Garry Stanley Pulse Motor

[Matthew Jones]

Its easy Woopy

A pulse motor is not just a motor. Based on your timing it is also a generator. How much the coils generate is based on your timing.

Usually to make them work you fire the coil after the magnet has past the coil, you push it away. But leading up to that the magnet is charging the coil.
That charge is good current that will flow to ground or to recovery. So it works for you. A pulse motor on its own has very little back emf until you reach really high voltage. So the charge in coil contributes to the overall power of the motor.

Once you stop generating, by removing the coil, that coil becomes a normal inductive load. It does not contribute.
If you were to unhook it your amp draw would go back down. But just removing it from the permanent magnets does you no good.

Probably (I have never tested) if you were to close the inductor by adding metal in a magnetic loop around your coil (Like transformer) Your draw would go back down.

Hope that helps.

Matt

[woopy]

Hi Matt

thank's for the answer.

But i would expect that when i retire one coil , the current draw should be the same on both coil , and as one coil is no more activ, the motor should decrease RPM
But this is not the case the motor stays almost at the same speed and the current jump to almost twice the original value as with the 2 coils activ.

i am rewatching the Peter Lindemann "electric-motor- secret" video, to better understand the effect of supressing the generative action of the coil on the decrease of resistance of the circuit, which could explain why the amperage goes up, which ofcourse let the motor run at the same speed.

Will report later

bye

Laurent

.

[rave154]

love your videos woopy !!

[woopy]

Hi Rave

thanks it it always a pleasure to know that somebody apreciate the work.

@ Matt

@ all

I am not so sure it is so easy to understand what is going on here.

after another 2 hours of P. L. video, i try to make me an image of what is the BEMF on the pulse motor.

So to say , as the braking on the shaft seems to be not so negativ on the current draw, in comparison with conventional electric motor, i am thinking that the generative power is not so disturbing.

i mean perhaps this generative power is out of phase in the general action.

As per P.L. in the conventional motor, so far i understand, all the events are becoming together at the same place at the same moment and on the same component

That is to say, that the powers going in ,is counteracted by an opposite force ( BEMF) of a very strong magnitude. ( almost 80 %) and this at the same moment.

So the efficiency is very poor in comparison with a no BEMF motor as an attraction motor without the mixture of magnet and coil. That is to say with no BEMF. but of course also , with not the profitable power of the magnet.

I will try to replace the magnets with pure iron bolts on this test proto to see if i can get better results (YouTube - ‪motor with kickback spike-generator.wmv‬‎

So i enclose here 2 scope shot

the first is the isolated coil in " normal * work, that is to say in serie with her sister and of course in generative mode.

the second is the same coil but isolated from the system (without the generative action)

hope this helps

good night

Laurent

[Ted Ewert]

Hi Laurent,
Lets define BEMF. Back Electro Motive Force is created by the magnet passing the coil. The faster the magnet passes, the higher the BEMF voltage will be developed, which opposes the supply voltage. The rotor will continue to accelerate until the BEMF voltage almost reaches the supply voltage level. If it went higher, it would become a net generator and current would flow back towards the supply.
As a load is put on the rotor, it slows down. A slowing of the rotor creates less BEMF voltage, and a larger potential difference between it and the supply voltage is developed. This automatically draws more current through the coils, which creates more B field (flux), which then creates more torque. If the motor is capable of supplying enough current, the rotor speeds back up. This is how a motor is self regulating.
So you see, BEMF does not impede the development of power, but rather controls the top speed and the current draw of the motor.
Pulse motors are no different in this regard. Even if you got rid of all the BEMF voltage, you still wouldn't be able to develop any more power. You would merely have an unregulated motor.
Power is developed through flux density combined with current through the windings. This is what creates torque.
Efficiency is a whole different discussion.

Ted

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi woopy thanks for your tests. Hi Ted, you said.

So you see, BEMF does not impede the development of power, but rather controls the top speed and the current draw of the motor. Pulse motors are no different in this regard. Even if you got rid of all the BEMF voltage, you still wouldn't be able to develop any more power. You would merely have an unregulated motor. Power is developed through flux density combined with current through the windings. This is what creates torque. Efficiency is a whole different discussion.

This is what you and I were discussing earlier and I understand your point. It doesn't matter how strong our permanent magnets are, we will still generate the same counter voltage when the magnets pass the coils, albeit with more current capability. Though if we used identical coils or same resistance coils in a motor like the dual rotor air-core motor and progressively made our permanent magnet field strength stronger and stronger, we will have ever increasing shaft power to use and yet still it appears as though it is under 100% efficient. However, i think at some point the production efficiency will give us more than 100%, which is essentially what COP represents, COP represents a measurement that includes an outside source which in this case is permanent magnet fields. So my point seems to be agreeing with yours Ted, in that we don't necessarily even need to remove counter emf to achieve COP>1.0. If I'm misunderstanding your perspective, let me know.
peace love light
Tyson

[garrys]

Defining a motors output

in the simplest of terms a motors output can be defined as input minus friction windage and bemf.
As ted correctly says the motor is regulated by the output of the generator component of it, which can be called lenz bemf or anything else you want to call it eg a rose is still a rose by any other name.

The output of the motor ( voltage ) stops the input amperage flowing because it becomes almost equal to the input voltage, once there is no voltage path for the amperage to flow over or in this case a very small one then amperage slows and the motor stops accellorating.

What im trying to show you is simply that if you reduce the output voltage of the motor by changing the induction path in one of the coils that for no added input you can almost double the speed of the motor relative to its standard configuration.

Free energy is in effect forward emf or the exact opposite of what you now have so unless you can actually get a handle of getting the bemf to 0 emf you are never going to move to positive emf.

As soon as you start thinking about forward emf and how to acheive it all these silly terms like COP go out the window ...there is no such thing as COP its just a measurement of one known thing against something that is effectively unknown but has to be acknowleged simply because it exists eg heat pumps with COP 9 and better i suspect these days, last time i read the manufacturing standard for one was COP 6 or something like that.

OU is a false path designed to lead you astray and give those who dont want you to succeed something to do that will cause you to eventually give up because it cant be done.

Free Energy is simply childs play any 5 year old can understand it, but if i cant get you to comprehend the first step of it ...in fact the step that made me aware enough of the actions and reactions that allowed me to move toward free energy then how would i ever get you to understand free energy.

The bottom line is if you take a standard motor and make it go faster without increasing the input draw then its output has increased because something has to have changed for the extra speed to be present and this is just reality even if it then doesnt fit the conventional method of describing it .... no rules are broken they are simply turned to advantage in this, it is not FE or OU other than when you try and compare it to the current standard.

Garry

[Ted Ewert]

Hi folks, Hi woopy thanks for your tests. Hi Ted, you said.

This is what you and I were discussing earlier and I understand your point. It doesn't matter how strong our permanent magnets are, we will still generate the same counter voltage when the magnets pass the coils, albeit with more current capability. Though if we used identical coils or same resistance coils in a motor like the dual rotor air-core motor and progressively made our permanent magnet field strength stronger and stronger, we will have ever increasing shaft power to use and yet still it appears as though it is under 100% efficient. However, i think at some point the production efficiency will give us more than 100%, which is essentially what COP represents, COP represents a measurement that includes an outside source which in this case is permanent magnet fields. So my point seems to be agreeing with yours Ted, in that we don't necessarily even need to remove counter emf to achieve COP>1.0. If I'm misunderstanding your perspective, let me know.
peace love light
Tyson

I agree, BEMF has nothing to do with power.
You're right about the magnets being a power source. That's where most of the extra power comes from. However, you have to be cleaver to get more out than you put in. Your coils can also produce power if you pay attention to matching their impedance. They will send power back to the batteries under certain conditions.
I know I sound like a broken record, but I'll say it again, the only test that matters is putting a load on your motor to calculate it's efficiency. Everything else is just smoke.

[Ted Ewert]

The bottom line is if you take a standard motor and make it go faster without increasing the input draw then its output has increased because something has to have changed for the extra speed to be present and this is just reality even if it then doesnt fit the conventional method of describing it .... no rules are broken they are simply turned to advantage in this, it is not FE or OU other than when you try and compare it to the current standard.

Garry

I can take a standard motor and reduce the flux density produced by the field windings and get more speed out of it. I get more speed because I have also effectively reduced the BEMF. However, if I do this it will decrease the maximum power output of the motor. This is because reducing the flux density reduces the ability of the motor to produce torque.
Power is a product of speed and torque. Speed without torque is useless.

Ted

[garrys]

Hi Ted ....no argument there but just for everyone elses benefit what would you change to reduce the bemf in said motor ???

What i have changed in mine to get the extra speed is nothing other than the configuration of the components so according to your post i shouldnt get more speed since i havent changed anything ????

The coils remain the same as they were, a matched pair, one is simply turned around, the impedance hasnt changed, the potential generated in each remains the same, the power input remains the same and in some cases where they have built it right and get the forward emf from the magnet flux colapse they actulally find it draws less for the higher speed.

Your rules and laws totally apply to this its not magic just a different spin on the existing technology.

i cant help but notice you guys are still talking about bemf while i dont know if you have noticed im talking no emf or forward emf and of course forward emf is free energy since it litterally translates to a self runner if perfected.

My posts have all been about taking the generator out of the motor to make a more efficient motor and once you figure this out and understand it maybe you will figure the no load generator, since this is the next logical progression from forward emf in a motor.

Garry

[woopy]

Hi tyson , Ted and Garry

thank's for answering with a lot of explanations.

This morning i wanted to go deeper in my previous video and did a serie of test to compare the power needed to keep a load on the rotor.

the test 1 to 5 are based on a 6 volt and the 2 coils in serie and this config needs 0.102 watt to spin the fan at 680 rpm.

than i disconnect completely the coil n0 2 and apply 6 volt to the remaining coil no1 and it draws 54 ma and 0.324 watt and the spinning of the fan increases to 880 rpm.

than i reconnect the coil no2 in serie and apply the necessary voltage to spin the fan at 880 rpm and the wattage is 0.219 watt. So to say 2 coils in serie consume about 30% less power to spin the fan at the same rpm as a single coil.

Than i wanted to know what about comparing the power of the coils in serie and the coils in parallel to spin the rotor at the same speed (yellow arrow) and also the coils in serie are much better than the same coil in parallel.

Than i did the same testing with higher value (test 6 to 10 ) and same results.

So i did not try to flip one coil yet as per Garry's explanation, but it seems that a serie config is more efficient (and a lot,,,about 25 to 30 % less power)
as a parallel or mono coil.

Of course this test is made with my crude setup and instruments but the difference is huge enough to be considered as significant . i think.

What do you think ?

thank's

Laurent

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi garry, thanks for your continued contributions. Funny you just happen to mention the natural progression to a no load generator. I have been looking again at the kromrey generator and i think i see some correlations to what you may be saying. In the pic, notice my polarity markings and how the coils are wired, one set is flipped on one side and creates a parallel situation whereby the one side of series coils oriented oppositely pushes current into the other set of series coils to reinforce attraction on the one end and give a no-load generator. I think this is what your getting at garry.
http://a.imageshack.us/img203/872/kromreygenstanley.jpg
peace love light
Tyson

[SkyWatcher]

Hi woopy, thanks for your tests so far. I wanted to add one more thing about the kromrey generator, since it seems so similar to what garry is speaking about. It seems as though if I'm interpreting the wiring correctly and induced polarities. It seems that the same polarity would flow through the load and if that is the case, then i would say for this generator to work, one set of coil pairs in series on one side would have to have different parameter coils to cause more voltage to be generated on one side than the other, so that a current may flow through the load. Any thoughts welcome.
peace love light
Tyson

[woopy]

Hi Tyson and all

Thank's very much for the link to Kromerey generator. Seems to work and the poles are once NN on both side of the rotor and once SN also on both side. In fact that is a N pole (Depending of the current of course) on each end of the rotor. I have to try something like this.

But now i go back to my test and i could not prevent me to wound a third coil and to connect it in serie with the 2 others. And there is a further 10 % less power to maintain the RPM.

So if i take the test 2 with one coil at 0.324 watts to get 880 rpm, with 3 of this same coil in serie (test 12) i only need 0.194 watt, that is to say about 40 % less power to maintain the same RPM. So probably by adding a forth coil in serie i will gain something more( perhaps 3 %)

And the question is WHY ?

regards

Laurent

[gyula]

Hi Laurent,

Would like to know if the number of permanent magnets has been changed during any of these tests you showed results?
I can see four rectangular rotor magnets on the upper disc and 4 x two cylinder magnets on the lower disc, the latter pairs with backplates.
How the poles on these are arranged and also the upper rectangular poles with respect to the lower ones?

thanks, Gyula