The bistander thread

[bistander]

IMG_20210511_205114866.jpg

This is not a generator. It is a test fixture which I built for a specific purpose which needs one core and one opposition magnet, as seen in the photo above. The intended test involved no coil. Both the core and the magnet are adjustable with the 1/2-13 UNC thread. True position on the other planes isn't critical for intended purpose.

Magnetic drag is a fact of life when a magnet moves past a conductive or ferrous material (core or conductor). A few posts back I showed multiple cores installed (6). I did this to run an additional test to see how the increase in number of cores affected the input power. Correlation was linear.

"Then add a coil that is multifilar, series connected leaving the circuit open and you will see a slight increase of drag before you ever close the switch. for a tiny setup it won't seem like much until your machine has 10-12 station and the rotor is 12-14 dia. Then you will see what Turion da man sees."

Torque developed as a result from changing flux through a coil resulting in current in the coil is typically not considered magnetic drag. I've tried to make this clear in my discussions with Turion and even asked him to define exactly what he meant the first time he used "magnetic drag". It is not a term often used in the field of electric machinery. Turion didn't define it, so I looked it up and supplied the best available definition using the eddy current brake as example.

Magnetic drag is force or torque resulting from core loss. The primary test of interest here is relating opposition magnets effect to magnetic drag or core loss. My contention is that there is no effect on core loss (magnetic drag) from the opposition or neutralization magnets. As such, there is no need for coils. However, going beyond the scope of my primary test, those opposition or neutralization magnets will have no effect on losses in bifilar coils when present on the core. Anyone questioning that is invited to test it.

Isn't the quote which I used above an admission that the multifilar coil causes loss under the no-load condition? Isn't that what the Thane Heinz debunker video demonstrated? Like what I've said all along? The multifilar coil increases loss at no-load and doesn't improve loaded performance compared to an equivalent single strand coil.

bi

.

[BroMikey]

Only one core used for primary test.
bi

Contrary to the fantasy world you live in generators use coils on the core and this too will cause an induced static field causing a slight magnetic effect. Run the rotor at 100 rpm without a core, then move the core in to 60 thousandths gap and run at 100 rpm. Repeat 200 RPM and so on.

The answer is clear, drag does indeed exist. Then add a coil that is multifilar, series connected leaving the circuit open and you will see a slight increase of drag before you ever close the switch. for a tiny setup it won't seem like much until your machine has 10-12 station and the rotor is 12-14 dia. Then you will see what Turion da man sees.

Happy investigating. great work Bye, there might be hope for you after all.

[bistander]

...
Contrary to his last post, my test only uses one station. And uses no coil.
...

Only one core used for primary test.
bi

[BroMikey]

With cores, yes. Coils are irrelevant for these magnetic drag tests.

IMG_20210505_182845394.jpg

6 cores, one at a time, speeds up to 8,000RPM.
bi
edit: although I said it before, 4 magnets on rotor.

You can't just drill out a hole for a core wherever, it has to inter act with the magnets equally and you need many coils or cores to be dead nutz accurate so each passing magnet hit the next core at TDC all the same one after another or you won't see anything. Because of the uneven spacing some before and some after will create drag.

Yup bye is right, his creates drag

[bistander]

IMG_20210524_162528126.jpg

I just tested the spindle and belt drive. With no cores in play, full motor speed gave 3800RPM on the disc. I could run with that. Spindle ran smooth and larger bearings are sturdy. But the spindle shaft isn't locked to bearing inner race so can slide axially not holding air gap from rotor to stator core. Will not be able to test with it this way. I'll have to insert custom spacers on the shaft. Maybe find right size pipe or tube to cut short section off.
bi
edit:

IMG_20210524_175058935.jpg

Found a spacer = hose clamp. Flipped cog. Up & running. 3800RPM in photo. Using 2 cores at 180°. Installed scatter shield. Ran full blast for 5-10 minutes. About 50 watts at first but settled to about 40. This is first loading of motor B so might be break-in or bearing lube heating causing power reduction. Nothing showing heat and vibration is least I've seen with it.

[bistander]

Contrary to some BS you might see on this thread, positional and dimensional tolerances are not critical to .001_th's of inches in large air gap PM machines especially when most of the magnetic circuit is air anyway. High quality and well balanced machinery is always desirable but hardly necessary for every 7th grade science experiment.

Those that question what I just wrote are invited to do the tolerance analysis and/or experimental proof to show otherwise.
bi

Those that question are still at it. I built a test fixture. I didn't build a generator. I didn't build a precision machine. For my purpose, that isn't necessary. Instead of relying on precision measurements in the build, I can use adjustments on the assembly.

Contrary to his last post, my test only uses one station. And uses no coil. And most telling would be to have Turion duplicate my test exactly with his precision equipment. It is a simple test but will reveal the truth. Actually the 7th grade science experiment described it nicely. Turion, or anybody, can do it and learn something they would have learned in 7th grade science class had they paid attention.

And yes, I already knew what the results would be. I didn't need to build this fixture and do the test. I know the fundamentals and how to apply the knowledge. I did this solely at Turion's insistence so he might learn the truth.
bi

[BroMikey]

Hi Turion,

Your claim, in this regard, not your big claim, is that these "repulsion" magnets eliminate (or even reduce) magnetic drag (core loss). Which is false. Those additional magnets in the stator have no effect on the cores. If anything, the additional magnets will bring with them some additional loss to the machine.

My testing supports my position. So please, take the few minutes and do the single core test to see the results I have witnessed.

That is your plan with that inaccurate rotor. Backyard measurement and cuts will result in conflicting data as each station is added on from 1 coil and so on. You know what you are doing. You can always build or produce the result you plan for. You are fooling yourself again and at the same time you think you are fooling others.

You can not randomly drill holes just wherever and call it precision. These units require a highly machined tolerance within 1-3 thousandths. Otherwise your concoction does not qualify. Small fry not big league.

You can't pinch pennies here, get it machined.

[bistander]

bi,
My intention is to show the input in volts and amps to the motor with no cores in place. Then add ten cores (without coils) to the machine and show the volts and amps input to the motor increases to get the same RPM. Then dial in the repulsion magnets and show the volts and amps to the motor goes back down to maintain the initial RPM. That will prove my claim that magnetic neutralization decreases the amp draw caused when the cores of the coils have been put in place. That is what I have claimed.

It is quite possible there is some reaction when the magnets are adjusted back out. If you want to show that with your testing, be my guest. I never said there wasn't. All I have claimed is that magnetic neutralization decreases the amp draw of the prime mover and allows it to spin the rotor at a higher RPM, which in turn results in greater output from the generator.

Hi Turion,

Your claim, in this regard, not your big claim, is that these "repulsion" magnets eliminate (or even reduce) magnetic drag (core loss). Which is false. Those additional magnets in the stator have no effect on the cores. If anything, the additional magnets will bring with them some additional loss to the machine.

The easiest way to demonstrate this is using a single core. My concern with a demonstration using 10 cores and 10 repulsion magnets is that the lengthy process of adjusting all those between the with and without input power readings will allow unknown factors to influence the results. That is why I would like you to duplicate my suggested method where you have the "with" version all set and running displaying input, and then, in real time, changing nothing else, back out the magnet while monitoring the input, thereby witnessing the change to the "without" version. According to you, and you have said this, the input power (as seen by amps) will increase when the magnet is removed. I say theory states it will not. At your request, or insistence, I have assembled, as you call it, a 7th grade science experiment, or test fixture to demonstrate it. My testing supports my position. So please, take the few minutes and do the single core test to see the results I have witnessed.

Thank you,
bi

[Turion]

bi,
My intention is to show the input in volts and amps to the motor with no cores in place. Then add ten cores (without coils) to the machine and show the volts and amps input to the motor increases to get the same RPM. Then dial in the repulsion magnets and show the volts and amps to the motor goes back down to maintain the initial RPM. That will prove my claim that magnetic neutralization decreases the amp draw caused when the cores of the coils have been put in place. That is what I have claimed.

It is quite possible there is some reaction when the magnets are adjusted back out. If you want to show that with your testing, be my guest. I never said there wasn't. All I have claimed is that magnetic neutralization decreases the amp draw of the prime mover and allows it to spin the rotor at a higher RPM, which in turn results in greater output from the generator.

[BroMikey]

Hi Turion,

Good luck with the real estate. Appears to be excellent time for sellers.


Also, BTW, I hit a snag with my test fixture. After installing 12 magnets on the rotor, I noticed that I was unable to get above ~7000RPM.


This doesn't negate any of my previous tests

BYE's mosquito motor generator. The way Dave is going you might show the world before he does. After 5 years Dave is still working on cement. The years get away don't they? Sell it for anything you can get and hope someone has money. The markets will crash. Buy another one and do it again. Good money. There is no money in free energy. No future in it. Like farming.

[bistander]

My house goes on the market this coming Friday. Until then I have no time for this stuff. Too many little things that need to be taken care of as that day approaches. I have accumulated permalloy core material, nanocrystaline core material, several kinds of iron powder core material, black sand, ferrite, and a couple others. Each one will be tested, with my old standby iron core as a baseline. I want to know output, RPM for the neutral zone, as well as upper limit before “speed up” and reduced output occurs. As soon as I get all the data from the standard core that is currently in the machine, I will even do some of the testing bi has been so eager for me to do before I put a different coil in place. Namely inserting 10 cores and measuring what happens before and after magnetic neutralization is implemented. The new motor with the more secure shaft adaptor has already been mounted. Once I have determined what core is best, those are the cores I will base future claims on, and that will be an accurate assessment of the potential of this machine. While the current cores do exactly as I have stated, the heat issue limits the run time of the machine. That is its limitation, and it is currently a BIG one. I am fully aware that the output of the machine is likely to go down with these new materials, but input probably will go down a bit too. I have no idea what the ratio will be.

Hi Turion,

Good luck with the real estate. Appears to be excellent time for sellers.

Also appreciate mention of running requested test for me. You say "As soon as I get all the data from the standard core that is currently in the machine, I will even do some of the testing bi has been so eager for me to do before I put a different coil (core?) in place."

Just to clarify, the test is simple. Use only a single core, no coil. Adjust your "magnetic neutralization" magnet to its optimum position. Run at rated RPM. Leave it run there and focus on input ammeter. Now, using your T handle Allen, slowly back away the stator magnet from the rotor, while making no other adjustments. Record the input ammeter as the magnet is moved away. Simple.
BTW, if there is no way to mount the core without a coil, ensure all coil strands are disconnected.

Also, BTW, I hit a snag with my test fixture. After installing 12 magnets on the rotor, I noticed that I was unable to get above ~7000RPM. This occurred as core losses, and friction and windage, hit ~80 watts. As I would increase motor voltage trying to go faster, watts would increase but not RPM. The motor shaft coupling/adapter which secures the disc was slipping. It's small diameter and 2 tiny set screws met the torque limit. This also explains heat felt on that coupling.

This doesn't negate any of my previous tests or data but does limit some planned tests with higher power. Also, when the slippage occurred, the disc could move axially towards the stator. Not something you want to see. So I've been changing over to a belt drive using a spindle with a larger diameter shaft and bigger bearings. Unfortunately the pulley ratio will reduce the rotor speed. Hopefully I can test this in a few days.

Good luck in the real estate market.
bi

[Quantum_well]

bistander, thank you so much for your comments. Regarding the Mahle motor I've found another article and I think the motor is a wound rotor type. This is not a new idea, I had a generator using that principle nearly 50 years ago. What they're doing is avoiding slip rings. The efficiency of 95% is what caught my eye, maximum efficiency 96%.
My torque sensor was just a fun project with the idea of generator efficiency testing. A proper set up is in the order of $2,000 and I couldn't find cheap second hand either . I'm an old man and don't need any fancy stuff. I thought using a retarded timing method was the easiest whereas a strain gauge would entail slip rings or Bluetooth. I've had no experience with Bluetooth so I'll look into it because one idea was a strain gague on an aluminium strip.

[bistander]

The Mahle brushless magnet free induction motor. What they've done is to excite the rotor wirelessly, claimed benefits no rare earth, high efficiency over speed range and up to 95% efficiency

Aren't all induction motor rotors excited wirelessly? That's what induction is about. And induction motors never use PMs. They are typically very efficient. Nothing news worthy.

Rather than build a generator, which with my skills wouldn't be that great unless I spent a small fortune, I'm going to attempt to build a rotary torque sensor. What I'm going to try is a freewheeling shaft joined longitudinally with a coil spring. The applied torque will compress the spring and retard the loaded shaft, the driveside and load side will have rotors with magnets and Hall sensors. The plan is to monitor the time interval with arduino, the more delay the higher the transmitted torque

Torque sensors are readily available. A lot depends on intended application. Check automotive steering systems for low cost reliable devices or ideas. Maybe look at strain gauge. Bluetooth to get data from rotating instrument to recorder???

Regards,
bi

[Quantum_well]

The Mahle brushless magnet free induction motor. What they've done is to excite the rotor wirelessly, claimed benefits no rare earth, high efficiency over speed range and up to 95% efficiency.
Rather than build a generator, which with my skills wouldn't be that great unless I spent a small fortune, I'm going to attempt to build a rotary torque sensor. What I'm going to try is a freewheeling shaft joined longitudinally with a coil spring. The applied torque will compress the spring and retard the loaded shaft, the driveside and load side will have rotors with magnets and Hall sensors. The plan is to monitor the time interval with arduino, the more delay the higher the transmitted torque

[BroMikey]

Is Exro manageing to encroach on the purple zone?

https://youtu.be/C6WApxOy3WA

Dauh Lenz Law way back in the stone age when primitive man roamed the earth oops learning curve.