Garry Stanley Pulse Motor

[noutlaw]

Torque Question

Hello -

I'm in the process of building a Gary S. motor - I wanted to know what sort of torque you are seeing out of it (?). Do you think one could be built that would generate 250 ft lbs of torque?

[SkyWatcher]

Hi thaelin, thanks for sharing what your working on. Hi noutlaw, yes of course you can build one with 250 ft. lbs. of torque, though it might not be as small as typical motors of that output. What I found with this motor design, is that connecting all coils in series and using higher voltage is the way to go. The more coils added in series while raising voltage to maintain desired rpm, one can achieve increasing shaft output power while maintaining the same input power. I observed this in my motor, for example, running the pulse motor with 1 or 2 coils at a certain voltage and a certain rpm and then take note of amps to figure input watts and also using hand on shaft to get an idea of torque. While this is not super accurate, it is sufficient to see the increase in shaft power. Then add 2 more coils in series and raise voltage to maintain similar rpm and input power. What you should find, is that for the same rpm and input wattage as previous test, that shaft power has increased. Again, add 2 more coils in series, raising voltage to maintain similar rpm and input power and you should now notice a very large increase in shaft power, compared to only using 1 or 2 coils. So is there a limit to this increasing shaft output power for the same overall input watts, maybe, though testing will show this. Does this represent OU, I'm not sure. Maybe at some point in scale it could. All I can say from experiments, is that adding coils in series and raising voltage yields more shaft output for the same input and using air-cores eliminate many of the typical losses in normal motors.
peace love light
Tyson

[gyula]

Hi Garry and All,

This post is going to be a bit lengthy, please everybody bear with me and take your time to digest it.

Garry, Sorry for the long delay in answering and continuing this topic, have had a hard time at my workplace for about 2 months and I cannot do too much tinkering at home, for I live in a block of flats at a housing estate.

So let’s continue with the first part of your answer, I quote it for the shake of completeness (from here: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post108832 )

Yes i agree with what you are sayoing here it is correct but im saying leave the coil turned and change the wires it creates the same poles now but it has in fact changed the end that is exposed to the flux field which thus causes the induced potential to be the other way around and counter the potential in the first ...can you understand this ?

Yes, I got what you wrote and I can agree in that I get the correct poles, NSNS in motor mode when I leave the (second) coil turned as you said above and change its wires back. (On motor mode I mean that I connect a battery or power supply to the paralleled coils via a controlled switch.)
However, in generator mode (and unloaded case), the coils (connected as just described) behave as two batteries that are paralleled with their plus poles joined and their negative poles also joined.
Putting this more precisely when comparing the battery voltages to the two coils’ induced voltages, you place say two AA 1.5V batteries on the table next to each other, with plus poles upwards, then you turn the second AA battery upside down (this is the flipped coil) and with a piece of wire you connect the first AA’s positive to the other AA’s positive (this latter is now at the bottom) and with another piece of wire you connect the first AA’s negative to the second AA’s negative (this latter is now on the top).
So the voltages do not cancel in this situation, you have a double AmperHour battery capacity at the same voltage, 1.5V.
Applying this comparison to the two coils (paralleled as you described in your quote), pretty close the same amplitude of voltages are induced in both coils and the voltages have the same phase polarity so that they do not cancel. In addition, the DC resistances of the two coils in parallel reduces to 2 Ohms (each such flat coil has 4 Ohm DC resistance in itself, this has significance in motor mode when you wish to compare input current draw, say, series coils vs paralleled coils etc).

So this is how I have found in my recent tests when I used the same flat coils you had back in the 2002-2003 era in your working motor that was fixed to your bicycle. I uploaded some pictures to Imageshack, see them at the bottom.

I have used an old test platform I partly build with a friend’s help and I now held the coils in my hand to feel any drag that might happen when testing the possible coil connections. Connected parallel the two coils as you described above there was no any drag while I gave a strong push to the double rotor by one hand and held the two coils by the other hand in the gap between the rotating magnets. I watched the output voltage on an oscilloscope by using a 10:1 scope probe (it has a 10MegaOhm inner resistance, practically has no load on the coils output).
When I connected a 1.5V AA battery to this same coil pair, I got the correct NSNS poles from these coils as needed for the attract-in process from the SN magnet pair point of view that I have on the double rotor from the upper to the lower direction.

Now let’s turn to the second part of your answer, dealing with Lenz law and closed coils, I quote here first what you wrote on Lenz law, then I quote what you wrote on the closed coils, for the shake of completeness:

Your understanding of lenz is incorrect.
Lenz is the reaction of the flux field of the coil acting in an equal and opposite direction to the incoming or exiting flux field, it acts on both equally so when a magnet approaches with a north pole the coil creates a north pole to repel the incoming magnet and on exit it creates a south pole to try and stop the magnet leaving.
These only occur as you say when the power is on in a normal motor since the flux field requires a closed circuit to have the current flow that creates the flux field and so it is true that a coil will pass a magnet with no lenz as long as it is an open circuit.

Well, I agree with your Lenz law description. In fact I had the same in my mind when I referred to Lenz law appearing during the attract-in time of the rotating magnets when the paralleled coils are switched ON by a controlled switch. I mentioned the increase in current draw when you gave a firm grip on your motor shaft. (You can surely recall when your motor shaft was unloaded, the current draw from the 96V battery pack was between 200-300mA or so (max 500mA) and then giving your firm grip on the shaft the current draw went up to 1A or so, this is how I recall.)
Now I explain this increased current draw mainly by the fact that the coils had to remain ON for longer time whenever a load appeared on the shaft because the rotor was retarded under the load, rotor RPM was reduced, so the reed switch’s ON time was prolonged a little. With mentioning Lenz law for occuring during the attract-in time in your motor I wanted to explain away the increased current draw under load, caused totally by Lenz law.
However, this is not a 100% cause for the increased current draw because during the ON time there is a closed circuit for the paralleled coils via the battery due to the closed switch, so a counter emf can develop (see explanation below) in the coils during the full attract-in time so this can also increase input current. I do think however that the effect of this cemf is much less than in normal motors because the ON time in this pulse motor is not at all continuous like in normal motors. Also, I think that in the total current draw the increased ON time has a much bigger share than the cemf has. This ratio could be estimated from the loaded 1 full rotation time compared to the switch total ON time, also under 1 full rotation.

Now on the closed coils you wrote:

What you are missing here is that like a straight bit of wire that you might use to create a closed circuit on a single coil my coil pairs are in fact permanently connected as one coil is the closed circuit of the other ...in normal circumstances you would expect to find both lenz at its greatest possible strength on a closed coil and also extreme heat as the current has to be converted to something in the closed circuit coil and yet mine display neither heat nor resistance to travel through the magnet either on approach or exit
i hope this makes sense

Yes it would make sense and I would fully agree with you if the paralleled coils indeed behaved as you always tried to explain. But my tests show me: the coils, connected like you described, do not cancel each other’s induced emf because both emfs have the same polarity and they are in parallel, as I wrote above when comparing them to 2 AA paralleled batteries .
I hope I did not misunderstand you coils connections, I thoroughly followed your description and ended up in paralleled induced voltages of identical polarities.
All my efforts so far have been to understand how your coils were connected. Now I think I have the answer. Thank you for all your hard work in trying to explain it from many different aspects, during the years.

Any question you or anyone here may have, I will try to answer.

Regards,
Gyula

PS: I would continue this test and examine Ben Thomas's finding when he showed a scope shot of the switched coil voltage waveform, telling the induced coils voltage adds to the battery voltage if I recall correctly.

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/7...oublerotor.jpg


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/8859/flatcoils.jpg


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/8...ilscloseup.jpg


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/7769/coilsrotor.jpg


Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/5...oltageoutp.jpg


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, it's been awhile because I have been experimenting with some other things and recently was testing some of bedinis self triggered monopole motors. Also I didn't realize there were updates in this thread, how are your tests going gyula with that nice setup I see you built.
So I built the standard schoolgirl type monopole circuit and ran a single rotor with 6 neo magnets with a steel bolt core which ran ok. Then I used a bifilar air core that ran so fast I thought my rotor was going to blow apart. What is very interesting is that with the air-core and with steel bolt core the amps go up as the rotor speeds up.
So I thought, hey i wonder how this would work on my Garry Stanley type dual rotor air-core pulse motor. It works great, my Stanley pulse motor is the same one that is shown in this thread. So I made a bifilar air-core coil with the same gauge wire as the motor coils and similar dimensions. I also placed the six air-core motor coils in series parallel, meaning 3 coil in series and the other 3 coils in series and then put those in parallel for around 3.6 ohms so that it matches very closely the resistance of the separate primary of the trigger coil which is around 3.6 ohms.
I used 24 volts input gel cell and I am charging a 12 volt gel cell off the flyback with single diode. The 12 volt charging battery is charging very well and the input amp draw is around 430 milliamps and when I use my hand as a shaft load slowing it down, the amp draw lowers to around 360 milliamps, while digging marks into my hand, so it has torque for sure. Let me know what you folks think of this.
By the way, woopy, that is a very nice motor you built that you showed in the ferriswheel thread.
peace love light
Tyson

[SkyWatcher]

Oh, I forgot some more details.
The 6 motors coils in series/parallel were then placed in series with the primary coil of the separate air-core bifilar trigger coil, then used the typical schoolgirl motor circuit with NPN transistor and I just held the bifilar trigger coil close to one side of one of the rotors in the proper magnet polarity and off she goes. Also it is in repulsion mode.
Again, your thoughts appreciated.
peace love light
Tyson

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, for anyone interested here is the circuit of the experiment I just spoke of. It does seem a promising setup, no sensors needed and it can give good torque. Your comments welcome.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

peace love light
Tyson

[FRC]

Ferite

Hello Skywatcher,

Do you think that with your schoolgirl setup, with air core, that standard
ferite magnets would also work. Or do they have to be neodynium magnets
to obtain the improved torque and rpm?

FRC

[SkyWatcher]

Hi FRC, thanks for the reply. Sure ferrite magnets would work, though would not give quite as much torque as neos. Though as long as you use the dual rotor sandwiching the air-core coil like Garrys and the motor I'm showing in this thread you'll get decent torque. I also tried the trigger coil in parallel with motor coils and could not get it going, because it was pushing current into either one of the coils since the bifilar trigger coils are not between the rotors and so different voltages are produced I think is the reason, which is why the series setup works. Now if my trigger coil was in the same position as the motor coils, then parallel might work also. Hope that helps, feel free to ask any more questions. I am testing higher voltages.
Guyla. how are your tests going if your out there.
peace love light
Tyson
edit: Oh I forgot to mention that my air-core bifilar self oscillates, whereas when I use steel bolts it does not. So the air-core trigger coils creates kinda of a bird chirping sound when running.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, for anyone interested. I ran some more tests and found that I can run the motor even better with better charging on the back end if I use a single separate trigger coil placed near magnets of one of the rotors. So I took the bifilar air-core coil I used in previous test and wire it in series as a single trigger coil and it worked well, though I don't think it was saturating the transistor fully, so I hooked up another transistor for a darlington arrangement and it runs really well now. So if anyone wants to run a motor without any sensors, this will do the job, though of course it still relies on the motion of the rotor to induce a signal in trigger coil, so only certain loads could be used before the motor drops off and stops. Also, it does not self oscillate anymore, which is a good thing in this case. Here is the updated circuit with the trigger coil removed from the main drive loop circuit and is now only across base and negative. Any comments are welcome.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
peace love light
Tyson

[gyula]

Hi Tyson,

Thanks for inquiring on my setup shown earlier, I have assigned it to serve as a test-bed for testing Garry's dual rotor motor with the the parallel coils. It is a bit wonky if the rotor speed is up to some hundred rpm but for testing purposes it is good. I will continue to check the pulse relations when I can afford some more time.
You have again showed a good setup, and please allow a notice here: progress can only be made with such setups if output torque measurements or the output electric power from a known generator driven by the pulse motor is not checked, to form a comparison possibility. This way you can easily close out certain setups that give not so 'promising' outputs than some other setups. It is ok if you charge a second battery too but maybe not so reliable and chemical reactions are changing processes, not so much dependable.

Here is a 'forgotten' setup shown by allcanadian two years ago, just food for thought on pulse motors:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...emf-motor.html

rgds, Gyula

[SkyWatcher]

Hi gyula, thanks for the reply and that link. I understand what your saying about testing with a prony brake or generator load to determine efficiency. I could use 3 coils on the motor for a generator output and the other 3 coils for motor action. I'll do that and see what comes of it.
Otherwise, for people that want to run a multi-coil pulse motor without sensors and use this separate trigger coil, it works really well.
I ran it today on 36 volts charging a cap off the flyback connected to a 25 watt lightbulb, it lights at a dim level while the motor runs very fast and still has lots of torque. And with 24 volt input while charging a 12 volt battery off flyback slows the motor some due to the flyback diode conducting on approach and still has plenty of torque.
I just thought people might be more interested in this seeing that it can switch a motor without any sensors and it seems to provide a very good turn on and off which gives a good spike for charging and to run a fan or some appropriate shaft load. I do still wonder about Bens scope shots regarding the aiding voltage. Anyway, hope to hear about any further tests you run or thoughts you may have.
peace love light
Tyson

[woopy]

Hi all at Garry 's

Perhaps that can helps

This is some testing experience on the sandwitch attrapulsion motor

I have made a serie of video about the Bedini big wheel thread and i came back almost naturally to the Garry's thread. I think that all is somehow interconnected.

so please comment

good luck at all

Laurent

YouTube - part 6 back emf versus flyback spike

[SkyWatcher]

Hi woopy, thanks for posting your thoughts and those video links, I watched them. As I was running a few tests on my motor, I realized it's already acting as a motor/generator because the flyback single diode is conducting when magnets approach a coil, since it is in repulsion mode.
So woopy, this means that since your motor in the last video is in attraction mode, that your diode is conducting when the magnets leave the coil and is also showing on the oscilloscope, which is part of the reason it's counteracting the spike at higher speeds. The reason it counteracts the spike at higher speeds in my opinion, is because the magnets are leaving the coil quicker and getting into the position to generate like a normal generator does, while the spike is occurring. So at slower speeds, the magnets are not leaving the coil quick enough to generate voltage through the diode and therefore interfere as much with the collapsing spike. If this is the case, then repulsion might be a better option to avoid this. Let me know what you think.
peace love light
Tyson

[garrys]

Hi Gyula, perhaps instead of trying to explain this to you since it seems you havent got it yet ill tell you how i arrived at it.

As with most interesting discoveries this all started by accident i was building a motor and trying to allow for future modifications etc while keeping it simple and easy to change the configuration on.

When laying out the coils i drew a circle and split it for the number of coils and then stuck them down with silicone on the side they were originally stuck down on, now as you can see from your own pix this means there is one wire on the outside at the top and the inner one has to go under the coil and out so i made this the bottom wire and then glued thess to the plastic plate with hot glue.

Now to save time and not have to do this all over again on the second plate i simply put it on top of the first located by the bolt holes in the corners and then laid out its coils in exactly the same way so they were lined up by eye to be as close to perfect as possible.

I think i had about 10 of the 12 coils glued down before i realised my problem they were both facing up but on the motor they needed to be back to back so i simply turned the plate around and put the motor together, even though this was not a scenario i had in mind to test, since it was the one i had, i decided to go for it and i soldered the 2 top wires of each coil pair together and then the bottom ones.

You seem to me to be describing serial connection of your coils which would be say pos to top outter wire, center wire connected to top outter wire of next coil and neg to center wire of that coil while i have the 2 center wires connected and the 2 outer wires connected with one coil reversed or turned over on my plate if you like.

hope this hepl ya

Garry

[SkyWatcher]

Hi garry, nice to hear from you again.
I started a thread a few days ago and got no replies. What I have found is the same thing that the individual at this web site found, which says that the counter emf can't create a current loop form the induced magnet passing the coil because the transistor is blocking flow in that direction.
http://www.totallyamped.net/adams/page2.html
This is the same thing I have found with using a simple diode as in this cad pic.
Though it seems a transistor would serve the same function possibly.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

In my thread, I asked the question if this is true or not.

When the pulse is applied to either repel or attract a permanent magnet as in your pulse motor garry.
When using a transistor or the diode setup I show.
No counter/back emf can cause any induced current to flow back to the source battery, although a voltage is generated within the coil.
There is no circuit loop going back towards battery and so without a circuit loop, no current can build to oppose the input voltage/current.
So it seems to make sense, that a coil can't build a current which creates the magnetic field and therefore can't oppose the input current to the coil while it is blocked by a diode or transistor.
The coil is acting like an open circuit coil in the direction going back to the input battery and yet the coil can build a magnetic field in the input current direction.
I believe Peter L. might have said something contrary to this, though I just don't see how it's possible for a current to flow in a given direction while being blocked by a diode or transistor. Maybe I'm missing something or actual motor experiment proves otherwise.
Anyway let me know what you think of this garry or others.
peace love light
tyson