The bistander thread

[Turion]

bro,
the problem with an empty spool vs a full spool is that bobbins tend to expand in length as you wrap them with wire. Mine are fixed in a clamp as I wind them to LIMIT or prevent that from happening, but to some extent, it still does. So without taking the machine apart I cannot see to measure the "gaps". If you watched the videos of the assembly of my machine, you would see that the cores of my coils stick through a 1/4" thick piece of plastic that holds the coil back from the rotor, allowing only the core to get close. So either the core is 'flush" with that plastic (as it should be) or it is inset a little. (Away from the rotor, held there by the expanded coil that won't let it get any closer) No way to put any kind of gauge in there to see. There is a difference of about 1/8" between how deep my empty bobbin goes in and a full bobbin goes in, but that could be due to bobbin expansion. If the new, longer coils output more power, I am probably going to take the whole thing apart one last time, and put the NEW coils all the way in, with cores that stick out farther than they should, and then custom cut each core off to account for bobbin expansion. And make sure they are fitting into the holes by enlarging each hole slightly.

[Turion]

bi,
... If you continue to say that increasing the number of unloaded coils relative to the rotor has NO EFFECT on the prime mover, ...

Turion,

I have never said that or implied it. You continue to lie about that. I have on numerous occasions called you out and you have never provided a quote by me. Show me the passage by me which you misconstrued and I'll clarify it.

OK, here you go:

Quite simple for you to verify now that you've done away with multifilar coils. Using your coil-core assemblies, load the machine one at a time, coil open circuit, recording prime mover volts and Ampere's, at a constant speed, no magnetic neutralization. Plot out prime mover power vs number of cores, 0 thru 12. Looks like a straight line, doesn't it?

No, it does NOT look like a straight line. If rpm is constant, voltage or amp draw or both must increase with the addition of more coils. Without the increase of voltage or amp draw, the rpm of the motor will decrease as coils are added until you BURN THE MOTOR UP. I have several in that condition. And eventually, if you continue to add voltage and there is more amp draw, the motor will reach its operational limits and burn up.

[bistander]

bi,
... If you continue to say that increasing the number of unloaded coils relative to the rotor has NO EFFECT on the prime mover, ...

Turion,

I have never said that or implied it. You continue to lie about that. I have on numerous occasions called you out and you have never provided a quote by me. Show me the passage by me which you misconstrued and I'll clarify it.

Quite simple for you to verify now that you've done away with multifilar coils. Using your coil-core assemblies, load the machine one at a time, coil open circuit, recording prime mover volts and Ampere's, at a constant speed, no magnetic neutralization. Plot out prime mover power vs number of cores, 0 thru 12. Looks like a straight line, doesn't it?
bi

[BroMikey]

bi,

bro,
I am not clear what "gap" has to do with anything, .

In my tests a 200 thousands gap put out low voltage

A 100 thousandth gap output was 2v per winding

A 60 thousandth gap got me 20volts per coil and you don't know if you have it dragging or ground to an 1/8" (125 thou..) or care? Just keep making new coils to stick in there? Your box is super precise and the gaps are not?

It is likely to go to 120v with the tight gaps, the 90v coil is closer than the 80v coil and so on. Look for magnetic jitter. 90v coil at 120? and the 80v coil is at 125 thou? See what I mean? At 60 thou it might be 150v.

An empty spool shows you if the wound coils are all of the way in or not. Either they are all of the way in or they are not all of the way in.

[bistander]

....
I never talked about gravity, so this is irrelevant. Please do not attempt to put words in my mouth.

Gravity is the only force attributable to mass only. So when you speak of a force between 2 masses, I made a seemingly valid assumption.

I never claimed it did. Please do not attempt to put words in my mouth

I use established universally accepted word definitions and laws of science. You don't. Hence you have a problem. I state what really is. You don't.

So the cores provide a PATH for magnetic flux without the magnetic flux actually being IN them? Is that what you are saying. I would be interested in reading about that. Do you have a source for this bit of information?

I never said flux was not in the core. Problem is your use of "absorb". Conventional meaning is to 'take in' or 'soak up' without necessarily letting out or dispensing of a substance or energy. So the core does not absorb flux. I hesitate to say it conducts flux because that gives an impression that magnetic flux flows, which it does not.

I made NO CLAIM about core loss. Show me where I did. You can't. ...

I never said or implied that you actually said it. I made a true statement. You have repeatedly claimed magnetic drag is caused by magnetic attraction at TDC. It is not. The drag that you attribute to that is due to other forces (torques) one of which is core loss. So when you claim your neutralization magnets reduce magnetic drag, and cogging is not the cause at speed, you must be speaking of core loss. What else is there?
bi

[Turion]

bi,
I have never failed to understand the definition of "cogging." It is the attraction of the iron core to the passing magnet, the physical "jerking effect" of which SMOOTHES OUUT at speed, but NEVER goes away. It is responsible for the increased amp draw of the prime mover, INSIGNIFICANT WITH ONLY ONE COIL, and is cumulative, the more coils that are added to the generator, as I have shown MANY TIMES. In fact, the effect on the prime mover is exponential. If you continue to say that increasing the number of unloaded coils relative to the rotor has NO EFFECT on the prime mover, I will continue to call you a liar. If you continue to say that magnetic neutralization does not neutralize the effect on the prime mover, I will continue to call you a liar. If you believe the attraction of a single magnet to one piece of iron exerts a force on the prime mover no greater than the attraction of a single magnet to 12 pieces of iron, I will continue to say that you have no idea what you are talking about. Simple. Nothing I am claiming is a violation of "Newton's Laws" despite what you think.

[bistander]

bi,
Last time I measured the resistance across the socket the bulb was screwed into. Connecting to the two wire terminal connections. This time I unscrewed the bulb and measured directly across the bulb. I also measured across two other bulbs I had in boxes. All measured 10.5 ohms with the RMS meter. 100 watt bulbs. Am going to measure the 300 watt bulbs and see if there is a difference and will edit this.. ...

Thanks, But I was looking for the normal operating current. Got to be something more than 10.5 ohms which limits current when you put 120 volts across the bulb. I'll find a 100 watt incandescent bulb and find out myself.

If the bulbs have a significant inductance that will limit Alternating Current then you'd have part of the puzzle as to why you see lower current at higher frequency. I thought you might want to know that and take a simple measurement since you have the parts and instruments in front of you.
bi

[bistander]

Not true. You forget that the term "mass" has more than one meaning. I wasn't talking Physics. Quote: a coherent, typically large body of matter with no definite shape.
If one 'mass" of iron (in Earth's gravity) has greater "mass" than another piece of iron, it is because it is greater in size. BIGGER. So a BIGGER magnet has greater attraction to a BIGGER piece of iron than a smaller magnet has to a smaller piece of iron. That is what I was saying, and you know it. As usual, you attempt to paint everything with your BS paintbrush to confuse everyone.


I never talked about gravity, so this is irrelevant. Please do not attempt to put words in my mouth.


I never claimed it did. Please do not attempt to put words in my mouth


So the cores provide a PATH for magnetic flux without the magnetic flux actually being IN them? Is that what you are saying. I would be interested in reading about that. Do you have a source for this bit of information?


I made NO CLAIM about core loss. Show me where I did. You can't. Again, this is your attempt to confuse the issue.

The neutralizing magnets do not interact with with the cores or the magnets aligned with the cores, therefore they have NO EFFECT on the primary fields in the cores. If you do not understand the way the machine works, please ask questions. You are demonstrating your total lack of understanding with this statement, which reflects on ALL of your statements and conclusions about this machine.

All this, except for you redefining mass, because you fail to recognize the established definition of cogging and Newton's Laws.
bi

[Turion]

bi,
Last time I measured the resistance across the socket the bulb was screwed into. Connecting to the two wire terminal connections. This time I unscrewed the bulb and measured directly across the bulb. I also measured across two other bulbs I had in boxes. All measured 10.5 ohms with the RMS meter. 100 watt bulbs. Am going to measure the 300 watt bulbs and see if there is a difference and will edit this.

Measured ALL the 100 watt, 200 watt and 300 watt bulbs I have
100 watt 9.6-10.5 range. (8 bulbs)
200 watt 4.4-5.1 range. (6 bulbs)
300 watt 2.8-3.2 range. (12 bulbs)


bro,
I am not clear what "gap" has to do with anything, other than the tighter the gap the more flux the core is exposed to. But gap is not something I can control. I have attempted to make this machine as "tight" as possible, to the point that the cores were rubbing against the rotors. Can't get much tighter than that. But I have no way to "adjust" that gap now. It is what it is. And Yes, the two machines have a different gap, but there is no way to make that equal because of the rotor wobble in that old machine.

I am going to wind two NEW, larger coils and see what that gets me. I am busy adapting my coil winder to handle a longer coil. It is NOT made for one, so this is going to be interesting, but I have several ideas. I had a couple "adaptors" with thick neo magnets in them that allowed me to just "lock on" to the core of a coil and unwind or wind bobbins that already have a core in them, so I may have to put the core in the new bobbin and use those adaptors. They are cumbersome, and can get pulled loose, which causes all kinds of wire spaghetti disasters, so I would rather depend on something else, but I have until Friday when the wire comes to figure it out.

[BroMikey]

All irrelevant like most of your subject contortions. All your math is flawed and without a known value of gap no judgements can be made. If you ever had a rig you would know that.

bi
Edit. Double check 100W bulb. 120V/11.3ohm= about 10A. 10A*120V = 1200W????? Maybe check current when plugged in the 120 VAC outlet.

2nd edit:
Either that or bulbs are not "nearly purely resistive" as I've been led to believe.

[Turion]

Hi Turion,

You have consistently misconstrued what I've told you about cogging and core loss. So I'll tell you again.


Gravity is the only attractive force caused by the "mass" of the parts.

Not true. You forget that the term "mass" has more than one meaning. I wasn't talking Physics. Quote: a coherent, typically large body of matter with no definite shape.
If one 'mass" of iron (in Earth's gravity) has greater "mass" than another piece of iron, it is because it is greater in size. BIGGER. So a BIGGER magnet has greater attraction to a BIGGER piece of iron than a smaller magnet has to a smaller piece of iron. That is what I was saying, and you know it. As usual, you attempt to paint everything with your BS paintbrush to confuse everyone.

Gravitational attraction between those parts is too little to affect the prime mover.

I never talked about gravity, so this is irrelevant. Please do not attempt to put words in my mouth.

What you refer to as "magnetic neutralization" is an anti-cogging scheme and does nothing about friction, windage or core loss.

I never claimed it did. Please do not attempt to put words in my mouth

Cores do not "absorb" magnetic flux, they provide a low reluctance path for magnetic flux.

So the cores provide a PATH for magnetic flux without the magnetic flux actually being IN them? Is that what you are saying. I would be interested in reading about that. Do you have a source for this bit of information?

Core loss can not be neutralized by addition of anti-cogging magnets unless those magnets reduce the primary field in the core(s),

I made NO CLAIM about core loss. Show me where I did. You can't. Again, this is your attempt to confuse the issue.

The neutralizing magnets do not interact with with the cores or the magnets aligned with the cores, therefore they have NO EFFECT on the primary fields in the cores. If you do not understand the way the machine works, please ask questions. You are demonstrating your total lack of understanding with this statement, which reflects on ALL of your statements and conclusions about this machine.

[bistander]

6.7 ohms with a Fluke RMS across the coil
11.3 across the 100 watt bulb

Thanks. Helps.
bi
Edit. Double check 100W bulb. 120V/11.3ohm= about 10A. 10A*120V = 1200W????? Maybe check current when plugged in the 120 VAC outlet.

2nd edit:
Either that or bulbs are not "nearly purely resistive" as I've been led to believe.

[Turion]

6.7 ohms with a Fluke RMS across the coil
11.3 across the 100 watt bulb

[bistander]

Here is the info I got from my buddy:
Coil # L-TL
Rpm 2820
Volts Preload 290 pre load
Volts under load 80 volts
Amps 0.6amps
100 watt light bulb in photo

Coil # R-BR
Rpm 2835
Volts Preload 300+ preload
Volts Underload 90 volts
Amps 0.6amps
100 watt light bulb in photo

Those numbers are for the old machine with the 12 magnet rotor. It is the same size as my rotor, just more magnets. My numbers were from the video I posted.

He doesn’t have a scope to put on coils on that old machine. I can put one on mine, but I don’t know if that will give you the data you are looking for.

Thanks. How about coil resistance of each? Standard multimeter will suffice. Please get resistance of the bulb also.
bi

[Turion]

Here is the info I got from my buddy:
Coil # L-TL
Rpm 2820
Volts Preload 290 pre load
Volts under load 80 volts
Amps 0.6amps
100 watt light bulb in photo

Coil # R-BR
Rpm 2835
Volts Preload 300+ preload
Volts Underload 90 volts
Amps 0.6amps
100 watt light bulb in photo

Those numbers are for the old machine with the 12 magnet rotor. It is the same size as my rotor, just more magnets. My numbers were from the video I posted.

He doesn’t have a scope to put on coils on that old machine. I can put one on mine, but I don’t know if that will give you the data you are looking for.