top

Yada Testing

Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | WhipMag Discussion/Development Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3   Page 3 of 3

Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:28 am PostPost subject:
lostcauses
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 871
Location: NM

Reply with quote

Math for average is correct. Thanks for the info. What rotor magnets are you using?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:24 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

@lostcauses,

That depends on which rotor I am using. The open slot and dogbone rotors are the ones I put the N42 1/4" dia x 1/2"L NeFeB. The enclosed rotor still has some much smaller N42's I was experimenting with to try and get the fileld density down.

The most pull I measure on my Berkley scale with a stator magnet in contact (out of the stator housing) with the rotor edge is 0.12kg or 3oz whichever scale you use. That was on the dogbone rotor which has a wall thickness between the outer edge and the magnet of about 0.252" on the average. On the enclosed rotor the pull was about 0.06kg with approximately the same wall thickness =/- 0.125".

These are shortest path measurements to the attractive pole.

Don't know if any of that helps, but there it is.

Cheers,
Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Jul 22, 2008 2:13 pm PostPost subject:
lostcauses
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 871
Location: NM

Reply with quote

Thanks.

And all info is usable. Shows the weaker interaction at the rotor edge. In other words distance from contact. LOL

We need the magic rotor magnet measurement.
I and others have given this a great deal of thinking.
That is the reason I asked for the pole to pole contact which you have given me. Since the stator magnets are from the same company, such can give us an idea of what is going on. A simple measurement that can give a great deal of information on the original rotor magnets.

I can see the pull from test on a large metal item, but variation in even plating can cause variations in readings. The ideal condition pull test is dificult to do.
The pole to pole set up should be easiest and usable.

Of course a distance curve plotted would be the best, it is unlikely to happen and simply may not be necessary if we can get the pull apart from pole to pole contact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:31 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

@Yada,

Hey, how you been? Hope you're doing OK.

OC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:42 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

overconfident wrote:
@Yada,

Hey, how you been? Hope you're doing OK.

OC


Yeah, and Cloud Camper too. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:23 am PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Well, I'm still here - occasionally anyway. I finished a new 6" rotor version
with 16 rotor magnets and the torque went up quite dramatically from my
previous 4" version. Input power went up from 7 watts at full load to around
10 now. I am currently experimenting with some magnetically counterbalanced stator ideas. The idea would be to cause all the back forces on the stator to sum up so they concentrate directly on the stator axis rather than try to back spin the stator magnets under load. This would then act
somewhat similiar to OC's latch ideas. I doubt whether any of this is possible but is worth a try at least. I could post some pics soon if any one was interested.

After I exhaust those possibilities, I plan to experiment with off center
stator magnets coupled with HV. Sorry I haven't been contributing anything
as my project seems to be oriented in a different direction than the Whipmag.
I would love to see some success with any of these concepts!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:47 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

I'd love to hear more and see pics or video. If you think it's too OT, we can create a separate thread for your CloudCamper saga.

Thanks for checking in.

OC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:40 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

I'd love to see the results as well Very Happy

Seperate threads to different approaches is a good idea. WhiPMag, OCMPMM, 'New Approach' & The CC Motor, etc.

I spoke with the engineers at Parker Hannefin to see if they were interested in making the servo I needed for the 'New Approach' and they couldn't wrap their brains around what I was explaining to them. They had sales send me a catalog of all the servos they manufacture and nothing came close to the speed or torque needed to break the shear barrier. One of the things I have been contemplating is the electromagnetic interferrence of the servo. The design demands an electric servo to properly recover the energy. The field the servo creates could interfere with the rotor (and stator) magnets. This is problematic from the standpoint that it introduces unwanted losses. IOW the magnetic field loses energy when collapsing due to the interactions with the PM's - even though the net result on the rotor is zero the loss is real as energy is expended in the interaction.

Moving the servos off plane will help but it adds the new problem of torsion delay. The rod connecting the servo to the stator would need to be lightweight, strong and have a minimum of torsion under the serious instantaneous loads it must withstand numerous times a second. One advantage of splitting the plane is the ability to use long, small diameter servos. I suppose a good mathematician would be able to calculate the servo to servo magnetic propagation and configure the spacing for proper sequential resonance at the desired RPM. Then the losses would be propagated round robin and not surface until the system is powered down.

Even though I have provided proof of concept and others before me have patented similar function, a true multi 'stator' prototype needs to be built in order to prove OU function. No one will want to fund such research. It's one thing to spend billions on a collider to find out why electrons have mass (which I have already answered in my GUT) and quite another to fund super high efficiency motor research that may (or may not) result in OU. I may apply for a grant anyway just to see. Mr. Green

Cheers,

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:11 pm PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Here's a pic of my 6" rotor. Rotor magnets are 1x1x1/4". Stator magnets are K&J 1/2" diametrically magnetized cylinders. Pic does not show counter balancers. The spool on top is there to reel in monofilament line pulleyed over a roof beam lifting a calibrated weight in a measured time so output power can be determined.

It seems to have a nice torque band around 500 rpm that feels like it would pull stumps. The computer synchronizes all four motors and has the ability to set the stator magnet timing (phase angle) to any angle desired. You can even insert a table that can advance/retard the timing under different rpm/load conditions. I haven't tried that yet.

The idea behind the device is that the stator motors only position the stator magnets and do not drive the rotor directly. More load on the rotor just means the rotor slows down and the stators stay electronically geared to the rotor and slow down as well, always holding a precise phase angle. Unfortunately, it still takes energy to hold the required angle. If the counterbalancers could be made to function, this would reduce power consumption down to near idle requirements, even under load. Piece a cake, right?

[/img]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Sep 11, 2008 2:33 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

@Cloud Camper,

Just a thought ... I unrolled the rotor magnets to facilitate this simple text graphic.

Instead of:
Code:

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\


Try:
Code:

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\


with each magnet in opposition to the next (N poles facing outward, S poles facing inward).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:29 pm PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Hey OC, that looks intriguing. Can you expound on your theory?

I tried that arrangement on an unpowered rig once. Are the vertices in repulsion or attraction? I think I would lose a lot of torque in the attraction mode. Anything that creates a sharper gradient between N and S in the compression cycle is helpful. Are you thinking the anglular momentum of the stators would then shear thru the gradient more easily? If you could create a super sharp gradient in the compression cycle and a very soft gradient in the power cycle and had a stator with a lot of mass, then this could be productive, letting the stator shear thru the unwanted cycle. My next version will have 1"x1" stators (heavy).

I picked the arrangement shown to allow possible microcrystalline shielding on the back side of the rotor magnets. Also may try Halbach arrays for the rotor maybe even the stator magnets.


Last edited by cloud camper on Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:58 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:56 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

cloud camper wrote:
Hey OC, that looks intriguing. Can you expound on your theory?


It's not really a theory. What I show as vertexes should actually have a gap. The idea is to present an asymmetrical N/S external field and corresponding asymmetrical S/N field towards the inside.

I don't know if it's worth anything. Just funny images in my head.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:15 pm PostPost subject:
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

Wow, CC, that looks great. If I understand you correctly, there isn't much "back torque" or drag on the stators while the rotor is generating quite a bit of torque. A stump-puller!
Have you improved your measurement gear? I'm still curious about exact input power requirements.
_________________
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:32 pm PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Hi Al, thanks. There isn't much back torque but there is some. The idea is to make
the rotor magnets large and the stator magnets small to reduce the back torque.
If the stator magnets had near zero dia, there would be no back torque at all.

I've got two ideas for counterbalancers I'm working on now that would hopefully
translate rotational torque (which the motors must resist by expending power)
into linear force which could be more easily controlled. Not sure thats gonna be possible
but I'm getting some good ideas from here: http://www.kundelmagnetics.com/. Also,
mullerpower.com claims to have a counterbalanced stator on their unit. Ah, hope springs
eternal in the free energy world!

I'm just using cheap digital wattmeters for now. I don't see a need to get high
accuracy meters until I'm sure that I've got something really interesting to measure.
Hopefully that will happen. Maybe if I could borrow a set of your Magic Magnets, this
thing would really take off! Mr. GreenMr. Green
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:12 pm PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

overconfident wrote:
cloud camper wrote:
Hey OC, that looks intriguing. Can you expound on your theory?


It's not really a theory. What I show as vertexes should actually have a gap. The idea is to present an asymmetrical N/S external field and corresponding asymmetrical S/N field towards the inside.

I don't know if it's worth anything. Just funny images in my head.


I like where you're going with the magnetic LaGrange points. Thats pretty
much what I'm trying to achieve with the counterbalancers. If a stator path can be described where there is only a linear force acting at 90 deg to the allowed stator movement and not a rotational force (back torque) then the problem becomes much easier. A lot like the Wobbulator device built by Love2All posted on the Steorn forum a few years ago. This device was designed so that the stators would follow the B/H curve described by the rotor magnets and stay in the neutral zone. I think all he may have needed was a small motor to maintain the stator action and achieve an amplification on the rotor output. If there is no back force on the stators, then there is nothing to maintain the stator movement. This device had a lot of drag on the stators as they had to follow the sine wave shaped wooden wobble plate underneath the three lifting arms.



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:23 pm PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Harvey wrote:

Moving the servos off plane will help but it adds the new problem of torsion delay. The rod connecting the servo to the stator would need to be lightweight, strong and have a minimum of torsion under the serious instantaneous loads it must withstand numerous times a second. One advantage of splitting the plane is the ability to use long, small diameter servos. I suppose a good mathematician would be able to calculate the servo to servo magnetic propagation and configure the spacing for proper sequential resonance at the desired RPM. Then the losses would be propagated round robin and not surface until the system is powered down.


Hey Harv, that sounds difficult to get a servo like that. I'm proceeding on a similiar concept but different approach. I don't know if it would be any better, but cheaper for sure. My concept is to use a heavy stator spinning at high rpm but then try and shape the rotor field to allow a long power cycle but a very short compression cycle, thinking the heavy stator would shear thru the short cycle. I've tried to do that on my 6" rotor by angling the magnets at 30 deg.

This is just a first attempt so there are probably better ways to shape the field. I actually feel that I could be getting some of this effect currently as at high rotor load, the torque seems to keep building without a significant increase in power consumption. Could be all my imagination tho. I need to do extensive output tests at lots of different loading and rpm conditions and establish some kind of spreadsheet but I'm too lazy to do that until I do the next version. My current stator magnets are only .5 in dia so not a lot of mass. Hopefully with 1 in stators, we might see some pronounced effects. Meanwhile I'm going to try and add some heavy stainless nuts in different weights behind the stator magnets to my current setup to see if there are any noticeable differences. Cheers!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | WhipMag Discussion/Development
View previous topic
View next topic
Display posts from previous:   




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum