Electric Motor Secrets

[Jetijs]

Peter,
I made some tests with the 555 timer pulsing the LED. The results are not too good. Here they are:


I used a 1 KOhms for the first resistor and 85K for the second one on the 555 circuit, the greated difference between these values, the closer we get to 50:50 ratio of ON and OFF time. I changed the frequency of the pulses by adding or removing some 1,5nF capacitors on that timer. The more capacitors in parallel, the longer the pulses. The resistor between the output of the 555 timer and the IR diode is 470 Ohms. The comutator wheel has four gaps, 25 degree of an arc each. In the chart you can see, that by reducing the pulse width, I get more spikes per 25 degree window and also getmore back on the output. But I can't get more than 24% back. Also the more spikes, the slower speed.

Here are some scope shots:





Notice how they get shorter in height when there are more spikes per 25 degree window. That means that I can get the pulses even shorter than the rise time, but nevertheless I can not get more than 24% back. Also the higher the frequency of the spikes, the higher pitch noise the motor gives out.
Any suggestions which way to dig next?

[Peter Lindemann]

Excellent Work

Jetijs,

Well, it looks like you have the circuit working right and it is functioning properly. So now, the commutator is switching ON when in the right position, and the Stator Coil is being switched On and Off at its inductive rise-time.

Why you are only getting back 24%, at best, is not known to me. It looks like there may be some problems in your magnetic circuit. Possibly the large air-gap is part of the problem, as well, although this seems less likely.

It could something else. Let me think about it for a while.

Lighty, do you have any ideas?

Peter

[Jetijs]

Peter,
The air gap should not be the problem. Before I changed the magnetic bolts that were holding the rotor together, I noticed, that the gaps were slightly more wide on upper surface of the rotor and narrower on the bottom side. That's why I changed my rotor upside down when I changed the bolts. This time it was a lot harder to get the rotor in place so that it would not touch the startor. The gap is now so wide that I can get only one sheet of paper between startor and rotor, but not two sheets of paper. That is why I think that the gap is not the problem. Also I noticed, that changing the bolts to non magnetic steel ones, did not do any good, because the rotor still tends to align itself to the startor when no power is aplied. That means that the material of the rotor/startor plates retains some magnetism but just a little. That could also be the problem. Maybe this type of steel just can't demagnetize so fast? When I made the tests, it seemed that I simply can't get enough power to the coils if the impulse is choped to too many smaller impulses. I am sure, that the circuit and the 555 timer is right just in the schematic abowe. I did not solder the 555 timer circuit to a base plate instead I used a non soldering break out board, this way I can easy and fast adjust the capacitor value and thus the frequency just by adding more capacitors, or removing some. Also, this pulse chopping approach makes the transistors work cooler, they get only slightly warm. Since I am now using only 3 strands of wire and the non isolated output, maybe I should add another 3 transistors to the circuit and use the remaining strands for powering?
These tests were not very precise, because I was powering the motor with batteries and they slowly went down as you can see in the chart. But still, the results should be better. I will make some more tests tomorrow and see what the scope shows on the output section.
Another interesting thing I noticed, the output current seems to drop as the motor gets up to speed now. This is interesting, because when I ran my motor with only the comutator timing and no 555 circuit, the opposite was happening - as the speed increased, so did the output current also the input current dropped.

Edit: Just a thught. Lets suppose that the problem is the core material that can not demagnetize fast enogh. Wouldn't a slower rise time help? Maybe I should connect the three unused wires in series with the other three coils so that the inductance increases, this way also the rise time should increase, right? This way there should also be more time left for the material to demagnetize because we could use a smaller frequency on the 555 timer.

Jetijs

[Peter Lindemann]

Incomplete De-magnetization.....

Peter,
The air gap should not be the problem. Before I changed the magnetic bolts that were holding the rotor together, I noticed, that the gaps were slightly more wide on upper surface of the rotor and narrower on the bottom side. That's why I changed my rotor upside down when I changed the bolts. This time it was a lot harder to get the rotor in place so that it would not touch the startor. The gap is now so wide that I can get only one sheet of paper between startor and rotor, but not two sheets of paper. That is why I think that the gap is not the problem. Also I noticed, that changing the bolts to non magnetic steel ones, did not do any good, because the rotor still tends to align itself to the startor when no power is aplied. That means that the material of the rotor/startor plates retains some magnetism but just a little. That could also be the problem. Maybe this type of steel just can't demagnetize so fast? When I made the tests, it seemed that I simply can't get enough power to the coils if the impulse is choped to too many smaller impulses. I am sure, that the circuit and the 555 timer is right just in the schematic abowe. I did not solder the 555 timer circuit to a base plate instead I used a non soldering break out board, this way I can easy and fast adjust the capacitor value and thus the frequency just by adding more capacitors, or removing some. Also, this pulse chopping approach makes the transistors work cooler, they get only slightly warm. Since I am now using only 3 strands of wire and the non isolated output, maybe I should add another 3 transistors to the circuit and use the remaining strands for powering?
These tests were not very precise, because I was powering the motor with batteries and they slowly went down as you can see in the chart. But still, the results should be better. I will make some more tests tomorrow and see what the scope shows on the output section.
Another interesting thing I noticed, the output current seems to drop as the motor gets up to speed now. This is interesting, because when I ran my motor with only the comutator timing and no 555 circuit, the opposite was happening - as the speed increased, so did the output current also the input current dropped.

Edit: Just a thught. Lets suppose that the problem is the core material that can not demagnetize fast enogh. Wouldn't a slower rise time help? Maybe I should connect the three unused wires in series with the other three coils so that the inductance increases, this way also the rise time should increase, right? This way there should also be more time left for the material to demagnetize because we could use a smaller frequency on the 555 timer.

Jetijs

Jetijs,

The electro-magnetic effect that produces the output is the collapse of the magnetic field. This falling field produces a "rate of change" of flux in the output windings that produces the VOLTAGE of the output pulse. The current associated with this VOLTAGE is determined by Lenz Law, so the higher the voltage, the higher the current.

If your core material retains some of its magnetic field, that characteristic is going to slow down the magnetic field collapse and reduce the amount of energy the return pulse can produce.

This is the most probable reason you cannot get your recovery energy above 24%. Until this issue is resolved, your project motor cannot hope to produce a COP>1. Slowing down the rise-time of the inductor does not overcome the slowness and energy loss of the hysteresis curve of the core material.

Where we go from here is up to you.

Peter

[Peter Lindemann]

Recycle Circuit

Jetijs,

I've had some time to think about this situation and have a few more suggestions. It sounds like your air-gap is pretty small right now, so that is good. One other possibility is that your return energy readings are low partly because of the sampling rate of your meters. Metering the energy quotient from the inductive collapse has always proved difficult. Some people believe that there is no significant energy there, but the recent development of high efficiency DC-to-DC converters shows there is, if the switching and core materials are properly configured.

In Bedini's SG motors, the "metered" energy return always looks lower than the effect it produces in recharging the second battery. When I worked for John's company, we rarely bothered metering the output directly for these reasons.

What I would like you to do is take the output pulses from the isolated windings and apply them back to the front of the circuit to a capacitor placed between the front battery and the motor. The capacitor must be isolated from the battery with a diode on the negative line (cathode toward the battery) as I discussed before.

Then you can look at the input current between the battery and the capacitor and as well as the input current between the capacitor and the motor. The difference is the amount of energy you are recovering back to the capacitor. I got a 65% current reduction on the battery drain using this technique on my first try, using one of my little Bedini SG type motors, but I have not tried to maximize this effect in either an SG or an attraction motor yet. The transistor switching, coil/core response, and inductive coupling between the windings are the keys to high return.

As you have seen, your twisted wire pairs are working well, with only a small difference in recovered energy between the isolated windings and the power windings.

Try this experiment, and see if you get an indication that your recovered energy is higher than the 24% you are currently metering.

Peter

[Jetijs]

Ok Peter,
I will make the capacitor test, but first I need you to verify That I understood you correctly. Is this what you meant:


The capacitor is in parallel with the battery and there is a diode on the negative line facing chatode to battery. Is this right?

In the mean time I will make some other tests

[Peter Lindemann]

Almost Right....

Ok Peter,
I will make the capacitor test, but first I need you to verify That I understood you correctly. Is this what you meant:


The capacitor is in parallel with the battery and there is a diode on the negative line facing chatode to battery. Is this right?

In the mean time I will make some other tests

Jetijs,

This schematic is almost correct. The isolated output negative line is NOT a part of the common ground of the system. It must be applied directly to the capacitor contact point BEFORE the ammeter and after the diode. We only want to see the currents in the RUN mode, and not in the recovery mode. Your circuit puts the recovery current through the meter backwards to get to the capacitor.

Try that.

Peter

[Jetijs]

Peter, do you mean this way:

?

BTW, here's a video that shows how the rotor behaves when the power is turned off. You can clearly see that there is still some magnetism in the startor or the rotor piece:
YouTube - Lindemann attraction motor

Thanks,
Jetijs

[Peter Lindemann]

Right

Peter, do you mean this way:

?

BTW, here's a video that shows how the rotor behaves when the power is turned off. You can clearly see that there is still some magnetism in the startor or the rotor piece:
YouTube - Lindemann attraction motor

Thanks,
Jetijs

Jetijs,

Yes, the circuit looks right at this point, except for the lack of a connection from Pin 4 of the 555 timer to the +12 volt supply.

Your YouTube clip does show a small amount of residual magnetism. It's hard to believe this may be the problem, but something about the magnetic behavior of the stator is involved with the low energy return. It's either that, or your transistors are not shutting off fast enough...... and that doesn't seem to be the problem. The 2N3055 has been used in circuits like this for years and has shown its ability to perform well. That pretty much leaves the magnetic behavior of the core to look at.

I guess we are entering the stage where the easy problems are out of the way and the slightly more difficult problems are arising. This is what research looks like. Just stay focussed and don't get discouraged. We can find out what is happening, AND why...and then make corrections.

You are doing really well.

Peter

[Jetijs]

Peter, I already tried this last circuit and the ampmeter did not show any noticable decrease in current draw. It was still about 0.70-0.75A depending on the cap value in the 555 timer. Also I have not connected the pin number 4 to the 12V, because the circuit seems to work well without that.
I have an idea, what if instead of the startor coil we used simply a ordinary induction motor core with some wire wound around? We could pulse the coil and capture the BEMF at a frequency so that the pulse width matches the current rise time. That way we would have a coil around a good core material and could see if this way the output energy increases. If the output from such a coil will be greater, then we know that the problem is in core material, if not, then the problem is somewhere else. I have a small induction motor startor core, just like in Stevens pictures only not as thick, I could use this for the test core material. What do you think?
Thanks,
Jetijs

[Peter Lindemann]

Good Idea

Peter, I already tried this last circuit and the ampmeter did not show any noticable decrease in current draw. It was still about 0.70-0.75A depending on the cap value in the 555 timer. Also I have not connected the pin number 4 to the 12V, because the circuit seems to work well without that.
I have an idea, what if instead of the startor coil we used simply a ordinary induction motor core with some wire wound around? We could pulse the coil and capture the BEMF at a frequency so that the pulse width matches the current rise time. That way we would have a coil around a good core material and could see if this way the output energy increases. If the output from such a coil will be greater, then we know that the problem is in core material, if not, then the problem is somewhere else. I have a small induction motor startor core, just like in Stevens pictures only not as thick, I could use this for the test core material. What do you think?
Thanks,
Jetijs

Jetijs,

Yes, that is a good idea. It is a way to test the hypothesis about the behavior of your core material. If the standard motor laminations works better, then that is evidence in support of the thesis. If you are seeing almost no drop in the energy input when you recycle the output back to the front, it strongly suggests that your meters are right and your recovery is low. Like I said, I have seen 65% drop in the input, and suspect that 80% is possible.

Try your experiment and see what happens.

Good thinking!!

Peter

[Jetijs]

Hello everyone

Today I did some testing. I tested various core materials that I had at hand. First I used a induction motor startor core, I wound several layers of tape around it to deal with the sharp corners, then I wound about 80 turns of gauge 21 wire. I also used a recovery coil form my SSG setup, it has a core made out of welding rods and about 2000 turns. The resistance of this coil was about 10 Ohms. Also I tried a coil with a magnetite/hematite/resin core with about 500 turns of gauge 24 wire, just to see what results I will get Here are my cores:



I pulsed all of these cores with the 555 timer on the attraction motor circuit. I used only one transistor and the non isolated output. I had to adjust the capacity of the 555 capacitor to mach the rise times of each coil, I found that there is a sweetspot where I can get the most energy back. Too much or too less capacity and the efficiency drops big time. I wont post the result table because they are not very precize, instead I just post the best results I got form each core. So, when I used the iron induction motor startor core, the best result I could get was 46,2% back. The coil with the welding rod core gave 50,1% back at the best try. But the coil with the black sand (magnetite/hematite) core gave me 53,1% back. The input current of each coil varied form 0,27 to 1.5 amps, but nevertheless the transistor stayed only slightly warm. So I guess that my core material is just not good enough.

Thanks,
Jetijs

[elias]

May you try this experiment?

Hello everyone

Today I did some testing. I tested various core materials that I had at hand. First I used a induction motor startor core, I wound several layers of tape around it to deal with the sharp corners, then I wound about 80 turns of gauge 21 wire. I also used a recovery coil form my SSG setup, it has a core made out of welding rods and about 2000 turns. The resistance of this coil was about 10 Ohms. Also I tried a coil with a magnetite/hematite/resin core with about 500 turns of gauge 24 wire, just to see what results I will get Here are my cores:



I pulsed all of these cores with the 555 timer on the attraction motor circuit. I used only one transistor and the non isolated output. I had to adjust the capacity of the 555 capacitor to mach the rise times of each coil, I found that there is a sweetspot where I can get the most energy back. Too much or too less capacity and the efficiency drops big time. I wont post the result table because they are not very precize, instead I just post the best results I got form each core. So, when I used the iron induction motor startor core, the best result I could get was 46,2% back. The coil with the welding rod core gave 50,1% back at the best try. But the coil with the black sand (magnetite/hematite) core gave me 53,1% back. The input current of each coil varied form 0,27 to 1.5 amps, but nevertheless the transistor stayed only slightly warm. So I guess that my core material is just not good enough.

Thanks,
Jetijs

Good work Jetijs,

Have you used MOSFETs or any kind of faster switching device instead of BJTs? Faster switching may increase your output. (with sincere respect to Peter)
Can you use the capacitor arrangement of the following schematic in your circuit to find out how much excess charge your coils put back? http://www.energeticforum.com/attach...crets-cssg.jpg

This circuit is useful for measuring the amount of charge gained from pulsing coils. It would provide us with a measure of how different coils behave. Also I remember Bedini talking about open cores being better to capture Radiant Energy rather than toroid shaped closed magnetic cores.

[Jetijs]

Thanks, elias
I don't quite understand your circuit, maybe if you explained what the circuit does and how should I add it in my circuit, I would try that out. Also that with the closed core, maybe that is why I actually get better results with a open welding rod core than with a closed induction motor startor core. Lets see what Peter has to say. If there is a big difference in the closed and open cores, then I could cut the induction motor startor core in half and test only one half of this core. Because I was hoping for better results with this silicon steel core

[elias]

Thanks, elias
I don't quite understand your circuit, maybe if you explained what the circuit does and how should I add it in my circuit, I would try that out. Also that with the closed core, maybe that is why I actually get better results with a open welding rod core than with a closed induction motor startor core. Lets see what Peter has to say. If there is a big difference in the closed and open cores, then I could cut the induction motor startor core in half and test only one half of this core. Because I was hoping for better results with this silicon steel core

Well,

In that circuit I usually charge C1 with a battery and pulse it through the coil into C2, while capturing the spikes in C3, this basic circuit defies the law of charge conservation and you end up with more charge than you started with. It will show how much charge you can capture by using a coil and pulsing the pushbutton (or you can use a transistor) when starting with a predefined amount of charge.

Elias