The bistander thread

[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.

[Quantum_well]

Is Exro manageing to encroach on the purple zone?

https://youtu.be/C6WApxOy3WA

[Quantum_well]

Here's an idea about the brutal facts. Screenshot_20210331-210744_Chrome~3.jpg
I've tried to colour in purple the area you must be in to achieve enhanced generator performance.
You will see electrically excited gen. comes out the worst of the bunch. That's a definite no for the small electromagnets.
If you want to prove acceleration under load you've got to do it in the purple, otherwise you're just altering the efficiency of the system.
The easy winner is the medium speed permanent magnet synchronous generator, that's the one you've got to beat!

[BroMikey]

The point is that a greater accuracy with show greater results. With a 5-10 thousandths tolerance the amp draw will go lower than a tolerance of 20-30 thousandths. So if one station is 1 thousandths out and the next station is 20 thousandths then adjustments have to be made to balance them equal. Therefore the 1 thousandth accurate station is made to operate closer to a 20 thousandths station. It is not just where the holes are cut so magnets can be installed. This accuracy tolerance includes the shapes of fields coming off magnet that potentially can be irregular. Most good magnet suppliers offer consistently equal materials making magnets. The possibility always exists for 1 bad magnet to throw off the whole build.

It is not just the X and Y axis geometrically but the week magnet or a magnet that is much stronger at 60 thousandths gap will interact sooner or later creating a station tolerance that is higher or lower that is measurable. Whether magnet or physical placement all stations have numbers associated where an average of all of the stations with determine the final out come as to how effective neutralization is.

This magnet irregularity problem could be solved by building rotors in the future using tiny electromagnets. Not saying we should do that. The point is that thru refinement we could lower the draw even further.

one side acts different than the other

https://external-content.duckduckgo....vcE&f=1&nofb=1



,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,

[BroMikey]

Aside from John Bedini and Thane Heins plus myself, there are no others who have shown with 1-3 coils(makes no never mind) that energy can be produced in excess of a standard generator. This was shown now for decades by J B and THANE with the rest of those riding on shirt tails having yet to come clean and show similar results. boasts have been made, yes. Still waiting.

The big money asks the right question. HOW MUCH?

[BroMikey]

Remember that

62 thousandths = 1/6th inch
31 thousandths = 1/32 inch
16 thousandths = 1/64 inch

A carpenter can barely measure or work with a 1/64th inch tolerance yet this 16 thousandths of an inch say for a fan blade would be enough to make it dance across the room due to vibration being completely out of balance.

To reach a 2-5 thousandths tolerance a person could use a 3D printer or a light duty CNC router milling table for cheap non metal plastics.

If it is a rotor as a magneto you could make it like this. Almost anything works. Don't ask Dave he sends all of his high tolerance work out to his machinist. Out of sight out of mind but the need for accuracy is real. It's not that big a deal? Really. Tell that to Greyland.

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/9W4AA...EMX/s-l400.jpg

[BroMikey]

Another example of a drill press rotor failed device mess, ''off by only'' 50 or 30 thousandths here and there on the "X" and "Y" axis the green circles can represent the stationary opposition positions.


http://flyer.thenetteam.net/MackMtr/rotormess2.jpg