Electric motor/generator tweak to produce FE

[haethae]

EDIT: Disregard

Below is an average electric generator. As we all know, energy is expended turning the armature which passes a permanent magnet by winded coils and the changing magnetic field generates electricity in the wire.

If the armature could be made to spin without requiring constant energy input, that would obviously generate energy for free. In this design, besides the regular friction/imbalances/impurities/eddy currents/etc, I can only see one obstacle to that: the attraction between the permanent magnet and the windings. When the magnet approaches the winding, it gets sucked in, which is helpful, but then it takes a lot of energy to pull away from the winding. It might be possible to capture some of the force on the way in and expend it getting away, but it would be difficult to get all of the energy back. Instead, I think it's a better idea to just nullify it by counteracting it.

First, a second arm is added at the opposite end. Then, accross from each winding, another permanent magnet is fixed. In this way, through a lot of tweaking, I think it would be possible to match the magnetic fields of the winding and the magnet opposite it. Once they are equal, when the arm approaches a winding and becomes attracted to it, the arm on the opposite side will approach the permanent magnet and be repulsed at the same strength. Then, when it leaves the winding, the first arm will still be attracted to the winding, but the second arm will be repulsed away from the magnet.
If the winding and opposite magnets are in perfect balance, I think it would be possible to spin the arms without requiring energy (aside from friction, etc) after it's been started.

[elias]

Hi

See MULLERPOWER.com ... advancing the legacy of Bill Muller's work in Motor/Generators...
Muller has managed to do this by odd/even coil and magnet placement.

Elias

[haethae]

Hello, elias, thanks for the reply.
I looked at the link and although the designs seem to accomplish the same thing, I can see at least one big difference: My design negates 100% of the magnet's attractive force while Muller's design still requires constant energy to overcome the magnets' power.
Attached is a picture of the engine. 16 evenly placed spoke in red, 15 in black. Starting at the top, red spokes 2-8 are all evenly balanced with 16-10 and spoke 9 is balanced between 2 black spokes. The problem comes with red spoke number 1. It's directly on top of black spoke number 1 and is not balanced with any other spoke, so it will require energy to move the wheel forward.

Apologies if I got the design wrong, I didn't see a schematic on the site and just went by some of the descriptions.
I'll crunch some more numbers tomorrow to try to explain myself better, but it's passed midnight and I need to get some sleep.

[Ted Ewert]

I see what you're trying to do, but I think you may be robbing Peter to pay Paul. A problem I see with this concept is when the magnet approaches the coil, the other magnet is being repelled by the peripheral magnet. This takes work to overcome, which in reality is just shifting the load.
However, don't take my word on it. Build it and see if your concept works. Maybe you can shield the peripheral magnet so the field is directional. A "super pole" configuration might work too. Go for it.

Cheers,

Ted

[Sephiroth]

I agree with Ted. In fact, the way you have it set up at the moment there will be even more attraction to the cores. The south poles of the periphery magnets would have to be facing the rotor to pull the magnets away from the core... but then the momentum of the wheel is going to have to overcome the attraction of the rotor magnets to the perphery magnets...

[Sephiroth]

When the magnet approaches the winding, it gets sucked in, which is helpful, but then it takes a lot of energy to pull away from the winding.

and this bit isn't accurate... as the magnets approach the coils the current generated forms a magnetic field around the coil that repels the oncoming magnet. then once the magnet has passed the coil, current is generated in the opposite direction which forms an opposite magnetic field that attracts the magnet as it tries to move away from the coil.

Lenz law sucks

EDIT : unless you are just refering to the attraction to the iron cores, but that isn't where the drag is...

[haethae]

and this bit isn't accurate... as the magnets approach the coils the current generated forms a magnetic field around the coil that repels the oncoming magnet. then once the magnet has passed the coil, current is generated in the opposite direction which forms an opposite magnetic field that attracts the magnet as it tries to move away from the coil.

Lenz law sucks

EDIT : unless you are just refering to the attraction to the iron cores, but that isn't where the drag is...

Haha! That's actually exactly what I was referring to. Don't quite have my bearings yet in this field. Thanks for the info, guys. Gonna start doing some more research into that.

[elias]

Haha! That's actually exactly what I was referring to. Don't quite have my bearings yet in this field. Thanks for the info, guys. Gonna start doing some more research into that.

Hi

I had an idea to eliminate the lenz drag, by charging capacitors with the generator coil attached to a diode bridge. If you experiment you'll notice that the drag is maximum when the capacitor charges from zero and as the voltage of the capacitor increases, the drag decreases significantly, but as you might know charging the capacitor from for example 1 to 2 volts is more difficult than charging it from 0 to 1 volts but as you may notice that exactly the opposite happens when charging it with a generator coil. The real reason is that current is not accounted for charging a capacitor and it is a waste energy, and it is quite possible to eliminate current when charging capacitors and of course experimentation is required, what creates the drags is the current flowing in the coil.

For example the energy required to charge capacitor C from 0 to 1 volts : 0.5C * 1^ 2 = C/2
The energy required to charge the same capacitor from 1 to 2 volts: 0.5C * 2^2 - 0.5C * 1^2 = 3C/2

Actually we need more energy and the energy level difference increases by a power of 2. But the "drag" or the mechanical energy required to do that by a generator coil acts the opposite and it "seems" that less energy is required to charge C from 1 to 2 volts, and it is because as you charge the capacitor the current draw from the coil decreases, and that is due to the voltage level of the coil and the capacitor.

So how to avoid this problem, one way is to take energy from the capacitor and not the coil directly as we do in conventional AC alternators. Take the energy from the capacitor and make it drop in voltage(e) slightly and then charge it again with from v-e to v again. The less e is the less energy is wasted, so simple!! And I think it will be free energy.

Edit: concluding that the momentum of rotation the generator has is sufficient to make all the free energy we need.

Elias

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi haethae, I'm not sure how well this would work as a generator until tested, however I think it may be worth testing it as a pulse motor. It may give similar results as Muller's motor in some ways. I've built a Muller type motor in the past and it worked almost as if the electromagnets had no cores, though a small amount of magnetic core drag existed so maybe my setup wasn't tweaked sufficiently. Though with Muller's design it still needed one coil-core to be energized either nullifying or repelling at least one magnet at any given time to achieve the cancellation effect of work required to move off of a pole, whereas with your design, if it can be tweaked as intended, would not require coils to be energized to achieve the cancellation of work required to remove a permanent magnet from a ferromagnetic core. Let me know what you folks think.
peace love light
Tyson

[SkyWatcher]

And to add, In the motor configuration, there will be some lenz effect occurring when pulsing in attraction or repulsion and this could be balanced or tweaked for the optimum cancellation when at preferred output. So now since we've done the best we can do of passively canceling the natural attraction to ferro cores, we can energize the coil-core to attract the permanent magnet and will have the added benefit of the ferromagnetic core and the greater magnetic field it manifests to achieve more efficient shaft power. Just a few more thoughts.
peace love light
Tyson

[SkyWatcher]

Hi again folks, one more thing I wanted to add. If this design in the motor configuration can passively cancel just about all of the natural attraction to the ferro cores then it is doing the same thing as the Kawai motor, though the Kawai motor still needs a coil to be energized to cause the zeroing out or canceling of the attraction similar to Muller's motor, it still is using the same method to achieve a higher mechanical efficiency even though lentz effect is still present.
There's always more than one path through a forest.
peace love light
Tyson

[petersone]

Hi SkyWatcher,Elias and all,
A way,I think, to stop cogging,which I believe some have been discusing,say a Bedini type motor,is to have a mag.with the same pole as the rotor mag.as a stator, opposite the coil,could be adjusted to have zero drag,I think.also a large, say ferrite ring, with a coil on part of it and a mags.going around the ring,no gogging,I recon.If none of the above are any good,I have some more!!
Elias's idea with the cap.sounds good to me,must try it.
Have a good Xmas.
peter

[gmeat]

Hi Everyone,


I cant help but to wonder if maybe a longer shaft with long magnets on it like a window motor,but say 6-8' long,Would that produce a stronger electrical field?.One other thought that I have is that if we cant get around lenz law then maybe the cores and or coils should be shaped like a rectangle that is very thin to cut down on the space that the magnet will have an effect upon the coil or core.Excuse me for my rumbling in regards .


-Gary

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, pardon me if I may be misinterpreting the design haethae has posted, but it seems to me that whether its used as a generator or motor the point is to eliminate the work required to overcome the natural attraction to ferromagnetic cores, his design is not an attempt to circumvent lentz effect as far as i can see. And why you folks are talking about this and that is beyond me. The Kawai motor and the Muller motor use this principle to gain an advantage. I've built a dual magnet rotor sandwiching air-core coils and obviously suffered no core drag and required no work to remove the magnets, now if I could have used ferromagnetic cores in these coils and still maintained the no drag, no work required to move poles about scenario, which would not be possible without some way to cancel it, then it would have been very efficient at producing shaft power. Do you folks see the idea here.
peace love light
Tyson

[elias]

Hi SkyWatcher,Elias and all,
A way,I think, to stop cogging,which I believe some have been discusing,say a Bedini type motor,is to have a mag.with the same pole as the rotor mag.as a stator, opposite the coil,could be adjusted to have zero drag,I think.also a large, say ferrite ring, with a coil on part of it and a mags.going around the ring,no gogging,I recon.If none of the above are any good,I have some more!!
Elias's idea with the cap.sounds good to me,must try it.
Have a good Xmas.
peter

Hi Peter,

Well, if you want to try this idea, one better way is to build an Elliptical Rotor, with alternating N - S poles on it, similar to Bedini's rotor, As the rotor turns, the magnets get near your coil and induce more voltage to the coil (The voltage rises like a ramp). If you choose a capacitor that charges slightly faster than the rise of the voltage of your coils, then you might have eliminated drag for all, And you'll have a freely charged capacitor. I am working on other projects but I would like to see if this idea works.

If your rotor is elliptical, your rotor would give two voltage rises in each turn, and your capacitor charge time must be slightly less than half of the period of revolution of your rotor. The time constant is RC and the time required to charge your capacitor is about 2.2RC.
Anyway, I don't know this would work for sure and eliminate drag, but it seems so.

Elias