS SIZE/ANGLES versus CONTACTS AT COMMUTATOR TIMING.

There is absolutely NO BAD MATH here...and much less BAD GEOMETRY!

I have exactly the same type of 12 pole motor as Mark had, the measurements were taken to exact scale.

In one CAD he showed one size comm-brushes...in another CAD, another size comm-brushes and IDENTICAL/SAME rotor core. And SINCE the main argument was referring to relation between Core/Coils Angles versus switching angles...The Brush Scaling being correct or not has absolutely NADA to do with this very old argument.

Could you be able to understand now?

PLUS YOU are NOT one of the replicators of ANY of my work here, therefore, I have absolutely zero interest nor obligation to "REVIVE" this argument at ANY POINT just because you decided to do so.

FURTHERMORE, what I am NOT going to allow/tolerate is for you to keep spreading your false statements about "bad math" all over this forum, much less badmouthing me on MY THREAD!!

So, for me this is the end of writing to You here.

SO, remove your BS no reason to bring on comments here.

No regards, no respectfully nothing!

Citfta, why do you have TWO IDENTITIES with one SINGLE IP on this Forum?

Is this allowed by this Forum Rules?...I don't think so.

I will ask Aaron to look into this.

[bistander]

Angles

This was an argument about COILS SIZE/ANGLES versus CONTACTS AT COMMUTATOR TIMING.

In one CAD he showed one size comm-brushes...in another CAD, another size comm-brushes and IDENTICAL/SAME rotor core. And SINCE the main argument was referring to relation between Core/Coils Angles versus switching angles...The Brush Scaling being correct or not has absolutely NADA to do with this very old argument.

Could you be able to understand now?

When comm and brush are scaled proportionally (as Mark did), the core/coil switching timing is unaffected. That is the point you apparently are unable to understand.

So I am through. Like I said, I don't want to argue with you. I just hate to see outfits like Ortronics get credit for free energy/over unity when it is apparent BS. Why pedroxime posted on this thread is a mystery.

Regards and keep up the good work.

bi

[Ufopolitics]

So I am through. Like I said, I don't want to argue with you.

Excellent, then GO somewhere else to keep serving as the "Police" from Classic Physics of this Forum.

I just hate to see outfits like Ortronics get credit for free energy/over unity when it is apparent BS. Why pedroxime posted on this thread is a mystery.

Regards and keep up the good work.

bi

I could care less if you "hate" or not capisci?

Pedroxime is free to post here anytime he pleases, NOT YOU.

There is absolutely "no mystery" in his posting here.

What YOU DO have to do is just keep one Profile here, So is either Citfta or Bistander.

No "Double Personalities" allowed here.

@Aaron Murakami or any Admin:

Could you verify the Member "Bistander" and "Citfta" are the same exact IP?

Is this correct to do here?

What could be the purpose in ANY Public Forum like this one for one person to have TWO IDENTITIES?

Is obvious, malice, spreading false opinions, being able to "sneak" where the other one was burnt to keep criticizing, hating, injecting doubt, etc,etc...creating double responses with same purpose, therefore, obtaining more credibility...and then a billion more false beliefs ...etc...

In other words...Rats behavior and stinking personalities.


Thanks Aaron.

[Ufopolitics]

Your expertise...great!

This is ridiculous. The commutator diameter does not enter into the speed and torque equations for DC motor performance. The number of segments do, but not the size.

This is off topic so I will just drop it with that.

bi

Maybe in your classic physics books did not tell you...you will have to find out by yourself, by experimenting.

If I replace JUST commutator, not brushes, and put either a smaller or bigger diameter ones, I am affecting the CONTACT TIME to Energize Coils, therefore, performance.

In larger diameter than OEM Comm, coils STAY ON LONGER TIME every 180º cycle (for symmetry), therefore, magnetic drag is greater related to stators interactions, hence torque is greater, speed is reduced.

The complete opposite process occurs when smaller diameter commutators are installed.

The only one who is ridiculous here is you, and your ego thinking you know it all, plus criticizing everyone here with your DOUBLE IDENTITIES.

[DadHav]

Maybe in your classic physics books did not tell you...you will have to find out by yourself, by experimenting.

If I replace JUST commutator, not brushes, and put either a smaller or bigger diameter ones, I am affecting the CONTACT TIME to Energize Coils, therefore, performance.

In larger diameter than OEM Comm, coils STAY ON LONGER TIME every 180º cycle (for symmetry), therefore, magnetic drag is greater related to stators interactions, hence torque is greater, speed is reduced.

The complete opposite process occurs when smaller diameter commutators are installed.

The only one who is ridiculous here is you, and your ego thinking you know it all, plus criticizing everyone here with your DOUBLE IDENTITIES.

With respect to both UFO and Bi, I've been reading this and just want to see if I'm getting what I should out of it. Didn't UFO state there would be more contact time on a larger diameter brush and commutator than a smaller one? Without math you should have equal contact time providing the brush and the commutator piece have been scaled proportionately. No? The smaller set would have the same RPM and contact time with less surface speed over the contact surfaces. Now UFO said both brushes would be the same size and actually that would change things. Of course if your smaller diameter commutator has to big of a brush you have more problems than just timing. Just saying. I don't think the earlier drawings and explanations matched and I see how an argument can come of it.
John

[bistander]

If I replace JUST commutator, not brushes, ...
In larger diameter than OEM Comm, coils STAY ON LONGER TIME...

So let's use the example from before. Replace the small comm (1"radius) with a larger comm (4" radius) and leave the smaller brush which had a contact of 30º on the smaller comm or an arc length of 0.523". Use 1000RPM for both cases.

The smaller comm surface speed is 104.67in/sec. The comm segment actual surface distance would be 0.473" when a .050" mica undercut is considered. The total time of contact between the brush and one comm segment = (0.523"+0.473")/104.67in/sec = 9.5mS.

The larger comm surface speed is 418.67in/sec. The comm segment actual surface distance would be 2.045" using the same .050" undercut. The total time of contact between the brush and one comm segment = (0.523"+2.045")/418.67in/sec = 6.1mS.

The contact duration is shorter on the larger commutator.

This would have negligible effect on torque and speed of the motor, probably unnoticeable.

bi

[bistander]

Without math you should have equal contact time providing the brush and the commutator piece have been scaled proportionately.

Well, Yes. That has been obvious to me from the start. And exactly what I have said. Thanks.

bi

[Ufopolitics]

It is NOT that simple.

So let's use the example from before. Replace the small comm (1"radius) with a larger comm (4" radius) and leave the smaller brush which had a contact of 30º on the smaller comm or an arc length of 0.523". Use 1000RPM for both cases.

The smaller comm surface speed is 104.67in/sec. The comm segment actual surface distance would be 0.473" when a .050" mica undercut is considered. The total time of contact between the brush and one comm segment = (0.523"+0.473")/104.67in/sec = 9.5mS.

The larger comm surface speed is 418.67in/sec. The comm segment actual surface distance would be 2.045" using the same .050" undercut. The total time of contact between the brush and one comm segment = (0.523"+2.045")/418.67in/sec = 6.1mS.

The contact duration is shorter on the larger commutator.

This would have negligible effect on torque and speed of the motor, probably unnoticeable.

bi

The contact duration is shorter on the larger commutator.

That's correct, now which one of the two examples will make contact more times during a full Revolution Per Minute going at One Thousand times?

Answer: Obviously the shorter "Interval" time one...or the larger commutator.


But, unfortunately, if we apply this examples you have written to Symmetry (which is exactly what I was referring to previously) both calculations are useless, completely off, just because the actual contacting segments-to energize the coil circuit/angles- would be the sum of all segments between positive and negative brushes for either a two or a four brush system.

In a two brush system (apart by 180 degrees) the commutator is divided by that brush plane in exactly two parts, where one side would have current flowing opposite to the other side. In a 12 segments that would be at least six (6) per side.

Still in a four brush system, and even there are two brush planes dividing in four the commutator, still the contacting "area" is not "exactly" one segment, but in the cited case above of twelve (12) segments, it would be -at least- 3 segments in each quarter.

I am really busy, and do not have the time for whatever BS you are trying to "prove" here.

[Ufopolitics]

Why the honor?

With respect to both UFO and Bi, I've been reading this and just want to see if I'm getting what I should out of it. Didn't UFO state there would be more contact time on a larger diameter brush and commutator than a smaller one? Without math you should have equal contact time providing the brush and the commutator piece have been scaled proportionately. No? The smaller set would have the same RPM and contact time with less surface speed over the contact surfaces. Now UFO said both brushes would be the same size and actually that would change things. Of course if your smaller diameter commutator has to big of a brush you have more problems than just timing. Just saying. I don't think the earlier drawings and explanations matched and I see how an argument can come of it.
John

Dadhav,

Obviously you had to jump Huh?...It is time to come and beat the crap out of U.P....So let's go huh?

Old man, please, stay away from this...as I do respect your person, your work and your white hair.

Obviously you have nothing else -productive- to do but come around here, basically at this times...

That is not my case, I am very busy in productive things and hate to be wasting time with this "Member" Bistander/Citfta

[bistander]

That's correct, now which one of the two examples will make contact more times during a full Revolution Per Minute going at One Thousand times?
.

What? That doesn't make any sense. Each commutator segment will engage a particular brush once per revolution.

[DadHav]

Dadhav,

Obviously you had to jump Huh?...It is time to come and beat the crap out of U.P....So let's go huh?

Old man, please, stay away from this...as I do respect your person, your work and your white hair.

Obviously you have nothing else -productive- to do but come around here, basically at this times...

That is not my case, I am very busy in productive things and hate to be wasting time with this "Member" Bistander/Citfta

UFO, You'll never change, I wasn't trying to beat the crap out of you, I was only trying to state the obvious and that's the fact that you both have reason to discuss your views on the subject. I just see it as I mention in simple terms for my own satisfaction. I don't give a crap about your argument with Bi. but I do give a crap about your personal insults. It's not in very good taste and it's probably the reason you're almost alone here. Well that and the fact that there's no proof of over unity as you claimed from the beginning of the thread.
J

[Ufopolitics]

What? That doesn't make any sense. Each commutator segment will engage a particular brush once per revolution.

You ask for this, you started this whole thing by citing my name, and saying I did "Bad Math"...and by getting your nose where no one, absolutely nobody called you and ask for your stupid opinions.

It don't matter IF what you think works for you is what it is, because it don't work that simple way...you got involved in this argument that Mark and I had from a long time ago...and you obviously were just trying to "capture" something wrong...disregarding the main essence of the whole conversation.

So now you just shut up an read me well.

I was talking "Affecting Performance" the diameter of a commutator with same brush...so, it is not as simple as to search for "surface speed" in an online calculator..."online" you are not gonna find what the real answer is, first, because you think you know it all when in reality know absolutely NADA.

Each commutator segment will engage a particular brush once per revolution.

What's the matter?...now you don't even know what your calculations were about?

NEGATIVE, NOT "ONCE PER REVOLUTION"

You were calculating based on "Surface speed" in Inch per Second...remember?

And "RPM" means Revolutions Per MINUTE, NOT PER SECOND.

So your "Grand Total" of Milliseconds are just NOT applicable DIRECTLY to "once per revolution" based on RPM's which happens to be given in Minutes.

And How many seconds are in a Minute?

Come on, don't tell me you did not know that you must convert "Units" to same "Units" for comparison or calculations...in this case "Time Units"

I am sorry, but ...Who's doing the "Bad Math" now?

This argument can go much deeper as I stated in my previous post about real contact segments sums, applicable to Symmetrical DC Brushed Motors.

[bistander]

You ask for this, you started this whole thing by citing my name, and saying I did "Bad Math"...and by getting your nose where no one, absolutely nobody called you and ask for your stupid opinions.

It don't matter IF what you think works for you is what it is, because it don't work that simple way...you got involved in this argument that Mark and I had from a long time ago...and you obviously were just trying to "capture" something wrong...disregarding the main essence of the whole conversation.

So now you just shut up an read me well.

I was talking "Affecting Performance" the diameter of a commutator with same brush...so, it is not as simple as to search for "surface speed" in an online calculator..."online" you are not gonna find what the real answer is, first, because you think you know it all when in reality know absolutely NADA.



What's the matter?...now you don't even know what your calculations were about?

NEGATIVE, NOT "ONCE PER REVOLUTION"

You were calculating based on "Surface speed" in Inch per Second...remember?

And "RPM" means Revolutions Per MINUTE, NOT PER SECOND.

So your "Grand Total" of Milliseconds are just NOT applicable DIRECTLY to "once per revolution" based on RPM's which happens to be given in Minutes.

And How many seconds are in a Minute?

Come on, don't tell me you did not know that you must convert "Units" to same "Units" for comparison or calculations...in this case "Time Units"

I am sorry, but ...Who's doing the "Bad Math" now?

This argument can go much deeper as I stated in my previous post about real contact segments sums, applicable to Symmetrical DC Brushed Motors.

What? I know how many seconds are in a minute. And I did the conversion. My units are correct.

It would appear that you have difficulty understanding how many revolutions are in a RPM.

Just drop it and go do your other stuff. Sorry to have upset you.

bi

[Ufopolitics]

What? I know how many seconds are in a minute. And I did the conversion. My units are correct.

It would appear that you have difficulty understanding how many revolutions are in a RPM.

Just drop it and go do your other stuff. Sorry to have upset you.

bi

Nope, you ruined my whole day, now it is my time.

I do know exactly "how many revolutions are in a RPM"

Exactly ONE, Your motor was going 1000 RPM's, meaning One thousand revolutions PER ONE MINUTE.

Your results were given in Milliseconds, and you just wrote previously: each commutator segment will engage a particular brush once per revolution?!

Your math is so bad, I really can not describe it...and the worst part is that it is the very simple math learned in elementary school!!

If your totals were given in Milliseconds, then you must convert RPM to RPS, or revolutions per second...then into milliseconds to see how many times each segment will hit each brush during the equivalent "full Minute".

You do that by dividing the converted total and previous 1000 RPM's in Revolutions per Milliseconds by your previous and great results given in milliseconds...

Or you could take Milliseconds to Minutes...many fractions there...

ONLY THEN it will give you exactly how many times each commutator segment will hit a brush per "Minute Revolution".

Don't try now to avoid this subject, because many thousands of people are watching it...and you are gonna look very bad.

[bistander]

Nope, you ruined my whole day, now it is my time.

I do know exactly "how many revolutions are in a RPM"

Exactly ONE, Your motor was going 1000 RPM's, meaning One thousand revolutions PER ONE MINUTE.

Your results were given in Milliseconds, and you just wrote previously: each commutator segment will engage a particular brush once per revolution?!

Your math is so bad, I really can not describe it...and the worst part is that it is the very simple math learned in elementary school!!

If your totals were given in Milliseconds, then you must convert RPM to RPS, or revolutions per second...then into milliseconds to see how many times each segment will hit each brush during the equivalent "full Minute".

You do that by dividing the converted total and previous 1000 RPM's in Revolutions per Milliseconds by your previous and great results given in milliseconds...

Or you could take Milliseconds to Minutes...many fractions there...

ONLY THEN it will give you exactly how many times each commutator segment will hit a brush per "Minute Revolution".

Don't try now to avoid this subject, because many thousands of people are watching it...and you are gonna look very bad.

Hi Ufopolitics,

O.K. I'll not try to avoid this subject. So first off, let's go back to this question from you:

... now which one of the two examples will make contact more times during a full Revolution Per Minute going at One Thousand times?

I responded as follows:

What? That doesn't make any sense.

It was a poorly worded question to put it mildly. "During a full Revolution Per Minute"???? What does that mean? A revolution? A minute? How am I supposed to know? So I made the following statement:

Each commutator segment will engage a particular brush once per revolution.

That statement is correct. And it is correct regardless of the commutator size. So when we take a further look at your original question:

That's correct, now which one of the two examples will make contact more times during a full Revolution Per Minute going at One Thousand times?

Answer: Obviously the shorter "Interval" time one...or the larger commutator.

You say the larger comm will contact the brush more times at 1000RPM. Obviously incorrect. A particular comm segment will contact a certain brush once per revolution regardless of comm size. So the number of contacts per time interval is the same regardless of comm size.

ONLY THEN it will give you exactly how many times each commutator segment will hit a brush per "Minute Revolution".

What is a "Minute Revolution"?

This is an example of bad math. I rest my case.

Been fun. Go back to Mack's magnet motor. Good luck with that, seriously.

bi