The bistander thread

[bistander]

...
You say I haven't done the "simple experiment". That's a lie. ...

No it is not. You have not done exactly what I asked and recorded it for all to see like I asked. Run at speed. Show ammeter. Back out the neutralization magnet(s) with the camera on the ammeter and show the change in current. Simple.
bi

[bistander]

... But the attraction of the magnet to the core NEVER goes away.
...

I have never said or implied that it does.
bi

[bistander]

So, those two forces are UNEQUAL at lower speed, which is what causes cogging? Is THAT your claim? REALLY??
...

No, I never said or implied any such thing.
bi

[Turion]

At speed, the cogging torque opposing rotation is equally offset by cogging torque aiding rotation. No problem.

bi

So, those two forces are UNEQUAL at lower speed, which is what causes cogging? Is THAT your claim? REALLY??

And somehow they "magically" become equal at higher speed? REALLY??

And what is the magic "force" that causes these two "UNEQUAL" forces (responsible for cogging) to become "EQUAL".

Or perhaps it is this:

The cogging becomes less and less as the speed of the rotor increases. WHY? Because the time the rotor magnet is DIRECTLY ALIGNED WITH THE COIL CORE becomes less and less as rotational speed increases. That "instant in time" I have talked about becomes less and less. But the attraction of the magnet to the core NEVER goes away. If it did, the core would not absorb flux, the wire would produce less current, and your coil would be worth far less. So to think that attraction goes away "at speed" is hilarious. The MORE coils you add, the greater the effect on the prime mover.

You say I haven't done the "simple experiment". That's a lie. The "simple experiment" is the whole basis for half of the reason this generator works. I have done the experiment hundreds of times over the last ten years. You've done it with ONE coil and called your results conclusive. I have done to with 12 coils on a REAL machine.

Your claim that it isn't relevant to power at rated speed is semantics. The coils put out what they put out (all other things being equal) based on the rotor RPM. To maintain that RPM with the addition of MORE COILS you must increase the amps provided to the prime mover. PERIOD. But NOT with magnetic neutralization in place. I have posted videos SHOWING the effect adding coils has on the prime mover that is operating "AT SPEED".

[bistander]

S1.- I can tell you that I first did the test without the repellent magnets, and I could not move the rotor by hand, the attraction of the magnet to the core was very strong, and the motor could not start the movement of the rotor without it. to help by turning the rotor.

S2.- Well, I put the repellent magnets on it, and only then, and only then, was I able to move it and turn it manually. And with the same motor, which is fine and not weak or malfunctioning, when the motor was turned on it could easily turn the rotor, and the consumption S1>S2 is met.

I am talking about the cores and magnets, for now, and not about the generation, but how you can lower the current consumption of the motor that moves the rotor, when you have that magnetic brake, so to speak, between the magnet - core, that makes the engine work harder and consume more to be able to move it, in this way the consumption of the engine is reduced.

It is what Mr. Dave has proven for years in his work.

I am telling you the facts. It is easy for you or Turion to verify. I did it on my bench with the fixture that I built a few months ago. Turion has all the equipment and instruments needed to follow my test procedure but he is unwilling to take a few minutes to learn the truth. I recall a few years ago asking you to run a simple additional test when you were posting a similar test you were running. You ignored me.

You guys choose to call it something it isn't. It is cogging. Cogging is irrelevant to power at rated speed. Your "magnetic neutralization" scheme is simply anti-cogging method. It does mitigate cogging and you will feel it at low speed. I've never said otherwise. But there is no benefit to it at rated speed with regards to power. If you think otherwise, you're mistaken.

That is fact. Truth. Easy for you to do and see. But you will not. Why? Fear of truth. Sad.
bi

[alexelectric]

S1.- I can tell you that I first did the test without the repellent magnets, and I could not move the rotor by hand, the attraction of the magnet to the core was very strong, and the motor could not start the movement of the rotor without it. to help by turning the rotor.

S2.- Well, I put the repellent magnets on it, and only then, and only then, was I able to move it and turn it manually. And with the same motor, which is fine and not weak or malfunctioning, when the motor was turned on it could easily turn the rotor, and the consumption S1>S2 is met.

I am talking about the cores and magnets, for now, and not about the generation, but how you can lower the current consumption of the motor that moves the rotor, when you have that magnetic brake, so to speak, between the magnet - core, that makes the engine work harder and consume more to be able to move it, in this way the consumption of the engine is reduced.

It is what Mr. Dave has proven for years in his work.

[bistander]

Continuing with the various analyses, I remember when the assistant to SR. Dave showed the machine with all the neutralizing magnets (if that's what we want to call it, or call it whatever you like).

Situation. 1.- When the neutralizing magnets were not installed, and only the core and the magnets, it was not possible to move the rotor by hand, I can imagine the consumption of the motor to be able to start it at the beginning.

Situation 2.-Since the assistant put the magnets that balance the attraction of the nucleus - magnet, he could move the rotor with a finger, yes with a finger.

That he is acting there, that he improved, it works or it doesn't work, I see him as an advantage.

Start the engine in situation 1, start the engine in situation 2

It will be the same current consumption S1=S2 when starting them

It will be the same current consumption S1=S2 since it is fully operational

You speak of cogging. Yes, cogging can be problematic at low speeds, especially if you use a weak prime mover. But that is not where the generator produces power. Producing (generating) power is the function or purpose of the generator. And that occurs at speed, rated speed. At speed, the cogging torque opposing rotation is equally offset by cogging torque aiding rotation. No problem.

We've been over this before. Cogging torque at start up is not a functional issue when producing power, the job of the generator. Yes, you do need to start the generator from standstill, at least once, maybe occasionally, but there are other methods one can use if that cogging torque is too great for your finger.
bi

[alexelectric]

Continuing with the various analyses, I remember when the assistant to SR. Dave showed the machine with all the neutralizing magnets (if that's what we want to call it, or call it whatever you like).

Situation. 1.- When the neutralizing magnets were not installed, and only the core and the magnets, it was not possible to move the rotor by hand, I can imagine the consumption of the motor to be able to start it at the beginning.

Situation 2.-Since the assistant put the magnets that balance the attraction of the nucleus - magnet, he could move the rotor with a finger, yes with a finger.

That he is acting there, that he improved, it works or it doesn't work, I see him as an advantage.

Start the engine in situation 1, start the engine in situation 2

It will be the same current consumption S1=S2 when starting them

It will be the same current consumption S1=S2 since it is fully operational

[alexelectric]

bistander
Ok your information is appreciated, then I share my analysis. Thanks

[bistander]

yes greetings
Mr.bistander You quoted me in a previous writing, and I read your comments, can you kindly comment on what I put, of the 8 magnets.

If you previously shared your analysis on another comment, and I appreciate it, everything is important for or against, and I don't get angry, but you do get angry if someone doesn't agree with you.

Here is something to learn if I am wrong, that makes me study, investigate and check.

I await your analysis, because according to that I will continue questioning, asking, investigating checking.

Any comment is appreciated. in favor or oppossing

I have no idea what you're talking about. What quote? "You quoted me in a previous writing," Give me the link or reply #.

Anyway, I guess that is an answer as to why you asked that particular question, although I still don't understand why. Nobody was talking about moving the rotor closer.

Answer:

Decreasing the air gap length (distance between magnet and core) will in most cases increase flux in the core, which causes an increase in core loss (hysteresis loss and Eddy current loss). The increase in core loss gets that power from the source, in this case, the drive motor, which causes increase in current.

This assumes all other factors remain same. Also, I don't know the details. The magnetic circuit of the dynamos you guys build is typically so leaky that small changes in the air gap may be insignificant to the point where it does not affect the meter. Also I make exception if the generator has multifilar coils as the no-load current is affected in unusual ways. I simply don't know how to analyze a bifilar wound generator at no-load with regards to parameter changes.

In the typical magnetic circuit in a dynamo, the air gap is the primary source of reluctance. The permability of the magnet material itself is very low so effectively adds length to the air gap for the circuit reluctance. Since the total flux in the circuit is inversely proportional to the reluctance, very small changes in the physical air gap do not cause drastic changes in total flux, compared to the air gap of a non PM dynamo. In other words, the physical air gap in PM dynamos is not dimensionally critical.

Add into the above analysis the fact that the machines you guys build have no back iron, the magnetic circuit can be on the order of half air. So moving the magnet a bit closer to the core could have little effect on the flux density in the core. Or on the other hand, closing the physical gap on your machines may reduce leakage flux and cause an increase in core flux density which is significant especially near the core face, increasing Eddy currents.

There are a lot of factors which can play into an answer to your seemingly simple question. I haven't even touched, and you didn't specify, what the load on the generator is when test the gap reduction. This would affect how the prime mover loading responds. Changes in core flux will affect the output voltage which causes different effects on the current with different electric loads.

Knowing what you guys build, the simple answer is an increase in current, possibly small enough not to detected on a "10" amp meter.

Hope that helps.
bi

[alexelectric]

yes greetings
Mr.bistander You quoted me in a previous writing, and I read your comments, can you kindly comment on what I put, of the 8 magnets.

If you previously shared your analysis on another comment, and I appreciate it, everything is important for or against, and I don't get angry, but you do get angry if someone doesn't agree with you.

Here is something to learn if I am wrong, that makes me study, investigate and check.

I await your analysis, because according to that I will continue questioning, asking, investigating checking.

Any comment is appreciated. in favor or oppossing

[bistander]

Greetings Mr. bistander

With what you explain to us then what I am going to tell you will be like this.

I have a rotor with 8 magnets, I rotate it with a motor at its nominal speed, let's say about 2500 rpm, I measure the current consumed by the motor that the rotor with the 8 magnets is turning, let's say it consumes 10 amps.

I continue with the tests and now I bring 8 cores closer to each magnet, I start it again and when it reaches its nominal speed of 2500 rpm, I again measure the motor that is moving the rotor, what the meter reading will be, equal to 10 amps ?, more than 10 amps?

We learn from everyone and every day you can learn something new or different

Hello Alex,

I am happy to answer your question. However from past experiences with you, I answered your questions to me but then you refuse to answer questions that I ask you. So. I'll provide my answer to your question after you answer this:

Why do you ask this particular question?
bi

[alexelectric]

Greetings Mr. bistander

With what you explain to us then what I am going to tell you will be like this.

I have a rotor with 8 magnets, I rotate it with a motor at its nominal speed, let's say about 2500 rpm, I measure the current consumed by the motor that the rotor with the 8 magnets is turning, let's say it consumes 10 amps.

I continue with the tests and now I bring 8 cores closer to each magnet, I start it again and when it reaches its nominal speed of 2500 rpm, I again measure the motor that is moving the rotor, what the meter reading will be, equal to 10 amps ?, more than 10 amps?

We learn from everyone and every day you can learn something new or different

[Turion]

bi,
You know what you read in a book. Good for you. I know what I built on the bench. Better for me.

[BroMikey]

The difference between Bye and the builders is Bye spends all his time conjuring up fantasies based on his misinterpretation of dusty old science books when no 2 books agree.