Garry Stanley Pulse Motor

[woopy]

Hi Tyson and Gyula and Garry and all

Yes it seems there is something here. Bravo

This morning i have tried to make me a better idea of what Ian said in his calculation. And i made some calculations on his basis.

If there is nothing again this " Ian's multiplyer" , the pure theorical results are simply AMAZING.

please have a look at the pix, and imagine a config with 4 coils in serie and 4 times paralleled (16 coils and 16 magnets ) and go on with 5 etc..

there is probably somebody to find out a general formula for the Ian's multiplyer ?

And probably also somebody to temper the enthousiasm.

I will make a trip to Newmann motor, perhaps he had understood this a long time ago

It's a pleasure to work with you all

good luck

Laurent

[wings]

Hi Garry,

I have made a drawing to illustrate your pulse motor setup as I remember and understand it, please take a look at it and tell if anything is wrong, I will correct the drawing accordingly.

Once we make your setup a 100% understandable for all the Folks here, then hopefully more people are encouraged to test it. Feel free to supply further details like magnets type, transistor type, etc.

rgds, Gyula

cw ccw = caduceus dual coil = scalar wave?

[Ted Ewert]

Hi Tyson and Gyula and Garry and all

Yes it seems there is something here. Bravo

This morning i have tried to make me a better idea of what Ian said in his calculation. And i made some calculations on his basis.

If there is nothing again this " Ian's multiplyer" , the pure theorical results are simply AMAZING.

please have a look at the pix, and imagine a config with 4 coils in serie and 4 times paralleled (16 coils and 16 magnets ) and go on with 5 etc..

there is probably somebody to find out a general formula for the Ian's multiplyer ?

And probably also somebody to temper the enthousiasm.

I will make a trip to Newmann motor, perhaps he had understood this a long time ago

It's a pleasure to work with you all

good luck

Laurent

Caution, tempering ahead...
Don't get fooled by numbers. What is not stated here is that if you put two identical coils in series, you may get twice the turns but you also get half the power in each coil. Each additional coil you put in series further diminishes the power for each coil in the string (unless you increase the total voltage).
This may or may not be desirable, depending on what your application is. You're not getting something for nothing here, you are just altering the parameters.
Amp turns are only part of the equation in designing a motor coil. There are certainly other equally important parameters that also need to be taken into account. It's a lot more complex than just amp-turns.

Cheers,

Ted

[gyula]

cw ccw = caduceus dual coil = scalar wave?

Hi Wings,

Yes, for a caduceus coil it may be true but in Garry's paralleled coils there is no such closeness between the CW and CCW wire turns as is shown in your uploaded picture. So both coils in Garry's setup give a normal flux output as is expected from coils while in caduceus style coils the flux is "cancelled" (or converted to scalar wave) very near to the wire crossings.

rgds, Gyula

[gyula]

Caution, tempering ahead...
Don't get fooled by numbers. What is not stated here is that if you put two identical coils in series, you may get twice the turns but you also get half the power in each coil. Each additional coil you put in series further diminishes the power for each coil in the string (unless you increase the total voltage).
This may or may not be desirable, depending on what your application is. You're not getting something for nothing here, you are just altering the parameters.
Amp turns are only part of the equation in designing a motor coil. There are certainly other equally important parameters that also need to be taken into account. It's a lot more complex than just amp-turns.

Cheers,

Ted

Hi Ted,

You are correct on the half power with the series coils but if you study Laurent's calculations, he did consider the 'half powers', see his calcs:
http://www.energeticforum.com/attach...ultiplyer-.jpg

So basically the "simple math" supports here the practical findings of first Ian's then Tyson's then Laurent's: the more coils are used in a series / parallel configuration (to take about the same input power), together with increasing number of STRONG permanent magnets, the higher the motor torque becomes.

rgds, Gyula

EDIT: I can agree with your thoughts below you gave to Tyson cca 2 days ago:

"Hi Tyson,
I think what you're seeing with more coils, and the same input impedance, is more surface area coming into play. Torque is a function of not only flux density, but equally important is a large surface area between the rotor pole and the stator. With more coils there is more surface area for the same amount of input current.
I agree that a lot of the gain is in good coil design. If you want to get more efficiency out of your coils, I would suggest going up in both impedance and voltage. At higher pulse rates, higher impedance coils are much more efficient. There is a balance there too."

[woopy]

Hi Ted

Thank's to temper

the "Ian's multiplyer " proposal is so good that it might be something going against it .

But as i could see and Ian also and this morning Tyson, if we are not fooled by instruments, there migt be a reality in the fact that:





CONSIDERING A CONFIGURATION WHERE EACH COIL IS WORKING WITH ONE GIVEN MAGNET OF CONSTANT GAUSS . AND BY THIS WAY THEY CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A MOTORISING COMPONENT.

than

BY MULTIPLYING THE MOTORASING COMPONENTS IN SERIE OR SERIAL PARALLELs ; YOU GET MORE OUTPUT POWER THAN BY USING THE SAME NUMBER OF THOSE MOTORASING COMPONENTS WORKING INDEPENDENTLY.

AND THIS AT THE SAME INPUT POWER,





The pure math are OK as i have considered not to increase the voltage but decrease the amps. As Gyula sayd in the previous post.

Now the question is what can slows the "Ian`s multiplyer" in reality.

The *Ian's multiplyer " is only a pure math converter and shows that in ideal case the GAUSS number can be improved.

But of course now our work is how to get the better advantage of these GAUSS increase

Or better sayd how to transform the increase in Gauss in usefull power.

i have some idea for my next dream

good night and thanks at all

Laurent

[Matthew Jones]

To truly use less power the coils have to be fire at different times. You fire one coil, collect the BEMF and stepped up discharge into a capacitor, then fire another with the collected energy. Then keep going.
If watch them on a scope you can track the entropy at work.

You would be surprised how far you first little burst will go.

The primary problem being shuttling the power around. It will require a pretty complex circiut. One that includes capacitors that do not allow the charge that is collected to grow much beyond the original potential. Good strong low voltage capacitors. If they aren't used the potential itself will grow through each coil beyond use outside a RF spectrum.

Matt

[Ted Ewert]

@ woopy,
The thing about this motor which is different than most of the pulse motors we build, is that there is no core in the coils. This means that the windings are the motivating element, not the core area.
As this is the case, why are we having this discussion about coil generated gauss numbers? These mostly apply to the coils with iron cores.
Torque is generated in this motor by three main things: I x B x L where I is electrical current, B is the flux field from the permanent magnets, and L is length of wire exposed (surface area) perpendicular to the B field.
Increase any one of those parameters and you will increase torque:
As you have discovered, more coils equals more surface area exposed to B field which makes more torque.
Higher voltage equals more current which makes more torque.
Stronger magnets equal more B field which makes more torque.
Increasing the magnet's surface area to better match half the coil area makes more torque.
Decrease the gap width between the magnets and the coil... etc, etc.
If you keep in mind exactly how this motor works, it's much easier to think of practical improvements.

Cheers,

Ted

[garrys]

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

Hi Folks consider the 2 coils as a single coil that is cut in half ...one half is turned around and reconnected to the first half without removing the input power wires now a wire is added from the wired outter end to the other end which has no wire on it.
or if you like you can simply join the 2 end wires so in effect the 1 coil becomes 2 coils of half the resistance and thus each outs out more power per coil, the draw should double i think from memory.

this is not about playing with motor configuration to get the best result it is about taking any configuration you already have and making it better once you understand this then start adding for shaft output relative to input.

Look around you out there ...there are many people with claims out there newman for instance but where is the marketable working result ..it simply isnt there and this applies to them all though each has pursued a different course and each possibly has something interesting there is no end result from this so beware of this when you are looking at following someones ideas and putting your time and money into them.

Free energy is FORWARD emf conventional energy is bemf ...thats B for BACK, back is also induced or generated emf so as long as you are pursuing generating from your motor you are by default moving in the wrong direction, though i must also point out that this is all learning and each of us learns differently and we each need to know different amounts to get us to a point when we understand it in our heads instead of trying to write down everything.

I suggest you pick up a coil and test its poles then turn it around and check them again then rewire it to get what you had before ...something has changed when you do this to achieve the same ploes as you started out with and it is the direction of travel of electrons in the wire and the fact they have changed rotation from clock wise to counter clockwise ...this is the simplicity of my motor because as the electrons change direction in the coil they are now flowing in the pair either from the ends to the center or from the center to the ends instead of if this was a standard coil where they flow from one end to the other.

I know from experience this is hard to figure out and comprehend but like i said before the objective to attain a self runner is forward emf if you cant understand going from back emf to no emf then you are never going to get to forward emf.

Garry

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi garry, thanks for your thoughts. Though all I'm pointing out is that by adding more coils to this motor design or Newmans, we can get more shaft work for the same input. And of course raising the voltage to keep the speed up, which does not raise current if the input watts are kept the same, in fact it lowers if the coils are in series and gives more shaft work for that given input wattage. I tested again with only 2 coils in series at 36 volts and around 700milliamps for around 24 watts and yes the motor had more speed, but still, if any kind of load was applied it had little torque and would probably not sustain much of a load at that speed with such little torque. Again, with these 2 coils in series with either 24 or 36 volt input, the motor can easily be stopped by hand. However, when all 6 coils are wired in series and at 36 or 48 volts, the motor is extremely difficult to stop by hand and yet still maintains a good rpm when exerting strong force to try and stop the shaft. People do not need to spend all kinds of money to see what I'm speaking about. People will make up there own minds, as they always do.
Hi Ted, you said.

Higher voltage equals more current which makes more torque.

As i said above in my post, when i raise the voltage for the 6 coils in series to keep the speed up, it actually lowers the current while maintaining the same input watts.
peace love light
Tyson

[woopy]

@ Ted

Thank's a lot for the advice and math, will help for my next building.

@ Matt
Yes could be good , have you a shematic ?

@ Garry
Thank's i think i have grasped something and i have made a drawing of what i think you are meaning in your previous post. Is it correct ?.

@ all

And i made a small test to crudely compare my Garry's understanding with Gyula's drawing from some posts ago, and one single coil.
Please find enclosed the report.

I have also enclosed the set up of the test where you can see the black plastic bloc supporting on one side the double coil and than i simply have to flip the bloc to test the single coil.

Finally i enclose a pix where you can see the scope trace on a Garry's parallel config. There is a clear generative wave. So this config seems not to stop the generator in the motor.

But nothing very new as the double coils (named by me Garry's and Gyula's )
are about the same resistance and inductance when wired in serie as the single coil, and they work about identical.
But once wired in parallel they simply draw about twice the ma for the same work.
So as per my understanding there is no advantage in this concept.

Where do i miss something.?

Perhaps i have to do a bigger test jig to have better results but i am in serious doubt and i think that the serie config is THE way to go.

What do you think ?

good luck at all

Laurent

[Ted Ewert]

@ woopy,
I don't think you missed anything. You did a scientific test and found out how it really works.
I could never understand how this coil was any different electrically, or magnetically, than two normally wound coils put together the same way. The only difference with this coil is that the current travels from inside to outside on one side and the opposite on the other side. Nevertheless, the current is still spinning in the same direction in both coils. I don't see how this small detail is particularly significant, but you never know until you actually test it.
If more people did tests like this we would progress much faster towards developing devices which are constantly improved. Nice work woopy.

[woopy]

Hi Ted

Thank's for your position.

i have made a trip on your work at "Heretical builders"

very impressive.

I will probably need your opinion for my next building

good night

Laurent

[SkyWatcher]

Hi woopy, thanks for the tests. As i have said, I agree with garry that this pulse motor has low losses and uses both coil poles and as far as the other claims I had no way of knowing for sure. Though yes, I find that the series wiring seems to be superior and raising the voltage for added speed when adding more coils and magnets. So here is it what i see, we add more coils and magnets to maintain a matching amount of coils to magnet interactions and as we add more coils increasing resistance, we keep raising voltage to maintain speed and the current steadily decreases at a particular input test wattage while at the same time yielding more and more shaft torque. It's obvious amps can be used as a primary input to increase torque and in the process destroy the battery dipole that much quicker, or we can increase amount of coils and use higher voltage and much less current which causes much less dipole destruction and gives us even more torque, which i think can only be coming from the added copper of the coils. Here is some more interesting information from Newman.
http://a.imageshack.us/img651/9192/newmancoils1.jpg
http://a.imageshack.us/img651/5640/newmancoils2.jpg
http://a.imageshack.us/img651/7416/newmancoils3.jpg
http://a.imageshack.us/img651/4143/newmancoils4.jpg
http://a.imageshack.us/img651/512/newmancoils5.jpg
http://a.imageshack.us/img651/6897/newmancoils6.jpg
http://a.imageshack.us/img651/2415/newmancoils7.jpg
peace love light
Tyson

[Ted Ewert]

...So here is it what i see, we add more coils and magnets to maintain a matching amount of coils to magnet interactions and as we add more coils increasing resistance, we keep raising voltage to maintain speed and the current steadily decreases at a particular input test wattage while at the same time yielding more and more shaft torque. It's obvious amps can be used as a primary input to increase torque and in the process destroy the battery dipole that much quicker, or we can increase amount of coils and use higher voltage and much less current which causes much less dipole destruction and gives us even more torque, which i think can only be coming from the added copper of the coils.
Tyson

I think you're on the right track. What you'll find (and have found) is that with increased inductance you're motor will become more efficient(to a point). This is because the coils start to produce power of their own.
When you have the inductive collapse after the pulse, it sends energy back to your power source according to how well you have matched the impedance of the coil (I have a fairly simple circuit for matching the impedance if you're interested). I've tested this theory and it works, just like Bedini keeps saying. Even Newman uses the power of the coil.
Like anything else you can over do it. Getting just the right balance is where the work is.

Cheers,

Ted