Asymmetric coil to magnet ratios

[Shadesz]

I decided to spin this thread off the Romero/Muller thread. It deals with the asymmetry of coils to magnets. Some argue that this reduces cogging, but at what cost (lower inductance)?

Anyways please leave any ideas, opinions, or the like.

To start here are a couple of animations I made showing an 8 coil system with either 7 or 9 magnets on the rotor. The images assume a clockwise rotor rotation.








I can create an animation for any number of coils and or magnets. If you want to see one let me know.

[Shadesz]

elias is building a 15 coil 16 magnet motor. Here is the animation...


JiDghb.gif (432x432)

[Altair]

Personally, I do not see any advantage to having a different number of magnets versus number of coils, for SMALL generators like the ones that are built by people on this forum.

On large generators of heavy mass, where the time to accelerate by themselves from standstill is important, there is a clear advantage to having staggered poles. The whole motor will also be less noisy.

We could build our small generators with the same number of coils & magnets and simplificate the driving and recovery electronics to the bare minimum.
For starting, the usual swing of a finger on the rim of the rotor will be sufficient.

Of course cogging will be stronger, but I do not see that as a detriment because when you think about it, cogging is really a (free) pulling of the magnet towards the core, and then some energy spent while the magnet leaves the core. Total energy expenditure = zero.

Just the idea of being able to parallel all the coils together makes it real attractive for me.

[Shadesz]

@Altair,
My personal opinion is if we are truly trying to solve the energy crisis we will want to make our discoveries in a scalable fashion. Creating an OU system that would need a complete design overhaul to upscale seems like adding work in the long run to me. Why not make as many mistakes as you can while the unit is small and materials much lest costly.

Also, with small generators such as these, there is less inertia and thus less kinetic energy to overcome the cog, so even though we may not "need" it, I still find it beneficial.

To each his own though.

[Altair]

However, if you are making a generator with a different number of coils than magnets, there is then a nice advantage to having an EVEN number of coils AND cores.

It results from the fact that when you have a difference of 2 between the coils and magnets, you end up with 2 similarly phased coil/magnet assy that are always diametrically (180 deg) opposed , at any time.

This totally balances out the reaction forces that the magnets apply to the rotor, and therefore will allow the use of a much filmsier shaft/rotor assembly than would otherwise be possible.
For experiments where you want to run very close clearance between magnets and cores, but the wobbling of the rotor precludes it, this is the solution without resorting to a stronger shaft & rotor.

Altair

[Shadesz]

LOL I was just coming to that conclusion. I didn't like the fact that there was only one coil firing at a time. I assumed a difference of 2 would do as you said, but was just getting to model it. I suppose I don't need to now, maybe I will for my own visual purposes.

Then also, wouldn't a difference of 3 cause the same balancing effect, but instead of them firing across from each other they fire at 120 degrees? Would this not balance the rotor even better? EDIT: I just realized this would not be so unless both the # of mags and coils are factors of 120

[Altair]

Thanks for the reply, Shadesz

My line of thought was to keep the experimental "apparatus" as simple as possible so it is easier to make/modify/throw-away

I think that the main purpose of these experiments is to discover the theory behind all this, and why I personally prefer the KIS principle.

Once we do know the new principles of free energy, we can then build more sophisticated machines, if we still have enough money left

[Altair]

He-He, all our replies are one post offset

Yes, 3 will do but I don't think it will balance "better"

I have to go

[Shadesz]

Happy chatting.

OK, so now for the next principle. It seems that if you have one magnet more than the number of coils your firing sequence will follow that of the rotor. The next coil to fire will be the one just ahead of the one that fired.

However

If you have one magnet less than the number of coils the direction switches, and coils still fire consecutively, but against the direction of the rotor.

15 Coils, 14 Magnets

61dCYQ.gif (432x432)

I know this may be pretty basic to some of you. But I gotta start somewhere.

[Shadesz]

Yes, 3 will do but I don't think it will balance "better

I look at it like balancing a chair. One leg on the ground and you can tilt on all plains. Two legs and you can tilt side to side, but three legs on the ground and you are about as stable as you can get.

[Shadesz]

Just documenting the visual...

An even number of coils, with either 2 more or two less magnets, will cause the coils to fire simultaneously at 180 degrees from each other. The same rotational laws as the single fire ratios hold true as well.



BLgdmH.gif (432x432)
mJ4aE1.gif (432x432)

[Shadesz]

Annnnnd the last log for the next couple days.... who's glad?

HOW TO PLAN HOW MANY COILS WILL FIRE AT THE SAME TIME
Seems I was wrong by thinking that using different factors of 120 will result in three coils firing at the same time (evenly spaced). Several combinations do not match up. However, I did realize that its not a common factor you are looking for, but simply a multiple.

For instance, if you want three evenly spaced coils to fire at once, your total coil count must be a multiple of three. Hence 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 coils etc. AND your total magnet count must be a multiple of the same number (3).

This same law holds true for any number. If you want 4 coils to fire at once simply make sure your total coil count and total magnet count are multiples of 4. (4, 8, 12, 16, 20, etc.)

Notice also that the number of coils that will fire at the same time is the greatest common factor of your two numbers (# of coils & # of mags)...
12 coils 15 mags = 3 coils firing at once
12 coils 12 mags = 12 coils firing at once
12 coils 11 mags = 1 coil at once
12 coils 10 mags = 2 coils at once
12 coils 9 mags = 3 coils at once
12 coils 8 mags = 4 coils at once
12 coils 7 mags = 1 coil at once
12 coils 6 mags = 6 coils at once
12 coils 5 mags = 5 coils at once
12 coils 4 mags = 4 coils at once
12 coils 3 mags = 3 mags at once
12 coils 2 mags = 6 mags at once
12 coils 1 mag = 1 mag at once
(same holds true if your # of magnets are constant and coils are variable)

So why does this matter? Well, you can use this information to make for the most efficient system. Say you want to fire 3 cores at the same time and wire them together to somehow compound their effect. Sure you could do this with a small rotor and have only 3 coils and three magnets, but now you may not be able to achieve some RPM, or some critical magnet bypass velocity due to your rotors small size (think RPM x 2πr). Or at the least, you can't scale it up easily.

Let's randomly say that your 3 magnets and coils are 15mm wide and you know you need 5mm between each so their fields wont affect each other. This would put your radius around 9.5 mm. Any smaller and your system wont work, any bigger and you loose energy due to the increased "dead" time between cycles.

OK, now you want to scale up to relieve the pressure of high velocity, have a better chance at overcoming lenz law, or simply want to make a bigger unit. You double your radius, number of coils, and magnets.

All is well, right? Not really. Now you have 6 coils firing at the same time. What would this do to your previous circuit? (fried copper anyone?) Ok, so then say you figured out a way to either link the coils on two separate circuits or delay half of the charge somehow. Seems like things are getting a little complicated in the circuit board. But anyhow let's say you did it somehow.

Now you want to scale up again. 9 magnets and 9 cores all firing at once. Is your circuit(s) getting more complicated? And what about the cogging? Seems to me you would need to start thinking about adding weight to the flywheel. What flywheel? More complexity? And what is all this doubling doing to your RPM? Your cogging? etc?

And this pattern continues every time you want to upscale. So you go back to the drawing board.

You find this thread and realize that by using the right ratio of coils to magnets you can achieve an unlimited size of generator without affecting the complexity of the circuit in the same way. Your coils will be firing at different times potentially increasing your frequency while keeping other factors (volts) relatively constant. You get excited because you know that the three coils and magnets you linked together provide the PERFECT 12 volt system. Now you can scale the generator up without having to figure out a way to handle the new energy spikes.

You want to scale the system up as large as possible but keep the diameter of the rotor somewhere below 240 mm so you can still fit in on your shelf. You also don't want to play with the size of the magnets or coils at this may affect the generator. Using this math you find that you can fit 36 coils (which is a multiple of 3) onto a system with a 115mm radius. Knowing that you have 36 coils you begin to find the closest number of magnets that when compared, will have the greatest common factor of 3.
36 coils 33 mags = Greatest Common Factor (GCF) of 3
36 coils 34 mags = GCF of 2
36 coils 35 mags = GCF of 1
36 coils 36 mags = GCF of 36
36 coils 37 mags = GCF of 1
36 coils and 38 mags = GCF of 2
36 coils and 39 mags = GCF of 3

Hence you learn that the most efficient system with 36 of your coils will use either 33 magnets or 39 magnets and have only 3 coils ever firing at the same time. You build it with 39 magnets and it works! You also find something else out...

Assuming you built a 36 coil system your original way. You realize you would get 36 cycles per rotation that are very different than your original cycle. But with your new system you actually get 39 cycles per rotation that are identical to the cycles you were getting with your 3 coil unit!

Anyways this took way to long. I hope you get the idea. G'night.

[Shadesz]

the 12 coil 15 mag system that helped me recognize the patterns...

[marxist]

I can create an animation for any number of coils and or magnets. If you want to see one let me know.

Hi Shadesz,
thanks for your offer and for your work in general.
I always wondered how the pattern of a 7/11 motor would look like. So I want to take you up on your offer.
I don't know whether to ask you to do 7 magnets and 11 coils or 11 magnets 7 coils. You chose.
The aim is to see, whether prime numbers will lead to a special effect.

[Shadesz]

Hi Shadesz,
thanks for your offer and for your work in general.
I always wondered how the pattern of a 7/11 motor would look like. So I want to take you up on your offer.
I don't know whether to ask you to do 7 magnets and 11 coils or 11 magnets 7 coils. You chose.
The aim is to see, whether prime numbers will lead to a special effect.

It is my pleasure to help. I am actually learning some interesting stuff doing all this. For instance by drawing up these two models for you I discovered how to calculate the degree of turn between each cycle. It seemed cut and dry, but when your coils to magnets are different numbers it gets a little more involved. Knowing how will let you calculate required RPM to achieve a certain frequency for ANY generator, amongst other things. Pretty cool if you ask me. Note: this formula assumes all the coils in this setup are generator coils. Substituting one or more of them as drive coils will interfere with any frequency calculations. The degree of rotation holds, just not the frequency.

TO CALCULATE THE DEGREE OF TURN BETWEEN CYCLES use this formula
d=360/c/m*g
which can also be written...
d=360g/cm

where d = degree of turn between cycles
c = number of generating coils
m = number of magnets
g = greatest common factor of c & m (ie # of contact points)

So in the 7 to 11 model we do the following
d=360/7/11*1
d=4.675325

Now we know that on a 7 to 11 system we will get a cycle for every 4.675325 degree turn

(Note: on this first picture you will notice I only did 4.5* per turn as I hadn't figured out the formula yet and was guessing)


bkZelU.gif (432x432)


ENbWfF.gif (432x432)

The same rotational law holds...
more mags than coils it fires in the same direction as the rotor
less mags than coils it fires in a reverse direction of the rotor

However this time it fires every 2nd or 3rd coil. I plan to figure that one out but have a busy couple of days. happy hunting everyone.