Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX


2019 ESTC ALL SEATS SOLD OUT!
PRE-REGISTER FOR THE
2020 ENERGY CONFERENCE

Monero XMR

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: For Peter Lindemann and energenx "Zero Force Motor"

  1. #11
    @Gyula

    I think there are 8 coils per side, for a total of 16. (?)

    Thanks for the voltage correction - you are right - 8.4 volts peak to peak. (I've changed it - in red)

    With the reed switch shorting the coil, there is a large radiant spike created, much like the one created during transistor cut-off in an energizer. I was hoping this spike would be enough that the automotive timing light would detect it, and flash the lamp. Not so.

    However, I did come up with a mod that did work. I pulled one of the coils off the monopole, and placed the zero force coil in that general area. Since the circuit is firing all 3 coils simultaneously, I could see by the magnet position (as compared to my zero force coil), when the particular parts of the waveform are actually being generated. There is one caveat to this - I think my timing light was somehow picking up the transistor on pulse rather than the transistor off one that I was expecting. If I am wrong, and it was actually picking up the transistor off pulse, then all the waveforms that I've drawn up here are actually way, way advanced to what I show. I do not believe this is the case, though - I think that these drawings are reasonably accurate. More on this at the end of the post.

    @Gestalt - There is actually no prime mover, as such. The Mini Romag is a motor and generator - supposedly capable of self sustaining, plus powering a small load.

    Here are a couple pics of the 3 pole setup I have - the darker pic with the super bright light shining through it is actually the timing light - the rotor is turning around 2800 rpm here - frozen quite nicely! You can see the zero force coil taped to the 3 pole @ the very top.

    Science 013.jpgScience 011.jpg

    So I had time to do a lot more experimenting tonight - I tried a few different configurations, & learned some things...

    With an air core, and open circuited coil, (zero force orientation) I saw 0.5 volt negative peak, and a 1.1 volt positive peak. (1.6v p-p) So if my diode is turning on at 0.7 volts, that leaves me with 0.4 volts to potentialize the coil. My results with shorting the positive peak were stunningly mediocre... lol

    Open coil - 2850 rpm
    Central positive peak shorted - 2848 rpm

    These #'s are so close that it could have been error - I don't have a coil with enough winds to get a decent voltage to do an air core test right now.

    For the normal energizer orientation with this coil, I found accurate results. The coil was slightly offside, so I saw a 9 volt positive peak, and a 10 volt negative peak. (19v p-p)

    Open - 2854 rpm
    Negative peak short - 2715 rpm
    Positive peak short - 2764 rpm
    All shorted - 2736 rpm

    The positive peak short saw some crazy coil ringing too - must be from the collapsing field.

    I also moved this coil away from the rotor until I saw approximately 8 volts peak to peak for this energizer orientation, just to make it as close of a comparison as possible to the zero force results. In doing so, I found:

    Open - 2860 rpm
    All shorted - 2831 rpm

    I'm thinking that less rpm is lost in the energizer configuration (as compared to the zero force original test) because of magnetic losses in the core. The zero force orientation has much more iron exposed to the rotor magnet than does the energizer configuration.

    BTW, the last 2 results (above) were done with an iron core.

    So for me, the highlight of this evening was strobing this setup, and trying to figure out what waveforms were happening at what rotor position. I believe that the drawing below is reasonably correct, however I am not entirely satisfied with this yet, and would like to find a more accurate timing method.


    scan0023.jpg

    I find the whole sequence interesting, and worth contemplating. It appears that the negative voltage peak occurs when the rotor magnet is approximately 1 magnet diameter away from the beginning of the core. This totally fits with Paul Babcock's presentation, in that it shows there is a decent inductive coupling between rotor & stator at this point, yet not an overwhelming one. In my mind - terrible for power generation, but perfect for motor function. (Paul says this is where he pulses his motor coil.)

    The zero voltage point appears to occur just as the complete magnet is now 'on the core', with the rear edge of the magnet in line with the edge of the core.
    The positive peak appears as the magnet is around the center of the core, or in the center of the coil.

    I did not draw the rest of the sequence - the magnet exiting the coil - since it is a mirror image of the entrance.

    It appears that the rotor magnet is inductively coupled with the coil & core the entire distance, and looking at the coil induced magnetic field is quite interesting also. You'll notice in the drawing that I've marked the magnetic field of the coil, as it would be from the currents induced into it. It seems that the entire time the voltage is negative, the coil will produce a North pole on the left, and a South on the right.

    As the voltage switches to the positive, now the South is on the left, and the North pole on the right. These two do seem to fit into Lenz's Law. Hopefully when the voltage is negative, and the rotor is not able to induce a high emf into the coil, the coil will still be able to create a strong motoring effect on the rotor as it's magnetic field expands and interacts with the rotor. The zero force motor vid certainly seems to show this as true.

    Also, just to point out a couple differences between my experimenting and JLN's - It appears in his pictures that his magnet is larger than his coil. This probably has an effect on the coupling, including what he mentions of the orthogonal flux density dropping to zero, and there being no magnetic coupling between rotor & stator during the central positive pulse. May be worth looking into? In my setup - the coil is definitely very much larger than the magnet.

    He also is running an air core, which I was not able to do in my experiments - I did not have enough voltage to properly conduct shorting tests & more.

    At the same time, my waveforms look the same as his, and this makes me wonder if his coil was just too small to collect accurate results from. My setup was barely adequate, and ultimately probably needs a lot of revising to collect some real, hard data.

    For your reference, in the 3 pole monopole, there are only 3 neo magnets. In both pictures, they are lining up with the coils. The large circles you see in between them are aluminum weights to give the rotor more of a flywheel effect.

    Happy contemplation!
    Daniel
    Last edited by emfimp; 02-06-2013 at 10:58 PM.

  2. #12
    Hi Daniel,

    I took a small snapshot from the video to show: I can see 2 bunches of wires coming out from the stator coils on the left side to the terminal connections and also 2 bunches of wires on the right hand side, and I think each such wire-bunch consists of 4 wires (not number of turns as I indicated them with yellow lines. This may mean 8 wire endings on the left and 8 on the right so alltogether there may be 8 stator coils. zeroforce3.jpg

    Quote: "There is one caveat to this - I think my timing light was somehow picking up the transistor on pulse rather than the transistor off one that I was expecting."
    Maybe you are right but normally the ON pulse 'kick' to the coil is smaller in its near field effect than the one created by the OFF pulse so chances are the timing light responded to the OFF pulse? (I base this on the bigger voltage spike at switch-off can make a stronger near field effect.) Or I misunderstand something? It all may have depended on the position of the sensor of the timing light if there is such sensor for it, I suppose, in a pick-up coil form?

    You have done very interesting tests and I tend to agree with their possible 'messages', they sound to quasi verify my explanation how induction in this sideway positioned coil may happen.

    Regarding a better timing of a test to explore the waveform-magnet position, perhaps an optical interrupter could be used with a code-disk fastened to the rotor and positioned 'correctly' with respect to the magnet, say in-line of one of the edges of the magnet or say in-line of the center line of the magnet. The gap between the 'fingers' of the code-disk could be arranged to be (say) 5mm away from each other so any 5mm advancement for the magnet would fire the output of the interrupter and calibration could be done, for instance, with respect to the exact center position of the magnet to that of the coil. Here is a link for such circuit: Circuit - OPTICAL INTERRUPTER DRAWS MICROAMPS- Circuits designed by David A. Johnson, P.E.

    Here I show a possible code-disk that has slots at the edges but 'fingers' left at the edges can also be used of course to mask out or cover the emitter LED's light beam in the gap towards the receiver sensor: http://todbot.com/blog/wp-content/up...up-300x221.jpg from this site: Get on the BlinkM Bus with a BlinkM Cylon todbot blog Of course there is no need for using two quantities from an opto interrupter placed next to each other as shown with the code-disk in the link, a single device is enough. And here is a seller found by a search at random on the web: Optical Interrupter Switch (the first cheapest type there is just ok). What do you think?

    Regarding the drop of the orthogonal flux density to quasi zero (as per Naudin) I think there is now a possible explanation that came to me by watching the coil core's polarity in your drawing and accepting that it changes polarity as the magnet passes by the core i.e. from NS to SN in that moments. In both state of these polarizations the center (narrow) area of the core (or coil) must remain weak in flux density just because the center area must behave as the Bloch wall area would in magnets: if you probe such center area of a magnet with a very small soft ferromagnetic metal piece, you find very low if any attraction at or the narrow vicinity of this center area, right? This must be the case for a such positioned coil.

    Regarding your core in you sideway positioned coil, I wonder what material is it from? I ask because you mention it possibly has more losses in that orientation than in the energizer one.
    By the way, it is good that you tried to make comparable measurements (having 8Vpp in the energizer position for instance) but still there may be small "issues" in comparison due to the assymetric waveform for the sideway coil position (the positive and negative amplitude difference there, while this is not the case for the energizer position) but I do not think this can question your conclusions.

    Thanks,
    Gyula
    Last edited by Gyula; 02-08-2013 at 04:30 PM. Reason: spelling

  3. #13
    Hey Gyula,

    I figured it to be 8 wire endings on the left, and 8 on the right also. Then taking into account that there seem to be 2 main coil sections (left side, right side), they probably each contain 8 strands, and are probably wired in series with each other. That's how I came up with the number of 16 coils.

    The sensor for my timing light is across the wires that collect the radiant collapse from the coil, so technically you are right - it should be sensing the transistor off cycle. However, that did not make sense looking at where the timing light was firing. That would mean that the whole waveform is very advanced compared to what I showed in the drawing. The drawing logically seems correct when I think about it, and the drawing would correspond to the timing light firing during the transistor on cycle. More testing required here...

    Thanks for the timing info! Those are some great resources, which I will definitely need! I'm trying to go very simple, so what I might try is this: I am going to take a reed switch, and use it to fire an MSD 6A CDI ignition box (which I have). The box will hook up to a standard automotive coil, firing a spark plug. (all of which i have) This will give a large enough pulse that my automotive strobe light will fire. I can hook up my oscilloscope with channel 1 picking up the coil waveform, and channel 2 picking up the reed switch. Comparing the 2 on the scope, along with viewing the actual strobed position, should give a fairly accurate indication of position.

    Regarding the drop of orthogonal flux density, I like your bloch wall explanation - it very well may be true. I believe it would tie into what I've been thinking about - that maximum positive voltage peak indicates to me that there is the maximum change in magnetic flux at that point. I've been thinking about the orthogonal flux density a lot over the last few days, and am not sure I believe that it "drops to zero" with the rotor magnet in the centered position. The only way this makes any sense to me is in the condition we see in the pictures. With the magnet in the center of the coil, also notice that the magnet is physically larger than the coil. He mentions that it is an air core - hence nothing to deflect or change the magnetic flux lines. Lastly, the only way I can see this being true is if the orthogonal flux density was measured in a static condition, not a dynamic one. (no rotation of the rotor magnet) If all of the above are present, then JLN's analysis makes perfect sense to me.

    Not to in any way take away from JLN - after all, he has done some great experimenting & research, and his work has sparked this discussion! :-)

    Ultimately, from my testing, it just does not appear true that there is no magnetic coupling between rotor & stator during the positive pulse. It appears there is definitely coupling there, although again, I have not had a proper air core to test his specific setup. For the motoring effect, John Bedini appears to recommend an iron core, as does Paul Babcock, so I'm not really interested in testing the air core much further anyways... BTW, John Bedini has a great vid of another zero force motor - I think it is on the energetic forum. I haven't been able to find it recently, but if I do I will link it for sure.

    The coil core is laminated iron shims - the reason I say it seems to have more magnetic losses is because more core area is exposed to the passing magnet. If you look at most coils in the energizer orientation, the area of iron that is exposed at the end of the coil is usually quite small. Now lay that coil on it's side, in the zero force orientation, and the whole length of the core is now interacting with the magnet. Significantly more area in that orientation.

    Regards,
    Daniel
    Last edited by emfimp; 02-10-2013 at 10:48 PM.

  4. #14

    Paul Babcock's Magnet Configuration

    Hi all!

    Just wanted to share some interesting scope shots that I made this last weekend, with the help of my friends Gestalt, & D.

    I was trying to find out why Paul Babcock uses a horseshoe magnet configuration in his low lenz motor, and the scope shots reveal more than I thought at first glance. Below is a couple pics of his horseshoe design, which I believe he calls something like a "toroid-on-toroid" configuration in the video. We only did a few tests, but I feel these are real numbers...

    Magnet Config.jpg

    S022.jpg

    So I sat down & analyzed these closely tonight, and found some results that were surprising to me. I had thought that there was little difference between the horseshoe config, and the single magnet, but the differences are great! These are the generated waveforms as different magnet configurations pass by on a pendulum.

    Horseshoe Magnet Config.jpg
    Numbers on Horseshoe Config:
    - Neg initial, Pos final peaks (each) - 0.3 volts
    - Main central peaks (each) - 1.4 volts
    - avg time for initial neg, pos final peaks (each) - 22.5 ms
    - total wave time - 78 ms

    - initial voltage/central peak voltage - 21.4%
    - initial peak/main peaks (time scale) - 28.8%

    Large magnet regular config.jpg
    Numbers on the large single magnet:
    - avg neg peaks (each) - 0.86 volt
    - central pos peak - 2.0 volt
    - avg time for neg peaks (each) - 32 ms
    - total wave time - 85 ms

    - neg voltage/main peak voltage - 43%
    - neg peak/main peak (time scale) - 37.6%


    2 Small Magnet regular config.jpg
    Numbers on the small magnet config:
    - avg neg peaks (each) - 0.45 volts
    - central pos peak - 1.15 volts
    - avg time for neg peaks (each) - 30 ms
    - total wave time - 100 ms

    - neg voltage/main peak voltage - 39.1%
    - neg peak/main peak (time scale) - 30%



    Most fascinating!!! The Babcock config reveals some tricks of the horseshoe magnet configuration - that it is probably the way to go, and goes even further towards reducing Lenz effect. This is seen in time and voltage - the % time spent generating voltage while in the firing area (initial & final pulse) is reduced - 28.8% per pulse compared to 30 to 37.6%. You could possibly spend the same amount of time firing the electromagnet as you would with a single magnet, and gain a little more torque out of it. This thought is because even though the rotor magnet field doesn't appear to extend as far out towards the electromagnet, when the electromagnet field expands, it may still interact well with the rotor magnet.

    Also the voltage difference is significant - 21.4% compared to 39.1 to 43% - this may be where the real magic is - in reducing the Lenz effect. That is a huge percentage difference!!! I'm using percentages so as to hopefully create a fair comparison between different configurations - the pendulum may have swung a little faster here & there, the magnet in one test was significantly stronger, etc... A note on this - percentages may be a poor comparison because voltage increases as time (period) decreases, and with the horseshoe config - you can see there is a greater flux change in the central area, as there is also a polarity change. (more flux change packed into the same time) This may be boosting the central peaks, which makes the percentage look better. The last scope shot (small magnet config) is using 2 out of the 4 same magnets that the horseshoe config was using, so we should be able to compare those numbers directly at least.

    In comparing those numbers, we still see that the voltage generated with the single magnet is greater in the firing area. Note also by the time of passage that the single magnet appears to be travelling slower in this particular scope shot, since the period is longer. So I believe we are still ahead using the horseshoe config, even if the percentages may be skewed.

    The downside to the horseshoe config is that you need to fire the electromagnet both ways to get the most power out, whereas with the single magnet, you can fire the same way to draw the rotor magnet in as you do to repel it out. (seen by analyzing the initial and final voltages generated.)

    Interesting to note the Mini Romag page again - the magnet configuration is very similar to Paul's configuration. Hmmm...

    I'm thinking the benefits are there because the magnetic field is folded inward more as compared to a single magnet - thoughts?
    :-)
    Daniel
    Last edited by emfimp; 02-13-2013 at 10:31 PM.

  5. #15
    Hi Daniel,

    Very good tests you have been doing. One thing I wish to mention is you say it is a horse magnet configuration Babcock uses and indeed this is shown also as illustration in his patent application (US20110156522) but you can see circularly positioned magnets fixed in the perimeter of a ring in the figures too. BUT those circularly fixed row of magnets face the coil/core uniformly with only one pole while in a horseshoe setup (as shown in your excellent quality photo) the magnets (albeit they are covered, the form of the yokes making up for a horseshoe shape can be figured out) actually have two poles at the yokes' ends so what you wrote about the firing differences is valid.

    Now that circularly positioned row of magnets with one pole may be another possibility (besides the horseshoe shape), you could fire the coil the same way like I mentioned earlier for the single orthogonally positioned magnet: attract in on approach, switch off for the center passing time (maybe utilize the induced 'positive hunch' in the center) and then (towards the other end) switch on again with the same polarity to repel the magnets out.

    Wrapping up the rotor magnets in a circular fashion may seem to be the best arrangement to utilize the most of the flux of a solenoid coil, which appears in the near space everywhere around the coil, to have the biggest torque from the input. "Normal" pulse motors utilize coil flux from either one end of the core or better designs use both ends, and there is the orthogonally positioned coil like in the Mini-Romag but the coils (made of copper wire) facing to the outside cannot 'see' the inner magnets' flux (albeit the steel wire coils are wound directly onto the magnets). A horseshoe magnet uses two sides and some more of a coil flux but they have the Bloch wall in the center part with small interacting flux, still not the most possible flux utilization.


    When you have time, have a look at this thread here http://www.energyscienceforum.com/al...generator.html and also the videos referred to. Albeit those setups are intended for generators, the mechanical arrangement is the same as the motor with circularly fixed magnets, the coils are just not pulsed but loaded.

    Thanks for showing your scope shots and the excellent quality picture on the Babcock prototype, (where did you get it I wonder).

    Greetings, Gyula
    Last edited by Gyula; 03-11-2013 at 04:43 AM. Reason: spelling and inserting a missing 0 in application#

  6. #16
    Thanks Gyula! I'm looking forward to fully exploring that thread - appreciate the reference!

    Hehe - ok, I have a confession - a friend and I asked Paul if we could go see his stuff right after last year's convention, and he said yes! He spent 2 days with us, never asked for a thing, and wouldn't even let us buy him lunch! (in fact, he bought lunch for us!!!) I have nothing but awesome to say about Paul Babcock - a truly giving, amazing individual. When I asked if I could share all that he shared with me, he said "Knock yourself out!", so I am... lol

    So most of the stuff I'm experimenting with is his ideas, and I'd like to give him full credit right here.

    I searched for his patent stuff, and I cannot find it anywhere. Can you link your source? I think I understand what you're mentioning about only one pole facing out - you're saying that it is identical to my drawing, minus one of the permanent magnets, correct? That's an interesting idea! Well worth experimenting with the waveform of this.

    I understood from Paul that he uses the full horseshoe config - 2 neos and an iron core - but I could have mistaken him. The patent application may be misleading too. Unfortunately, it seems like no matter how many pictures you take of something, there is always more that could have been taken to clarify more.

    I need to review it again, but I'm pretty sure Paul says in his presentation that he fires the coils one way, then the other. I'm not sure if you would need to do that with the one-neo horseshoe config you mention. Have you done any testing to confirm that you can fire the same polarity both on approach, and retreat?

    Here's another pic - you can actually see one magnet marked N for North.

    S044.jpg

    As an afterthought here, in the picture of Paul's motor in post #14, you can clearly see magnets on our side of the yellow arm, and the red arm. Logically thinking, if we are observing the retreating side of the yellow arm, then we are observing the advancing side of the red arm. Since we can see magnets on both the advancing and retreating sides, I would say it's almost certain that the one-pole configuration is not one that Paul used on this particular motor...

    Thanks for the input!
    Daniel
    Last edited by emfimp; 02-14-2013 at 11:01 PM. Reason: Afterthoughts in green

  7. #17
    Hi Daniel,

    When I wrote about the circularly arranged row of magnets with one pole towards the coil/core (I quote: "BUT those circularly fixed row of magnets face the coil/core uniformly with only one pole") I did not mean a horseshoe shape with one magnet facing out, sorry that you got it like that. Just imagine a nonmagnetic toroidal ring with say 6cm OD, 4cm ID, 1cm thickness and you make radially oriented holes from the outside (OD) towards the inside (ID) and insert cylinder magnets into these holes with say all N poles facing towards the center of the ring. So let's forget the one-neo horseshoe configuration I did not imply it.

    Okay on the 'origin' of that excellent quality picture on Paul's motor... It must have been a fascinating experience to 'peep in' the birthplace of such unique motor setups. Did you ask some questions on input output power measurements I wonder...

    It is okay that Paul uses a horseshoe config with 2 poles and also okay that he fires the coil one way then the other: with two poles on the horseshoes he has to do so. BUT if you consider the circularly arranged row of magnets with one pole uniformly facing the inside coil/core (as per I described above for the nonmagnetic toroidal ring i.e. magnet holder), then there is no need for firing twice with changing current direction, first you attract in the one pole of all the circular magnets that face towards the coil, and repel out them at the other end by firing the coil once again with the same current direction. I have not done testing on this, I have become rather limited in mechanical construction at home, I had to go on an early retirement and do not have a mechanical shop, only a corner of the kitchen table, lol

    What you wrote in green text, I can agree with it because the horseshoe structure inherently involves two magnet poles, I did not want to suggest at all that Paul used one pole. From the good quality picture you kindly showed I can see at least 6 horseshoe structures embedded circularly into one end of the rotor arm to encircle the coils and this is repeated for the other end of the rotor arm. Paul surely had a reason to choose the two pole structure in horseshoe shape versus the circularly arranged row of cylinder magnets with one pole facing towards the inside coils. The 'Why?' was not discussed with him during your visit?

    Normally I use the European patent office ( Espacenet - Home page ) to look up for patents and found Paul's patent application(s) by searching for his name. This is how I found US2011156522 in the Bibliographic data: Espacenet - Bibliographic data and I did not notice yesterday that inside the actual patent application (when you open it as Original document from the left hand side menu) there is an extra zero character just after the starting 2011 numbers, so the actual patent number is US20110156522. This is why you have not found it, the extra 0 was missing. Now you can use the simpler US patent retrival site, PAT2PDF - Free PDF copies of patents: Download and print! and copy and paste this application number: 20110156522

    Regards, Gyula
    Last edited by Gyula; 02-15-2013 at 04:12 AM. Reason: spelling

  8. #18
    Senior Member Tom C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,888
    Did he ever get the microcontroller working?

    Tom C


    experimental Kits, chargers and solar trackers

  9. #19
    Hi Gyula!

    I see what you're talking about now! Thanks for the clarification, and the patent document lends the visuals to go with the words! (BTW, a huge thank you for the patent! I'm still reading through it, and it is awesome!)

    So when you're talking about all N poles facing the center of the ring, you are looking @ page 4 of the patent, where the top figure (Fig 5a) only shows the North pole. This is a front view, and Fig 5b shows the top view of the same rotor arm. I agree that it would be far simpler to create a motor with just North poles - you are correct that in this orientation, you could fire the same way to attract it in to the stator electromagnet as you do to repel it out on the other side.

    I was showing in post #14 that in using this configuration (all North poles), it appears that the generated voltage from rotor movement is far greater than in Paul's configuration - meaning that there is more back emf or Lenz's Law interaction than when you have the double horseshoe config. (both N & S poles facing the core, in a ring around the coil) It appears to be a significant amount, too, so the extra switching required by the horseshoe config is probably well worth it.

    Hope I got it this time!

    It was amazing to see the genius at work! So many awe-inspiring projects, and many completions! He has a lot of new products that are going to be coming to market through his company, Fly-Back. One such neat product is a device that will run AC motors on pulsed DC, and collect the flyback energy in the process!

    I didn't ask output power, but it could be interpreted from the numbers that he did give me. His coils he said were 1500' of 20 gauge, 300mH, 15 ohms, and in the presentation (video), he says he drives them to 3.5 amps. This would suggest that his voltage is between 48 and 60 volts (probably 48). You can assume that 4 coils are always on during rotation, meaning your overall amp draw would be around 14 amps continuously. Power consumption would clock in around 48 x 14, or 672 watts continuous. Normally, this would output somewhere under 672 watts of shaft power, but being his Lenz force is around 10% of normal (I believe this was stated in the presentation or video), I would guesstimate his output at around 1200 watts of shaft power. This would leave 500 to 600 watts of excess power. This, again, is pure guessing, really, and I haven't taken into account the flyback energy. He said flyback capture halved his input, which might mean that he could generate 1200 watts of shaft power using around 350 watts of 'personal' input. If this is true, then there would be around a 850 watt excess from this. Quite significant!

    I had a lot of questions to ask him, but definitely missed some of the pertinent stuff! One of those was also the 'why' of the horseshoe config! Oops... Just another excuse to go back & see him, right?

    One other thing Paul mentioned that may be of interest to you is that he said the coils should have 2 - 3 times the copper that they do in steel. (2 - 3 times in weight) He uses steel shot, like is used in reloading shotgun shells. Impossible to get up here in Canada!

    @ Tom C
    He mentioned something to me about a couple of the coil circuits being down last summer, so he couldn't run the motor for us. Maybe that was it - the microcontroller? (I presume the microcontroller is the 'conductor' of the whole timing operation?)

    I hope that he has it up now - I am going to send him some correspondence in the next couple weeks, so maybe if he has time he'll update me...

    :-)
    Daniel
    Last edited by emfimp; 02-18-2013 at 01:27 PM.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Tom C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,888
    @ Tom C
    He mentioned something to me about a couple of the coil circuits being down last summer, so he couldn't run the motor for us. Maybe that was it - the microcontroller? (I presume the microcontroller is the 'conductor' of the whole timing operation?)

    Yes that is what I am refering to, He mentioned at the conference the motor was NOT functioning, and he never got the microcontroller working properly, could not ge the timing right or something like that....... so its interesting proof of concept but a long way from a functional device.

    I enjoyed his presentation on modifying physics laws and how they can cause gains in circuits, especially his welding coil experiment.

    Tom C


    experimental Kits, chargers and solar trackers

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •