Garry Stanley Pulse Motor

[garrys]

Hello guys

I have a question sorry if its a little off topic. I have one of Rick's 3-pole kits and have played around with different circuits and coil configurations. One thing that I discovered a while back was when I run a typical Bedini 1 transistor set up but instead of using a bifilar coil I use 2 seperate coils, 1 for the trigger and 1 for the power coil I get next to nothing as a back spike. With 3 single wire coils, one trigger and 2 power coils (connected in series) I only get a back spike of 1.2 volts on my meter, and of course no secondary charging. My input is 12 volts. With a bifiliar coil my input is about 150ma with the separate trigger and 2 power coils in parallel the input drops to 8-10ma.

How come I don't have a back spike when I remove the trigger coil from the power coil? Is it just because the amp draw is so low?

Thanks for any help, mark

in the bedini system where the trigger coil is within the power coil there are 2 seperate effects going on ...one is the standard triggering you see and the other is that the trigger coil is collecting the back spike from the colapse of the power coil as well as the power build in it causeing flux to permiate it when the pulse is triggered so this is why you dont see the major gains when you seperate the 2 coils as you have done.

Garry

[garrys]

Hi Garry,

I made a little drawing with two paralleled coils first, both are wound in the same sense and suppose you pulse them as shown. Whenever you switch the current off, the two coils are left on their own, connected still in parallel but I drew them in a "series" arrangement to indicate their polarities oppose each other, this is how I am convinced they behave.
This means that at switchoff the induced BEMF from the collapsing fields in both also oppose each other but as there are always some small physical / constructional differences between coils the bucking fields cannot cancel immediately because their amplitudes are not perfectly equal, they need some time to cancel. This is utilized in Peter Lindemann's (heating) setup referred to.

In case of your two paralleled coils, the way as you describe how to connect them, I can only say that: when you turn the second coil 180 degree back with respect to the first one, (say, after 'cutting' a coil into two to get a first and a second coil), the winding sense does not change, it remains the same clockwise or counterclockwise like the first coil was, so when you switch current into this second coil the flux depends only on how you choose the input voltage polarity.

For me this means that your two coils also have bucking BEMF fields and as such they also cancel, this is why the rotor magnet pairs can move freely away after the current is switched off at TDC. There is Lenz during the attract time, from the current switch-on till current switch-off, and there is no Lenz of course after TDC as the magnet leave the coils till the next switch-on.

(Please recall when you loaded your shaft with your firm grip or with the bicycle wheel, the current consumption went up from a lower value to a higher one, this was due to normal Lenz law at the attract-in time.
Of course, when all the coils are in series like in Ian's setup, the same Lenz works during the attract-in time too.)

I understand you have a different view on the induction when speaking of the second coil turned back, and I also understand your firm determination on this and your great many practice finally lead to making a free energy device, and I would like to understand it very much, this is why I asked in the personal message, what has happened to it since October, 2003? Would you tell? Please do not avoid answering.

In my earlier drawing here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/attach...arrycoils1.jpg
I had thought the second coil had to have an opposite winding sense with respect to the first one: now after your recent description to woopy:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post107320
I think I have to correct it to have the same winding sense after turning it back. Can you agree with it?

Regards, Gyula

Hi gyula, your pics are ok and i know its hard so try drawing it this way ...your second one shows 2 horrizontal coils, you effectively have them shown as a group of connected m's eg mmmmm so if you turn them around you still get mmmmm but in reality if you turn them around you get wwwww can you see the subtle difference here if you look at a c from the front and then turn it around it becomed a D without the verticle line of course ...can you not see from this that turning half the coil or one of the pairs does in fact change the direction it the windings ? the direction of the winding is totaly relative to your point of view ?

i have gone on to make a couple of no lenz generators since i stopped publishing stuff i have a couple of very basic working prototypes one of which has been replicated and found to function even if very minimal in its output.
From there i have been able to determin a more effective method of making a forward emf setup that should be a self runner but my responce from people is generally boardering on "your a loony" and i kinda expected this to change when i was able to show a working unit that was undenyable but alas it just goes over peoples heads because it "simply cant be done", accordingly i gave up as i realised that no one would ever back it and thus you can never get it to market unless you can afford to yourself.

Garry

[woopy]

Hi Garry

I try to make your design correctly.
But as soon as i have an opposite flow again each other , the results are zero or very poor.

For sure the generative trace is almost inexistant but i can not get a good performance.

So, as i am not in your head, i can not see what you see and especially the "subtile " of the thing.

So please, it must not be so difficult to post a shematic, and some photos of your working device.

Thank's

@Tyson

My aim will be to check how really the "Ian's- Newmann = IN " multiplyer works . So i will not use opposed poles, but simply try to get the best perf of serial coils ,with my light light lab structure.

I am now making some calculation and test to see how far from each other the serie coils must be separated, to avoid interference with is neighbour coils.

I mean it will probably be a bicycle wheel of 20"diameter with 36 spokes placed inside the rim (probably a 24" diameter)of another bicycle wheel with also 36 spokes (but without the spokes) on which i will fit the coils (probably 18) fixed between the holes of the spokes. at the inside of the rim

The magnets will be in pairs N-S, in the attrapulsion mode glued on a piece of steel which will be screwed on both sides of the rim of the inner 20" wheel The 2 pairs of magnet per pole will overlap the rim and so they will sandwith the coils fixed on the outer rim. (will make a drawing when i have fixed every thing)

The attrapulsion mode is the fact to fire the coil when the pair of magnet is exactly centered above the coil. So if the coil side is eg N, than the S pole of the magnet will be attracted to the center of the coil and the N pole will be simultaneously ejected outside the coil. So for one pulse you get 4 working units (2 on each side of the coil)

So the magnet diameter (or width) must be about 1/3 of the coil diameter. I will do some test if this config is better than only on bigger magnet per coil.
And test what is better between round or trapezoidal magnet. Any idea ?

so that's it. perhaps i will open a dedicated thread for this attrapulsion system, so we dont disturb with non- Garry's ideas.
What do you think ?

good luck at all

Laurent

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi woopy, I drew a cad model of your design, not sure how your planning to secure the coils to the outer rim, but this should be close to what you described. It looks like a fairly easy test bed for experiments.
http://a.imageshack.us/img824/374/wo...lsiondesig.png
peace love light
Tyson

[woopy]

Hi Tyson

Very correct, it is exactly what i will do.

but perhaps and it is what i am testing now the magnets must be more separated from each other. But not sure. And perhaps the magnet are not cylinder but square or rectangle ?

Than for the montage the 2 rims should perhaps be more separated so you can insert the rotor in the stator without being obliged to unmount a part of the coils and especially if they are glued . In this case the steel piece (magnet support) could be something longer and the magnet something more offset from the rim.
But this is details to see during the building

I go now to a bycicler garage to see what i can find and than determine the coils diameter and magnet etc...

I will try to find a one wheel bycicle you know the one you see in circus.
So i will unmount the pedals and seat, and keep only the mainwheel and the fork. Than i will buy a second fork which will be mounted in opposition of the first fork, So the main rotorwill be solidly fixed and the stator will be mounted at the u- turn of the 2 forks. Plus some cross rigidification et voila.

A light and rigid attrapulsion multicoil in serie test motor.
and now at work

Nice job thank's

good luck

Laurent

[woopy]

Hehe

good fishing today

i have found almost everything.

Luckily i have found this 20 " monocycle new for 40 bucks, and a old 24 " wheel on my old bicycle.

On the pix you see how i intend to fix the coils. (only 3 just making an opinion)

and now to the hard job Deciding the size of the coils and magnet etc....

good luck at all

Laurent

[gyula]

standard 3 1/2 floppy drive with motor similar to the picture have smaller coils similar to 5 1/4

Hi Wings,

Thanks, I have been also aware of this possibility but the last time (about 1.5 years ago) I set to pieces 3 such 3 1/2 floppy drives I found a different inner motor setup: there were no flat coils at all but a 12 segment soft iron (laminated) rotor with 12 coils on the segment beds... sot they changed the design. Nevertheless, if someone has got a computer service shop nearby or computer flea market, it may be worth visiting if they have some surplus left from the older type floppies, for nowadays floppy drives go outfashioned and not used any more.

Gyula

[Ted Ewert]

Here's a suggestion for your coil design Woopy:



Using rectangular magnets gives you more surface area than round magnets. They are also more efficient in using the perpendicular area of the windings, which is the only part that provides motive force.
The pulse width should be the same as the distance (number of radial degrees) between the magnet centers. The spacing should be about what I show in the drawing. You don't want your next group too close either, since your leading magnet will be repelled by the approaching side of the coil during the drive pulse.
A slightly "V" shaped coil helps keep the windings perpendicular to the magnets through their arc, for better efficiency, but with your large radius it may not be too critical.
I'm still working on a write-up for coil matching, but with this motor it isn't as critical as with other pulse motors. I remembered that there is a big "dip" during the drive pules duration, which takes a lot of energy out of the collapse pulse. Matching still helps, but it's not as dramatic in this instance.

Ted

BTW, a large radius will increase torque, but at the expense of power out. There's always a trade off between torque and speed, both of which are combined to produce power.

[gyula]

...
Hi gyula, thanks for your thoughts. I think your thought that his motor performed better with the 12 coil pairs because of the added copper of the coils is the answer. Though I never did see his comments about it performing worse when he reduced the magnets and active coils to 6 per side, but if that is true, then less copper means less shaft work for a given input. Also, the compression of permanent magnet flux using dual rotors which prevents deflection is another thing that makes this type of motor so good as far as air-core coil motors go, as garry has pointed out.
...

Hi Tyson,

I found in Garry's old yahoo Pulse Motor Group the post where Garry described his findings when he had taken out the 6 coil pairs:

Yahoo! Groups


I want to quote this also from that text:

This of course now means that I have to rebuild it and see if I can get back to where I was before but because the coils I took out are wired so that
they power the motor even though this means that they were wired up the
reverse way these are wired due to the fact that they were CCW while the 6
pairs left are in fact CW I didn't think it would make a difference but I
did have these in as a parallel pair with a pair of existing coils and then
these 6 coil sets were series wired together.

So this means he used both CW and CCW wound coils, this sounds important.

Gyula

[woopy]

Yes Ted

you are fully right n

it seems that rectangular winding can allow more coils on the same diameter ( with probably less interference with it's neibour coil - not sure at all = something to test .) than with round coil. Furthermore the rectangular coil seems also to attract and repulse more magnetic surface.

And mechanically they can be glued much better than round coils on the rim.

Hehe your proposal make me think of a much bigger setup with a lot of serial primary (or secondary) rectangular MOT coil. (they are gratis all over the world in trash.) associated with very giant neorectangular magnet youuoop ¨¨

is it possible to buy retangular single coil of different wiring and where ? please in europe for info ---

Yes Ted we are on the good track ... thank's for your input

good luck at all

Laurent

[gyula]

...
it seems that rectangular winding can allow more coils on the same diameter ( with probably less interference with it's neibour coil - not sure at all = something to test .) than with round coil.

Hi Laurent,

Magnetic coupling is surely higher between rectangular coils sides (being they are parallel) than between round coils. Rectangular shapes have longer "facing" perimeters than rounds do. Of course this "drawback" can be remedied by using higher distances between the coils.

is it possible to buy retangular single coil of different wiring and where ? please in europe for info ---

Unfortunately, I have not seen such coils in el. components shops where the round coils normally are stocked. Audio cross over coils are also round shaped, probably they are easier to wind for a round shape bobbin.

It is good you finally chose a bicycle wheel size rotor (I think earlier I suggested this) so that more coils can be "deployed", to increase torque. You wrote you wish to use a higher distance between the magnets, not a short distance, however this involves a higher "stray" flux as well, and consequently less attract or repel. Your earlier using the iron yokes or keepers on one side of the double magnets was a good solution to keep stray flux at a minimum to the outside of the rotor, and to insure this to the inside face (towards the coils) you may want to use further magnets closeby like Garry did with the double rotor.

rgds, Gyula

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi woopy, your welcome and it looks like your build is coming along, i guess those plastic mounts look strong enough, where did you get those. Hi gyula, thanks for that link, though I'm not a member so i can't look at any of the info there. So your saying that garrys motor performed better with the 12 coils and is he saying he was going to put back the magnets to make it 12 per side again. Do you know if garry even tested it on the bike with the 6 magnets per rotor and 6 coil pairs, or were all those bike tests done with the 12 magnet version, thanks. Funny, because I've decided on 12 magnets per rotor and 12 coils for my new setup and since I only have so many neo's right now, it looks like I'm going to use 3/8" high density fiberboard for my rotors and that looks almost the same thickness that garry used, of course he used plastic. Also, the center stator plate will be 3/8" hdf also and later I can add more stator plates and rotors and the difference in this motor will be the alternating polarity magnets. Here is the design I'll be building soon, as soon as I get the materials.
http://a.imageshack.us/img638/5538/1...tpulsemoto.png
peace love light
Tyson

[thaelin]

Just a thought as far as for thoes who want to use a metal backing for the magnets. I did a motor once like that and used 2 10" fine toothed plywood table saw blades. Only draw back there is "WATCH THE FINGERS ALWAYS" as they will be very unforgiving in the event you get in the way. They come pre-made with a 5/8" shaft size perfect for threaded stock too.

thay

[woopy]

centering the wheel

Hi all

whouuuch The bicycle wheel is a good idea but what a binz to get them centered. An especially with low cost material.
I had to retune all the spokes to let the wheel spin about round and almost aligned. But it is OK now , it spins good and stable enough to go further

Of course for 40 bucks you don't get a Ferrari.

So i will have to let some more gap between coils and magnets because wobling . But for this first test this is not so important. Remember that my aim with this proto is to verify the IN ( ian's Newmann ) multiplyer.

I have made some pulling test with round coil associated with rectangular magnets. And it seems to be very good. Probably not so good as per rectangular coils but any way good enough .
So i will order rectangular magnets.

For Tyson the plastic holders for the coils is electric pipe holders you can find everywhere in diy center.

And now a question about the coils.

What is a good config for 18 coils in serie
I intend to use my variac with a full wave bridge rectifier, so i can go from almost no voltage up to more than 250 volts DC.

I plan to make thin coils of about 30 mm diameter and a 10 mm center and about 7 mm width , which can accept about 100 turns of 0.5 mm copper wire.
A first proto of this coil gives 0.6 ohm and 0.11 mh
I would appreciate your input on this thema.

Thanks


OK good weekend at all

Laurent

[gyula]

Hi gyula, your pics are ok and i know its hard so try drawing it this way ...your second one shows 2 horrizontal coils, you effectively have them shown as a group of connected m's eg mmmmm so if you turn them around you still get mmmmm but in reality if you turn them around you get wwwww can you see the subtle difference here if you look at a c from the front and then turn it around it becomed a D without the verticle line of course ...can you not see from this that turning half the coil or one of the pairs does in fact change the direction it the windings ? the direction of the winding is totaly relative to your point of view ?

Hi Garry,

Ok, I understand the mmmm and wwww examples, however these do not really turn like that in practice: just hold a few turn cylindrical coil with its centerline axis horizontally in your hand, observe its widing sense at ,say, on its left hand side and then slowly turn it horizontally 180 degree, and then check the winding sense at its left hand side again (which was of course earlier its right hand side), you would find the same winding sense; this is what I found. You can easily check this with a piece of wire, making a few turns from it onto you fingers.

HOWEVER, if you make a drawing in the computer and use its built-in turning and rotating functions, they will change the winding sense!

EDIT Just noticed that when I rotate 180 degree the coil symbol with software (I use MS Paint built in the Windows), the winding sense does not change, seems it maybe does but it does not; you can convince yourself on this by turning the Start wire under and behind the core symbol to add half a turn in the black box on the CW wound coil and unwind half a turn at its Finish wire: you get exactly the first rotated coil symbol shown just under the black box.
Winding sense changes only if I use the mirror function and the second coil symbol shown under the black box demonstrate this.
Sorry for this mistake but now it is clear. I have now written this into my drawing too.

I uploaded a drawing again, see these turning and mirror images in the right hand side column, under the black box.
I indicated with a start and a stop the windings of the coils and always watch a coil drawing symbol from my start wire: it can go either clockwise or counter clockwise of course as you guide the wire, I show this in the black rectangular box.

In the left hand side column, I show your two identical coils first in series with the same winding sense, then the second coil with opposite winding sense, still both in series, and in the third bottom drawing the second coil's endings are replaced to correct for the poles and achive the parallel connection with the first coil. Is this how your coils have been used?

[EDIT: just noticed I connected L2 coil's end #4 directly to the battery, it should go directly to L1 coil's start #1 instead, will modify the drawing tomorrow.] NOW I uploaded the correct drawing.

i have gone on to make a couple of no lenz generators since i stopped publishing stuff i have a couple of very basic working prototypes one of which has been replicated and found to function even if very minimal in its output.
From there i have been able to determin a more effective method of making a forward emf setup that should be a self runner but my responce from people is generally boardering on "your a loony" and i kinda expected this to change when i was able to show a working unit that was undenyable but alas it just goes over peoples heads because it "simply cant be done", accordingly i gave up as i realised that no one would ever back it and thus you can never get it to market unless you can afford to yourself. Garry

I do not think you would find "your a loony" or similar behaviour here, I do think Ted or Tyson (he started this thread on his own) or Laurent or others and last but not least me would also be interested in your forward emf setups. I remember you have got some hundred mW output power as you wrote in October-November, 2003, and even with as low output as this, your setup is a fantastic achievement in itself. Do not let it fade, where there is a will there is a way and I am sure your setup can be enhanced in output power. I wrote in the personal message about an NDA if you wish that way of course.

Regards, Gyula