Garry Stanley Pulse Motor

[woopy]

Hi Gyula

No i did not change any thing other than the coil number.
I enclose a pix where you see the magnet sandwitch arrangement.

the 2 disc magnet are glued on a soft steel plate. there is a N and S pole on each plate. And the upper and lower plate are inverted. So a N pole sees a S pole. The small square magnet on the upper disc is glued there because a further test with reed switch. The upper surface of this small magnet is N for info.

@ All

yes i wounded the 4 th coil, and i retuned everything more precisely, And now with 4 coils in serie (22.7 ohm and 8.1 mh) i can get 880 rpm with only 0.105 watts.

So in comparison with test 2 where one single coil needed 0.324 watt to spin the fan at 880 rpm, i need almost 67 % less power with the 4 coils in serie whowww !

For info i enclose the traces of the coil while pulsing and without pulsing. Very small difference indeed (remaind me of Ossie motor). It seems that the pulse is almost completely enclosed in the generative action.

Have you some idea of what is going on here ?

thanks

Laurent

[gyula]

Hi Laurent,

To answer your last question above, the answer is that the more flux you bring into the motor the better it performs.
By increasing the number of coils you actually increased the distribution of the input flux, and at the same time because you connected the coils in series the input current can in fact decrease due to the higher copper resistance and higher series inductive reactance (assuming similar supply voltage than before).

Here is an excellent video on testing an electromagnet which was always supplied from the same input power but the work it done was the higher, the stronger permanent magnets were tossed by it.

Here is the link:

YouTube - ‪Electromagnet Testing‬‎

This same person, Ian compared two pulse motors also, one with a single big coil and 8 magnets and another motor with 8 coils and 8 magnets. He showed that about the same or even less input power, the 8 coil pulse motor was with much better torque than the single coil one, at about the same RPM.

His single coil test:
YouTube - ‪Single Coil Motor Demo‬‎

His 8 coil test:
YouTube - ‪Pulse Motor Demo‬‎

So you are going with your own observation into the good direction: the more flux you manage to bring into motion, at about the same input power, the better your pulse motor will perform. Imagine you would have say 20 coils like you use now and you would distribute them alongside a double 26" bicycle wheel, and use 20 magnet pairs, what torque you would get...
And I think you could regain some power from your present 4 coil setup by connecting a full wave bridge in parallel with the two ends of the 4 coils and feed a 100-220uF capacitor.

One notice only: Garry's pulse motor is different from yours I know you know...

rgds, Gyula

EDIT to Garry: I think that after you modified your pulse motor by removing six paralleled coils from the circuit and you found it performed worse with respect to the 12 coil pairs, the explanation is exactly the same: the flux created by the input power was much less from the 6 remaining coil pairs than it was with the 12 pairs.

[woopy]

hehe gyula

thanks a lot for the very helpfull impulse as usual

i will now go to sleep so all the good OU power impulse will multiply my synapses capability to produce more good idea for tomorrow

good luck at all

Laurent

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, this is a quote from Aaron from the 'Bedini's Kromrey converter' thread. It corroborates what garry is explaining about his balloon analogy of coils in parallel.

Erfinder,
When you have parallel coils and turn off the power, you "short" the coils and prevent the field from collapsing too fast. You force Lenz's law to work in your favor by slowing down the decay of the magnetic field.
So in a solenoid for example, you apply power to parallel coils and it pulls in the shaft/core and if you turn off the power before it gets all the way in, there is no more power supplied to the parallel coils, but that is ok because you still have a magnetic field in the coils that has not collapsed yet and that magnetic field can do work but you aren't paying extra for it. That magnetic field being there will cause attraction to iron, etc...
I'm not trying to throw out any hints - the answer really is out in the open. In this Kromrey device, it is a different application. I'm just pointing out that coils in parallel are something that nobody is openly discussing...until now.
In the back efm vs collapsing field thread, I mentioned that there is a way to allow current to keep going in a coil after taking away the power and having coils in parallel is one way. The Leedskalnin, PMH is another. But the parallel coils is the one I was really referring to. There is current in those coils making a magnetic field and there is no power being delivered to the coil - from an external source after it has been disconnected.
In the Electric Motor Secrets thread, it was alluded to in several ways but was never a "hint" because it was always in the Bob Teal patent from the beginning - clearly available for all to see. Peter posted those quite a while back. My original look into shorting coils, not necessarily parallel coils was in magnetos and one youtube vid from ...??? had a "perpetual" pendulum where a magnetic switch would close and short the coil. It was a man from Scotland I believe and later said the power came from a CB radio output that the circuit received wirelessly. Maybe it was or maybe it really worked but he doesn't want to admit it. Anyway, there will probably be other things coming out soon with parallel coils, different applications, discussions, etc...
I don't want to get anyone off track from the Kromrey replication building attempts but just sharing this concept that may be of interest and value to someone.

peace love light
Tyson

[woopy]

Hi Gyula and all

first i would appologise because yesterday i made my test and each time there was some position modif of the coil as i added one. So the result can be slightly different. But the last one with 4 coil was made with an other scaling on my amp meter and the 67 % is completely wrong. So please forget it

So today i decided to redo some test.

This time i decided to put all the 4 coils in place and get the best tuning with the hall sensor and do not touch anything other than the wiring. (except for the test no1b which was made in fact the last one as i had to remove the 3 other coils to avoid interferences)

So this serie was to compare the power IN to get a fixed output power that is to say spinning the fan at a fix 1000 rpm range.

And the main observation is the test 2b versus 3b .

the 4 coils are working together but once in serie and once in parallel. And what i observe is that i need almost 50 % less power IN to get the 1005 RPM than the same coils working in parallel. Or other said for a given power IN with a serie config, i need almost 90 % more power to get the same result if i want to go on a parallel config . Houchhh

Something interesting also is test 3b versus 4b. the input voltage is almost the same for 2 coils in parallel as per 4 coils in parallel to reach the 1000rpm, simply the amp increase strongly. Weird isn'it ?

I hope that my amp meter is not fooling me, with so low amperage. I did all the test twice.

Do i miss something ? Have somebody already experienced this results ?

I hope i have made no mistake

good luck at all

Laurent

[gyula]

Hi folks, this is a quote from Aaron from the 'Bedini's Kromrey converter' thread. It corroborates what garry is explaining about his balloon analogy of coils in parallel.

peace love light
Tyson

Hi Tyson,

To add some more info on paralleled coils, here is Peter L. notice on this:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post64380

It does not matter that he mentions this also with respect to inductive heating elements, the "Lenz law clamp" surely manifests in any paralleled coils switched on and off simultanously. Because he speaks of two bucking fields in a series loop, this I think means both coils are wound say CW and the start wires are joined and the end wires are joined to make them parallel.

So this is not like Garry's paralelled coils whereby he connects CW and CCW coils in parallel. I hope I am not mistaken here.

rgds, Gyula

[gyula]

...
I hope that my amp meter is not fooling me, with so low amperage. I did all the test twice.

Do i miss something ? Have somebody already experienced this results ?
...

Hi Laurent,

Very good tests, thanks for showing them.

When in current measurement doubt, you can always check its amplitude correctly by using a series resistor of 1 or 2 or 10 Ohm value (not problem if it is not precision because you can measure its value by a digital meter) and use 2-3 Watt power rated carbon or metal film types, no wire wound.
You connect this resistor in series with say your battery negative pole and clip your scope croco directly to the battery negative where one leg of the resistor is also connected and the probe's tip goes to the other end of the resistor from where the battery negative wire goes to your circuit as usual.
This way you will see voltage pulses on the scope and to get the current your circuit takes you divide the amplitude of the pulse by the resistor value and then you multiply it with the DT duty cycle. Say you measure 3V peak pulse amplitude and you happen to have a 2.3 Ohm series resistor, than 3V/2.3Ohm=1.3Amper and suppose the duty cycle, DT=30%, then you multiply the 1.3A by 0.3, it gives 0.39A and you may confront this with your ampmeter results (they should match within +/-5% accuracy). (Study wiki on DT if needed.)

Re on your coils in parallel and in series, the 4 parallel coils will have 0.25 times less DC resistance to establish the total peak current taken from the battery, compared to a single coil, and the 4 series coils will have 4 times more resistance to establish the total peak current, compared to a single coil.
(I assume your coils are all similar, all have about 5.7 Ohm DC resistance and 2mH inductance each as you wrote in Data.)

There is an interesting proposal from Ian, who made the magnet-tossing electromagnet tests I gave youtube link earlier. See here:
Pulse Motor Video

I cannot say his reasoning gives excess energy over 100%, but this way an extremely efficient utilization of the input energy can be attained.
So if you arrange your identical coils in series and parallel combinations, always listening to get input power need like for a single coil, you can enhance motor performance.

rgds, Gyula

PS1 Tomorrow I have to travel countryside, will be back in 4 days, no internet connection will be had.

PS2 here is Ian's reasonings for those having difficulty entering the link (too much advertisement...)

If a coil of wire has 500 turns with a known voltage has 5 amps running through it, it will give a B field value of 2500 gauss. ie amps times number of turns.

If I have a second identical coil and I put them in series, then the resistance will double and the amps will be half.
The total B field strength will be 2.5 times 1,000 which equals the same as before 2,500 gauss.

Now take the two coils in series and add two more series coils to the first ones and put them in parallel with the first ones. The resistance now halves and we have a total of 5 amps as we did in the scenario with just one coil.
Each leg has 2.5 amps moving through it and a B field of 2,500 gauss. So now the TOTAL B field strength is 2,500 times 2 which equals 5,000 gauss.

So by just changing the geometry of the setup, we get double the B field strength for the same input watts, because the voltage is fixed in this experiment.

But it gets better. :-)

If we have just the one coil hitting a magnet, the force repelling the magnet will be the sum of the strength of both B fields. So in case one with one coil and one magnet, and let us say the magnet has the same B field of 2,500 gauss, then the repelling force will be 5,000 gauss.

Now in our third case with the series parallel circuit, with 4 coils repelling 4 magnets, the total repelling B field against 4 magnets of 2,500 gauss each plus the electromagnet B field strength of 1,250 gauss for 3,750 gauss times 4 coil permanent magnet & electromagnet pairs for a TOTAL B field repelling strength of 15,000 gauss. This is THREE times the field strength of the single coil alone.

This is with the same input of five amps as in case. Input watts is totally irrelevant to output.

[woopy]

@ Gyula

thank's for the very interesting and helpfull infos.

i will reread all that doc and video and go on the testing

i wish you a good trip

good night

Laurent

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, good work woopy, i don't have a rpm device. Maybe i could make a small coil and if one of my meters that i think measures frequency still works, maybe i can take some rpm measurements. What your seeing falls in line with Joseph Newman's work, the more copper mass spread out, gives more work for the same input.
peace love light
Tyson

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, it seems my shack dmm does not have a frequency mode, but i do have an RC airplane tachometer. Problem with the RC tachometer is it can only use sunlight or light from a dc source, because the tach. detects the mains frequency. I will give it a try.
peace love light
Tyson

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, I put all the original 6 coils back into the stator plate for more tests.
peace love light
Tyson

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, woopy have you ran any more tests. Have you added any more coils to see if the input could be further reduced for the same output work on shaft. I just finished remounting the coils in my motor and will try getting this tachometer to work so I can do real comparative tests.
peace love light
Tyson

[garrys]

Hi Tyson,

To add some more info on paralleled coils, here is Peter L. notice on this:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post64380

It does not matter that he mentions this also with respect to inductive heating elements, the "Lenz law clamp" surely manifests in any paralleled coils switched on and off simultanously. Because he speaks of two bucking fields in a series loop, this I think means both coils are wound say CW and the start wires are joined and the end wires are joined to make them parallel.

So this is not like Garry's paralelled coils whereby he connects CW and CCW coils in parallel. I hope I am not mistaken here.

rgds, Gyula

I have a bit of trouble understanding this since 2 coils either add together to make more bemf and thus are perfect in this configuration for a generator or they cancel each other out in potential or voltage if you like and therefore have no current flow ...without current flow there is no flux and so if there is no flux then there is no bemf and this would mean peter isnt interpreting his data correctly though i can see that this might cause the built flux field to be confused momentarily this would stil be too fast for anything to register it simply because the flux is moving faster than the speed of light.

Mine is about connecting 2 coils together in a sympathec maner to make the induction counter each other it is not restricted to the coil layout or parellal or series wiring as it works for both ways of wiring and still works when the coils are seperated rather than together, apart from the forward emf part which requires proximity of magnets.

Garry

[SkyWatcher]

Hi garry, thanks for your thoughts. I did rebuild my motor again with the coils separate and inside the stator plate, though as you say it will still work that way. Did you notice the tests woopy made and I know you mentioned something similar, whereby we spread out the coils to gain better performance for the input. woopy mentioned 50% less input needed to reach same rpm under same load. That sure reminds me of Joseph Newmans work to some degree. I mean lets face it, as you have said garry, with all the typical losses in typical electric motors and the fact that they use very little copper, I think woopy's results show much more production efficient motors can be made. Though as you have also pointed out, they may not be as small in size as we would like.
peace love light
Tyson

[woopy]

Hi Tyson and Garry

yep lot of testing these last days

As i can not understand the wiring of the coil versus the magnet arrangement ,

i decided to simplify every thing and i remade a rotor and a stator with only 2 coils and 2 magnets arrangement. With every component interchangeable. So i could very simply make all the possibilities (as at the beginning of a rubick cub)

But sadly each time i tried to assemble a reverse of induction (as per magnet or coils ) and i can garanty you that i tested probably everything and check with multimeter and scope,
i got bad results or simply no result at all
,
i DO NOT understand what you do Garry.

My aim is to go forward in probably what you also desire, but at this point i am simply stopped.

I got very good results (i posted here )with serie arrangement but it seems not to be in accordance with what you have done.

So Garry, i know that you have not made all your fantastic job without any drawings or plans , it is impossible. So please if you want really to help here, post some understandable documentation.

Sorry to be brutal but i think i have tried to help and as you have said in the beginning of this thread, you are also ready to help but we all have to get some improved info.

So please some drawings, Photos , and shematics.

Or this thread and your beautifull idea will be discouraging and will another time desappear.
And i am sure you don't want it

Good luck at all

Laurent