Joseph Newman Principles

[elias]

Wire length depends on N^2 too.

This is not correct. You cannot multiply like that to get the new L.
Example from real life using #23 wire on spools with same length and diameter with air core:
wire length 40m: 2.6 mH 2.43 Ohm
wire length 400m: 177 mH 24.3 Ohm

/Hob

Hi
Thanks for your comments, at first I thought you are absolutely right. But you made me think a bit.
Are you sure about that? You know I am pretty sure that inductance increases by a power of two when we increase N (number of turns).
But the matter is that the wire length also increases by a power of 2 when increasing N. So I think that in a coil inductance increases almost linearly when increasing the wire length.

For clarification:
1 + 2 + 3 + .... + N = (1 + N)*N/2, So a linear adding up results in a non-linear and a power of 2 increase of the total sum.
So the wire length increases linearly for each turn, when wiring a pancake coil for example the first turn has a wire length of 2pi * r1 and the outer turn will have 2pi* r2 which r1 and r2 are the inner and outer radii respectively. and the total wire length is (2pi.r1 + 2pi.r2)* N/2
where r2 = N * wire_diameter + r1, and N is the number of turns. If we assume that r1 is approximately zero then the total wire length is:
pi * wire_diameter * N^2,

Now I have shown that wire length depends on N^2 too, so we can conclude that inductance depends linearly on wire length which is totally different from the number of turns.

So I hope that I have been able to explain why the time constant remains the same when increasing the wire length.

Kindest Regards,
Elias

Edit: As you mentioned for the other parameters in the formulas for calculating inductance, consider the pancake coil for example, the factor r^2 cancels out by r and d. Remember the Order of change is what counts here, and the order only depends on N^2 both for inductance and wire length for a pancake coil which is quite what we need. the logarithmic parameters do not interfere so much with our results and don't count in.
And as you confirm Einstein, don't let formal education in books be an obstacle to your learning.

Thanks again for making this clear, as It needed to be, it also clarified many things about coils to me too. But nothing can replace true experimentation.

[elias]

Hi folks, thanks for the replies. I think the solid state is the easiest route, however using P. Lindemanns attraction motor setup with just iron for rotor would be ideal since we can get the flyback plus the torque without countering our input.

Hi Skywatcher,

First of all I want to thank you for starting this thread which brought Newman's interesting principles into attention.
The main drawback of his machine, as one starts to experiment with it is the high back-emf induced by the magnet to his large coil. This prevents his motor to speed up like hell as some people say. I was wonder to combine concepts put out by Dr Lindemann and Newman's to build a type of motor as I called it the Newman-Lindemann motor. It might be also a good idea to start a thread about this concept. I am currently working on other projects, and this one is something I'm curious to experiment with in the future.

This motor consists of a large Newman Coil, with a bar of rectangular Iron in the middle of it acting as a rotor, When the coil switches on (Which I showed in my previous posts that the time constant must not be so high) the rotor aligns with the magnetic field and when we switch it off magnetic field collapsing and further assisting the alignment of the Iron bar while charging a battery. This design has many advantages, and the most important of all it is simple to construct. Dr Lindemann required so little air-gap for his motor to function with good efficiency, but in this motor the efficiency comes from the coil itself, and does not depend so much on the "air-gap". The other important advantage is the No-Back-Emf operation of the motor, which makes it run to high speeds unlike the Newmans slow machine.

I mention again that nothing can replace experimentation and careful observation.

Elias

[nilrehob]

@elias



But if you consider the other extreme, the one-layer cylindrical coil,
the wire length is proportional to N, so i guess the multilayer cylindrical coil comes in between,
as i think my two coils indicate.

The Brooks coil is worth looking into:
Multi layer air coil design and calculator

/Hob

[elias]

Hi

How do you measure the magnetic field? How many wound is that? So your experiment proof that bifilar in series has same amount of magnetic field as bifilar in paralel? Even when bifilar in series require half amount of current?

I measured the magnetic field by using a magnet attached to a Newton-meter. My experiment proves that increasing the wire length does not changes the magnetic field produced for the same voltage, meaning that "one filar" has the same magnetic field as "two filar in series".
Yes the same force was exerted although the bifilar in series required two times less current.

Would two very long wire with same length and different gauge produce same magnetic field? Would they produce same coil collapse current?

No by applying the same voltage this would not, the one with more diameter will consume more current and thus a larger magnetic field, and thus a larger collapse. We need to increase the wire length to see the difference.

Would two wire with same impedance but with different length produce different magnetic field even if both has same current?

Yes, absolutely, the current draw is the same, but we have more turns of the same current draw thus more magnetic field, it is that simple, and I would have not said this with confidence, if I had not experimented.

[elias]

@elias



But if you consider the other extreme, the one-layer cylindrical coil,
the wire length is proportional to N, so i guess the multilayer cylindrical coil comes in between,
as i think my two coils indicate.

The Brooks coil is worth looking into:
Multi layer air coil design and calculator

/Hob

Yes you are right but if we increase the length of our coil, we ought to use a good core to conduct the magnetic field effectively, those special materials.

In this case the magnet revolves inside the coil for the Newman machine this problem is not so much. And we are actually using many pancake coils to do this. BTW my idea is to use a piece of Iron inside the coil to make the rotor, Actually this motor is a coil with a rotating core.

[nilrehob]

Actually this motor is a coil with a rotating core

Sounds cool!

/Hob

[nilrehob]

Actually this motor is a coil with a rotating core.

Wouldn't that be an Induction motor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia?

/Hob

[elias]

Wouldn't that be an Induction motor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia?

/Hob

No, because that is an AC motor, Newman's and Dr Lindemann's motors are pulse motors.

[sucahyo]

I measured the magnetic field by using a magnet attached to a Newton-meter. My experiment proves that increasing the wire length does not changes the magnetic field produced for the same voltage, meaning that "one filar" has the same magnetic field as "two filar in series".
Yes the same force was exerted although the bifilar in series required two times less current.

Thank for the answer . But I still confuse with this last statement, are you saying that in the magnetic field measurement of bifilar :
bifilar in parallel(1x length, 4x current) = single filar(1x length, 2x current) = bifilar in series(2x length, 1x current)?

Is it possible to repeat the experiment and see that reducing turn do decrease the magnetic field even when the current draw is same? Maybe by unrolling the wire while still being powered?

[elias]

Thank for the answer . But I still confuse with this last statement, are you saying that in the magnetic field measurement of bifilar :
bifilar in parallel(1x length, 4x current) = single filar(1x length, 2x current) = bifilar in series(2x length, 1x current)?

Is it possible to repeat the experiment and see that reducing turn do decrease the magnetic field even when the current draw is same? Maybe by unrolling the wire while still being powered?

Well Dear Sucahyo,

Actually I used one filar to measure the magnetic field strength, not both in parallel. With less turns we have higher current draw but the magnetic field remains the same.

Ted argues that we need more time to charge a coil with more inductance and I tried to show that is not the case, and the time constant is the same for both coils. And the only difference when making it into a motor with a magnet inside is the high back emf generated by the coil with more turns, that is why Newman's motor ran so slowly around 300 RPM or so.

I don't know because I haven't experimented yet, but I suppose that turning a Newman motor into an attraction motor, will make it able to run with higher RPMs, thus producing more power.

Elias

[nilrehob]

No, because that is an AC motor, Newman's and Dr Lindemann's motors are pulse motors.

Sure, but make the AC motor into a RV (rotoverter) and then pulse it.
I'm currently doing a RV and I'm planning to try to pulse it (among other things).
YouTube - RV part 2, no fan, std bearings
But this is all off topic, I guess there is a RV-thread somewhere.

/Hob

[Ted Ewert]

Well Dear Sucahyo,


Ted argues that we need more time to charge a coil with more inductance and I tried to show that is not the case, and the time constant is the same for both coils. And the only difference when making it into a motor with a magnet inside is the high back emf generated by the coil with more turns, that is why Newman's motor ran so slowly around 300 RPM or so.


Elias

"Back EMF" is essentially the same as the time constant in an inductor. Actually back emf is a misnomer. There is no actual reverse force working against the emf. It seems this way since the current is initially diverted into building the magnetic field.
A coil appears to have a varying impedance depending on the frequency of the applied signal. Current only starts flowing out the other end of the coil once the field is fully established, or as soon as the field collapses. You can call the time interval back emf, time constant, impedance or whatever else makes you happy. The physical result is the same: It takes a certain amount of time to create the field in any inductor, just as it takes a certain amount of time to charge a capacitor. It also takes a certain amount of time to fill a bucket, or compress a spring. It's all basically the same.
Think of it another way. The impedance of a coil rises with frequency. Why is this? It's because the magnetic field is not allowed to fully form before the polarity of the signal is reversed. The resulting output of the coil is reduced since the field was never fully developed. The net result is "incomplete inductance", which appears as a resistance in the circuit.
Less inductance directly translated into less impedance. Unfortunately, Newman's huge coil has a lot of inductance. It also has a lot of capacitance since the surface area of all that copper is significant. Capacitors have a time constant too. Put them both together and you have time for a cup of coffee while the coil charges up.
The only way there could be any reverse emf would be as a result of the energy produced by the rotating magnet. That could cause a counter force. Nevertheless, if that turned out to be a problem, all you'd have to do is reverse the rotation. Now the emf adds to the pulse.

Cheers,

Ted

[elias]

Hi Ted!

"Back EMF" is essentially the same as the time constant in an inductor. Actually back emf is a misnomer. There is no actual reverse force working against the emf. It seems this way since the current is initially diverted into building the magnetic field.

I think that our definitions of Back-EMF differ a bit, I see back-emf as the counter voltage generated by the magnet as the rotor spins, and it does not matter if the rotor spins clockwise or anti-clockwise, it always opposes the applied voltage. When the inductance increases the generated voltage increases too and prevents the motor to speed up, because it cannot "exceed" the applied voltage. All of the present motors that use magnetism on the rotor and stator, have this draw-back, Dr Lindemann's design (Bob Teal) is the only design I am aware of that hasn't got this problem.
Counter-electromotive force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A coil appears to have a varying impedance depending on the frequency of the applied signal. Current only starts flowing out the other end of the coil once the field is fully established, or as soon as the field collapses.

Yes it does, and that is good, because we need the least current to apply to the coil to get more efficiency. The time required to charge the coil is proportional to L/R which remains approximately the same by increasing the wire length used for our coil. Time constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Less inductance directly translated into less impedance. Unfortunately, Newman's huge coil has a lot of inductance. It also has a lot of capacitance since the surface area of all that copper is significant. Capacitors have a time constant too. Put them both together and you have time for a cup of coffee while the coil charges up.

I think that the capacitance of the coil is so negligible, but if you can provide a formula that shows it has significant impact on the "charging time" of the coil it is welcome.
I would have only said that If I had built a Newman coil and had measured the time it takes to charge. I am only talking about these things according to what we know about inductors.

BTW, I am not saying that Newman's machine works, I simply don't know, I am only saying that it is reasonable according to my preliminary experiments and experience with coils and magnets.

Kindest Regards, for your remarks
Elias

[patmac]

@everybody
I was saying him to skywatcher about my idea of a conductor very lenght...

This idea has came to my mind thinking about the Particle Accelerator and is very possible Newman has reffered in this way... it's obvious all his work is based on high conductor length, relatively high impendance and very high inductance.... If we put a very length conductor the current is easier to stop avoiding heat.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi patmac, thanks for reply. I just noticed Bedini in the tesla switch thread made reference that the energy is outside the wire and prove of this I think comes when a batteries terminals become corroded and even though one may clean the actual contacts that touch the battery posts, it does not matter because the flow of energy is external to the wire. In counter rotating spirals just outside the wire. The more wire the better.
peace love light
Tyson