Electric Motor Secrets

[Chuff]

PWM to the Fets?

So.. I've been working a lot with this circuit now and am getting pretty comfortable with it thanks to everyone here. I've come up with what I THINK is a good schematic, but I would love to see what all of you think of it?

I've uploaded a schematic in this forum.. img003.jpg

The sensors are SX672. I like these sensors because the mount very easily, and are quite versatile in their configuration. My thinking is that if I control the fet at the gate, I can control the motor with a low voltage system, and still send larger voltages to the coils of the motor.

I hope you all can see it. If not, I'll host the pic somewhere and repost if that's ok.

Thanks in advance for any advice or concerns!

[Jetijs]

Hi Chuff
What does the 555 timer do in your circuit? Does it just turn the AND chip on and off at an adjustable frequency so you can control the time that is needed for the coils to fully magnetize?

[Chuff]

Hi Chuff
What does the 555 timer do in your circuit? Does it just turn the AND chip on and off at an adjustable frequency so you can control the time that is needed for the coils to fully magnetize?

That's pretty much what is intended, yeah. Part of this idea came in an effort to protect the fets a little. When my motor is stalled, the fets blow up. They also don't like it when I start the motor at full voltage.. I have to "step up" from 12, get it going, then to 24, etc.. The 555 integrates a PWM right into the drive circuit.

Because my coils are thicker wire, and wound in Tesla's bifilar way, I'm pulling a lot of amps. The average amp pull when the motor is running is low.. maybe 1.8 amps.. but that's an average over time. The real pull is much higher on all these motors, I suspect. The PWM allows me to control that a little... or at least give me the illusion of control! LOL

[StevanC]

Like a Gas paddle (choke?)

[UncleFester]

That's pretty much what is intended, yeah. Part of this idea came in an effort to protect the fets a little. When my motor is stalled, the fets blow up. They also don't like it when I start the motor at full voltage.. I have to "step up" from 12, get it going, then to 24, etc.. The 555 integrates a PWM right into the drive circuit.

Because my coils are thicker wire, and wound in Tesla's bifilar way, I'm pulling a lot of amps. The average amp pull when the motor is running is low.. maybe 1.8 amps.. but that's an average over time. The real pull is much higher on all these motors, I suspect. The PWM allows me to control that a little... or at least give me the illusion of control! LOL

I like your stuff! Very inspiring. I like the fact that you didn't make the motor the size of a cooling fan and rather made it large en enough diameter to actually produce some usable power.

On the charging portion of it why not just charge a cap with the CEMF and then use an SCR like Bedini to pulse the energy to the battery?

[Peter Lindemann]

Great Circuit

So.. I've been working a lot with this circuit now and am getting pretty comfortable with it thanks to everyone here. I've come up with what I THINK is a good schematic, but I would love to see what all of you think of it?

I've uploaded a schematic in this forum.. [ATTACH]3192[/ATTACH]

The sensors are SX672. I like these sensors because the mount very easily, and are quite versatile in their configuration. My thinking is that if I control the fet at the gate, I can control the motor with a low voltage system, and still send larger voltages to the coils of the motor.

I hope you all can see it. If not, I'll host the pic somewhere and repost if that's ok.

Thanks in advance for any advice or concerns!

Chuff,

Very nice control circuit for the motor. I really like doing all of the "control" at low power and low voltage. That keeps the signals clean and fast. Adding the PWM feature to hold down the current draw on start-up is also excellent. Keep up the great work.

Peter

[Hoppy]

Peter

Would you please explain your understanding of COP? I ask this because I do not understand the COP calculation you show in your Motor Secrets DVD as applied to the attraction motor. Also, could you please comment on whether you consider that a COP infinity system simply requires the input energy to be provided from an environmental source such as solar or wind, as stated in John Bedini's Free Energy Generation book?

Hoppy

[Peter Lindemann]

Cop

Peter

Would you please explain your understanding of COP? I ask this because I do not understand the COP calculation you show in your Motor Secrets DVD as applied to the attraction motor. Also, could you please comment on whether you consider that a COP infinity system simply requires the input energy to be provided from an environmental source such as solar or wind, as stated in John Bedini's Free Energy Generation book?

Hoppy

Hoppy,

Sure, I'll try to explain it again. COP stands for Co-Efficient of Performance and is a phrase used to describe the operation of the Heat Pump's ability to MOVE more heat than the amount of energy used could create directly. If an electric heater can produce 5000 BTUs of heat in one hour and requires 1.5 kwhs of electricity to do this, this is considered about 100% efficient. So, if a refrigerator can remove 5000 BTUs of heat from inside the refrigerator and only use .5 kwhs of electricity to do this, it's COP would be considered to be about "3". This is the classical use of the terminology.

With regard to the attraction motor, we need an electrical INPUT of energy to produce a magnetic field, then we ask that magnetic field to attract a piece of iron (rotor) to produce some mechanical work (#1 OUTPUT), and then we collapse that magnetic field to produce a pulse of electricity (#2 OUTPUT) that we can catch again in a battery or a capacitor, to use again later. As I showed in the EMS DVD, all electric motors have one input and two outputs, so this is not unusual. The problem with ordinary motors is that the electrical output is applied AGAINST the electrical input and that this is what limits the efficiency of ordinary motors.

So, if we assume that for each input pulse of the motor, we apply "100 units" of electrical energy, then we can discuss the COP of the motor as follows. Let's say that for that 100 units of energy input, we can produce 70 units of mechanical energy and we can also recover 70 units of electrical energy to use again. If you have followed this thread, you can see that these numbers are practicable by a well built system. So, the NET electrical energy used by the machine is 100 units (the original input) minus 70 units (the electricity recovered when the magnetic field collapses) for a total of 30 units. So, if the 70 units of electricity is recycled to a capacitor at the front of the circuit, as Jetijs shows, then the 30 units of NEW INPUT is all that is required to deliver 100 units to the motor coils for each power pulse. This then produces 70 units of mechanical energy as the preferred output.

So, the true COP of the system = 1.4 (output/input = 70 + 70/100). By applying the electrical output back to off-set the NEED for some of the original electrical input, we can raise the practical COP to 2.33 as follows:

100 - 70 = 30 needed as a NET input. So, the COP of the motor can now be calculated as output/input = (#1 output)/(net input) 70/30 = 2.33.

All energy transformations occur at below 100% efficiency, but the combined outputs, judiciously managed, produce a practical and significant benefit.

I hope this helps.

In reference to the idea of an "infinite COP", I agree with John, and Tom Bearden, who was actually the first to describe FE in these terms. If you don't have to "pay for" the input energy and you do get to "benefit" from the output energy, then the "gain" is indefinite, and the COP = infinity.

Peter

[Hoppy]

Hoppy,

Sure, I'll try to explain it again. COP stands for Co-Efficient of Performance and is a phrase used to describe the operation of the Heat Pump's ability to MOVE more heat than the amount of energy used could create directly. If an electric heater can produce 5000 BTUs of heat in one hour and requires 1.5 kwhs of electricity to do this, this is considered about 100% efficient. So, if a refrigerator can remove 5000 BTUs of heat from inside the refrigerator and only use .5 kwhs of electricity to do this, it's COP would be considered to be about "3". This is the classical use of the terminology.

With regard to the attraction motor, we need an electrical INPUT of energy to produce a magnetic field, then we ask that magnetic field to attract a piece of iron (rotor) to produce some mechanical work (#1 OUTPUT), and then we collapse that magnetic field to produce a pulse of electricity (#2 OUTPUT) that we can catch again in a battery or a capacitor, to use again later. As I showed in the EMS DVD, all electric motors have one input and two outputs, so this is not unusual. The problem with ordinary motors is that the electrical output is applied AGAINST the electrical input and that this is what limits the efficiency of ordinary motors.

So, if we assume that for each input pulse of the motor, we apply "100 units" of electrical energy, then we can discuss the COP of the motor as follows. Let's say that for that 100 units of energy input, we can produce 70 units of mechanical energy and we can also recover 70 units of electrical energy to use again. If you have followed this thread, you can see that these numbers are practicable by a well built system. So, the NET electrical energy used by the machine is 100 units (the original input) minus 70 units (the electricity recovered when the magnetic field collapses) for a total of 30 units. So, if the 70 units of electricity is recycled to a capacitor at the front of the circuit, as Jetijs shows, then the 30 units of NEW INPUT is all that is required to deliver 100 units to the motor coils for each power pulse. This then produces 70 units of mechanical energy as the preferred output.

So, the true COP of the system = 1.4 (output/input = 70 + 70/100). By applying the electrical output back to off-set the NEED for some of the original electrical input, we can raise the practical COP to 2.33 as follows:

100 - 70 = 30 needed as a NET input. So, the COP of the motor can now be calculated as output/input = (#2 output)/(net input) 70/30 = 2.33.

All energy transformations occur at below 100% efficiency, but the combined outputs, judiciously managed, produce a practical and significant benefit.

I hope this helps.

In reference to the idea of an "infinite COP", I agree with John, and Tom Bearden, who was actually the first to describe FE in these terms. If you don't have to "pay for" the input energy and you do get to "benefit" from the output energy, then the "gain" is indefinite, and the COP = infinity.

Peter

Thanks Peter. Your explanation above has helped me understand. So, if we had a hypothetical system unity situation where both electrical and mechanical efficiencies were 100%, then with 100 units of energy in and 100 units of energy out, the COP would be 100 + 100 / zero = 200.
Is this correct?

Hoppy

[Mark]

Its output/input so 100/100=1

[eternalightwithin]

UPdates Jet?

You solve your weird trace problem?

David

Edit: Yes I've been reading up on your other endeavors here.

[Jetijs]

Hi David,
I have been busy for a long time, and will be busy for a while with different things. Have to earn some money you know
But I will get back to that eventually.

[Jetijs]

Hi all.
Today I got a chance to play a bit with my motor. I suspected that the odd current waveform, I mean this one:



could be due to the MOSFET I use. So I tried a MOSFET from my V2.0 motor and there were no changes. Then I tried just pulsing the motor coils without using the rotor timing wheel. I saw that when the rotor is not in alignment with the stator, there was the typical sawtooth current waveform and the circuit consumed a certain amount of current. Then when the rotor got in the alignment with the stator there was still the same waveform, but the amplitude was much less, the sawtooth wave was much smaller and the circuit consumed much less current. So I thought that maybe the problem is not in the circuit, nor in the coils or timing, but in the changing inductance. I mean this time the ON time is the whole 60 degrees and in these 60 degrees the rotor gets in alignment with the stator, this also changes the 60 degree current waveform. If the rotor is not in alignment with the stator, more current is needed to get it aligned, but as soon as it gets aligned, less current is needed and this is clearly visible in the current waveform.
All we need to do is just chop this 60 degree ON time into many shorter pulses so we get most of it back. Might this be true? And if so, why didn't I see the same things with my V2.0 motor? The V2.0 motor had an air gap of 0.13mm, this one has an air gap of 0.08mm. Could this small air gap difference be the cause of such a current behavior?
Thank you,
Jetijs

[UncleFester]

Hi all.
Today I got a chance to play a bit with my motor. I suspected that the odd current waveform, I mean this one:



could be due to the MOSFET I use. So I tried a MOSFET from my V2.0 motor and there were no changes. Then I tried just pulsing the motor coils without using the rotor timing wheel. I saw that when the rotor is not in alignment with the stator, there was the typical sawtooth current waveform and the circuit consumed a certain amount of current. Then when the rotor got in the alignment with the stator there was still the same waveform, but the amplitude was much less, the sawtooth wave was much smaller and the circuit consumed much less current. So I thought that maybe the problem is not in the circuit, nor in the coils or timing, but in the changing inductance. I mean this time the ON time is the whole 60 degrees and in these 60 degrees the rotor gets in alignment with the stator, this also changes the 60 degree current waveform. If the rotor is not in alignment with the stator, more current is needed to get it aligned, but as soon as it gets aligned, less current is needed and this is clearly visible in the current waveform.
All we need to do is just chop this 60 degree ON time into many shorter pulses so we get most of it back. Might this be true? And if so, why didn't I see the same things with my V2.0 motor? The V2.0 motor had an air gap of 0.13mm, this one has an air gap of 0.08mm. Could this small air gap difference be the cause of such a current behavior?
Thank you,
Jetijs

Firing for the entire 60 degree rotation? Why? This means this mosfet is on for tens of milliseconds? Seems extreme. You should be getting maximum power with a short (10uS) pulse. Teal was using very short pulses.

Am I missing something?

[Jetijs]

Wow, that was fast
Yes, I am firing one pulse for all 60 degrees, this was just first test to see how it would perform without any pulse chopping. But my V2.0 motor did work fine also with this kind of timing and with good recovery without showing such an odd waveform. Also it did so at much slower RPM's.