Lindemann attraction motor plus coil shorting.

[Phat]

nice nice, i like the concept about the push vs pull relation with the idea of potential difference compared to the pressure and vacuum.

only thing is that when compressing matter the temperature rises and the heat content remains the same, adiabatic process.

when pulling a vacuum you are removing matter thus removing the heat. there is no way of pulling vacuum and keep the heat.

nice analogy but a little loose

[Bradley Malone]

nice nice, i like the concept about the push vs pull relation with the idea of potential difference compared to the pressure and vacuum.

only thing is that when compressing matter the temperature rises and the heat content remains the same, adiabatic process.

when pulling a vacuum you are removing matter thus removing the heat. there is no way of pulling vacuum and keep the heat.

nice analogy but a little loose

if it wasn't a little loose they would call it a law of physics....lol.

[Aaron Murakami]

it was to my understanding that the strength of the magnetic field has no correlation to the amperage. as said by paul babcock
lemme know if i misquoted

all though intensity as in the amount of magnetism, webers, is indirectly proportional to the amperage due to the relation between volts and amp, ie. ohms law

by strength i mean to calculate the physical force projected by the magnetic field. in other words, will a bar of iron at a set distance from a set amperage through a select size and select metal, move so far so fast. and if i vary the amperage by means of resistance will it move so far so fast but just need to be closer to the wire.

so the electricity being stored through a motor like the SG is consider "cold" because the amperage is minimal to power the rotor with the strength of the field and produce a generating effect while providing mechanical.

balance in electrical power across the machine and synthesizing energy.

It is "ampere turns" and not "watt turns" - so it is related to the current, but not the actual consumption of that current. You're moving current through a magnetic coil and that creates the magnetic field but all that current is not being dissipated - only a small amount of resistive losses, etc...

[Bradley Malone]

It is "ampere turns" and not "watt turns"

so would it be correct to say it like this : the instantaneous current flowing in the coil determines the field strength not the watts used from the battery? a 1 amp current going through a coil would make the same strength field if you let the current run for a microsecond or a full second. Is that what you mean by watt turns?

[Aaron Murakami]

so would it be correct to say it like this : the instantaneous current flowing in the coil determines the field strength not the watts used from the battery? a 1 amp current going through a coil would make the same strength field if you let the current run for a microsecond or a full second. Is that what you mean by watt turns?

I'm just kind of paraphrasing what was said.

What your meters measure leaving the battery is actually not what is being dissipated so those watts you read on the meter are not real dissipated watts. That is pretty much reactive power because if the meter was actually measuring dissipated watts, those meters would be burning up since they would become the load.

By "watt turns" - there is no such thing, I was just saying that it is a common misunderstanding that the ampere turns on a coil is what makes the magnetic field but it is often assumed it is burning watts of energy to do that but it is not so ampere turns is literally that - just current moving but not required to dissipate the energy in the coil.

[Bradley Malone]

thanks for clearing that up...i thought i 'kinda got what you meant but wasn't sure.something like the tesla switch also (just cause current comes out doesn't mean its used)

i haven't been working for a week or two on this because of a herniated disk and a kidney stone....but finally feelling normal and ready to get back at it.

[Bradley Malone]

I have a question i am hoping one of you geniuses knows the answer to. when you have current running through a coil, lets say it creates north on the top pole south on the bottom. because it is an inductor when you cut off power current still wants to flow and the polarity flips. The question is do the magnetic poles flip. The voltage polarity flips to allow the discharge or collapsing flow once you take the power away but when you take the power away does north become south and vice versa. or do they remain the same and just die with the current?


This is the reason i am asking...started working on this idea after fiddling with the original motor this thread was about. The thing was that the circuits i would need to make to make it all work is just not in the deck of cards right now. So i moved on to this. The idea is just like the lindemann motor. But the difference is instead of having one set of poles attracting each other through one piece i decided to try and find a way to use two forces on each side...with the alignment of the coils underneath offset at 45 from the top ones when one core is midway in the curve it turns off and the bottom coils turn on because they would be right at the tips of the curve. and when they reach the center the core that was originaly there is now at the point of the next bar. Also not sure about this part but because the curve gets larger towards the center cross bars there is a larger area for magnetism to flow. so when one coil is at the tip starts building up a north pole the one on the center of the curve would be a south pole that is dying off (hence my question above) so while the south is dying off the north is building (would the attraction of the north and dying south add extra force by seeking the thicker area to allow more flow). Also instead of having one bar i used two so that instead of the magnetism running up the curve then straigh across it runs to the middle then takes a right turn left and right to meet the opposite poles. no matter what pole the flow comes from it is met by the same pole at the opposite side of the center of the rotor and split into two paths to the two opposite poles. The main idea is that done this way you would never stop applying force to the rotor because as one force is dying another is building. also because of the way its all lined up you would have to flip the polarity of each coil every time it goes to another pole.(took me a while to figure that one out. just stared at the design for about two hours till it clicked) that keeps the north south building dying deal i was talking about...if you dont switch them you end up with north building and a north dying. anyways that little moment made me think some kind of ac opperation would be the key and maybe setup a resonant oscilation between the top and bottom coils so one dies to build the other help by a small kick from the batt when needed??? ok i think i can shut up now

[Aaron Murakami]

I have a question i am hoping one of you geniuses knows the answer to. when you have current running through a coil, lets say it creates north on the top pole south on the bottom. because it is an inductor when you cut off power current still wants to flow and the polarity flips. The question is do the magnetic poles flip. The voltage polarity flips to allow the discharge or collapsing flow once you take the power away but when you take the power away does north become south and vice versa. or do they remain the same and just die with the current?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4352[/ATTACH]

This is the reason i am asking...started working on this idea after fiddling with the original motor this thread was about. The thing was that the circuits i would need to make to make it all work is just not in the deck of cards right now. So i moved on to this. The idea is just like the lindemann motor. But the difference is instead of having one set of poles attracting each other through one piece i decided to try and find a way to use two forces on each side...with the alignment of the coils underneath offset at 45 from the top ones when one core is midway in the curve it turns off and the bottom coils turn on because they would be right at the tips of the curve. and when they reach the center the core that was originaly there is now at the point of the next bar. Also not sure about this part but because the curve gets larger towards the center cross bars there is a larger area for magnetism to flow. so when one coil is at the tip starts building up a north pole the one on the center of the curve would be a south pole that is dying off (hence my question above) so while the south is dying off the north is building (would the attraction of the north and dying south add extra force by seeking the thicker area to allow more flow). Also instead of having one bar i used two so that instead of the magnetism running up the curve then straigh across it runs to the middle then takes a right turn left and right to meet the opposite poles. no matter what pole the flow comes from it is met by the same pole at the opposite side of the center of the rotor and split into two paths to the two opposite poles. The main idea is that done this way you would never stop applying force to the rotor because as one force is dying another is building. also because of the way its all lined up you would have to flip the polarity of each coil every time it goes to another pole.(took me a while to figure that one out. just stared at the design for about two hours till it clicked) that keeps the north south building dying deal i was talking about...if you dont switch them you end up with north building and a north dying. anyways that little moment made me think some kind of ac opperation would be the key and maybe setup a resonant oscilation between the top and bottom coils so one dies to build the other help by a small kick from the batt when needed??? ok i think i can shut up now

When the inductor power is cut, the voltage reverses but the magnetic field stays the same polarity, just shrinks down really fast but doesn't go in the opposite direction. I thought it did when I first started learning with the SG but found out it doesn't.

[Bradley Malone]

thanks for verifying. i figured since the current wanted to continue in the same direction that the magnetic poles would also continue the same way.. the thing that threw me off was (not sure about copyright laws but) in the lindemann motor secrets he shows the pyramid looking thing where the build up of magnetism and the discharge of magnetism made what looked like a pyramid the way he drew the analogy. leading me to think that the time it takes a coil to build to 'full power" is also the time it takes to completly discharge ragardless of how fast the "reversed polarity" discharges... i seemed to come across something like that running this motor because i did not have s-rotors there was only a small space in wich enegy applied to the coil would result in force on the rotor...when running it i came to realize that where the reed had to be to make it run at max was in a place that it turned off well before the rotor reached center of the attraction coil. so are there any people out there that have tested whether the magnetism in the inductor is there after the radiant spike collapses the voltage. because if i trigger the attraction coil with the setup i have anywhere near the rotor being aligned it does not run because after the transistor shuts the coil off it attracts the rotor for another 15-20 degrees...which as far after the radiant event would be captured (imediately after cut off) so the power it applies to pull the rotor in does not matter because it is still attracting after it is off and after the radiant spike so it sputters to a stop. When i put the reed so it triggers off about a quarter to a half inch before the rotor aligns with the drive coil it runs at the highest speed because by the time it travels the extra 1/4 to 1/2 inch it finishes collapsing the magnetism and lets the rotor go free. But when i have looked at radiant events on my o-scope(don't have it right now) they were over very quickly from the turn off.

so i know the radiant spike kills the potential very quickly...but at the same time on the same coil the magnetism seems to die off slower. is this an effect of the magnetism in the coil dying faster that the magnetism in the core material? thus allowing the potential in the coil to but zapped quickly while the magnetism in the core slowly dies?

[Gary Hammond]

Hi Bradley,

On my regular SSG, with the normal trigger coil, the timing light shows the spike from the coil's magnetic collapse occurring when the leading edge of the magnet is at the leading edge of the core. I also have another SSG which is modified with two adjustable hall switches (in series) to trigger the main coil. This allows adjustment of both timing and pulse width (on time). It runs best at about 20 percent on time and switching off (throwing the spike) just as the leading edge of the magnet reaches the leading edge of the core. Same timing as the normal, inductively triggered machine. It takes a certain amount of time for the steel (ferromagnetic) core to magnetize and demagnetize. This is known as hysteresis.

so i know the radiant spike kills the potential very quickly...but at the same time on the same coil the magnetism seems to die off slower. is this an effect of the magnetism in the coil dying faster that the magnetism in the core material? thus allowing the potential in the coil to but zapped quickly while the magnetism in the core slowly dies?

So yes, I think the steel (ferromagnetic) core retains some residual magnetism for a short period of time and its hysteresis prevents it from collapsing as fast as the induced field from the current in the copper windings. (That's why air core coils of copper can operate at much higher frequencies.) And I also agree that the magnetic polarity doesn't "reverse" when the current is cut off. It collapses instead, inducing as high a voltage as necessary in the windings (still in the same direction due to electron momentum, analogous to a hydraulic ram pump) to complete the current loop. Since the collapsing coil is now the voltage source, the voltage measured across it is now in the opposite polarity from when outside EMF from a battery was applied to the coil to originally establish the magnetic field.

As per Jim Murray, EMF is the force from the battery causing the current to flow, and the voltage (from magnetic field collapse) is the result of the induced current flowing through an outside resistance. Two very different things as Jim pointed out in his lectures and demonstrated with his transforming generator. This is why we need a very low impedance path, ie. battery or capacitor, to keep the induced voltage spike to a low enough level to not blast the switching transistor. The resulting effect is low energy (wattage) at high power di/dt applied across the battery or capacitor.

[Bradley Malone]

Thanks. i thought it was somethign like that but was not certain. i realized that when (knowing the spike happens quickly from prior experience) i would cut power anywhere near the rotor being align the drive coil remained magnetised passed center and would make the rotor clunk to a stop. when i got the timing right it turn on when the rotor was not even close to aligned and had to turn off well before also or it would cause drag on the out. so when i saw this a realized even in a best case scenario i am dumping alot of energy by not having s-rotors so i am going to move on to a different design...got what i needed from this one thanks again for the help.