Bedini 1984, 2017 style.

[min2oly]

Test Data on an 8 Filar 18ga Bedini Spec coil in series.
This is stepping up the depth of the magnet by 1/4" increments.
Starting at 1/4 - 1/2 - 2X1/4 - 3/4.
Ill have the data on a double stack 1/2" shortly but the trend is positive.
Smaller narrower magnets stacked NSNSNSNS will give greater depth of field and higher coil potential.
There is a small increase in wheel diameter and perhaps speed but cross referancing the velocity to matching numbers still gives a higher voltage.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]6790[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]6789[/ATTACH]

Thanks for sharing all this it's very helpful to people who actually build :-)
You keep mentioning spec coil but I've not come across one like yours before. If I guess here can you correct/update me?
1 - 3"x3" spool with 1/2" core
2 - 100 winds of twisted 18 awg x 8 strands

so if all 8 in series - 800 turns?
what is the ohm resistance on all the wire in series?
If all 8 are in series what are you using as trigger?
Thanks! - Patrick A.

Ps - I tried to read the whole thread to find this and may have missed it, if I did would you be so kind to point me to the post?

[Deuis]

Hi Patrick,
The coil is the Bedini 10coiler spec.
-90mm bobbin.
-85mm deep.
-20mm core.
-8 x 18ga
-Series resistance about 10ohms, .9ohms per coil.

This is not a triggered circuit, an external motor is driven at specific speeds and air gaps to compare coil and magnet combinations. At the moment the scope is hooked direct to the output and measures the specific's which I record. In future I will do different experiments to compare Capacitor charging times, coil power outputs and comparisons. If you would like to suggest some experiments I can also carry them out. The one experiment im keen on understanding is the Ceramic vs Neo debate. At the moment the neos are putting out way higher voltages but performance has not been tested fully.

*There is a private album in my profile which you should be able to see, have a read, look at the pictures and watch the video link.
Tried to share it with you but your inbox is full.

[Deuis]

Here are the results for double and triple stacked 1/2'' magnets.
The double stacked is once again a higher potential than the 1.5 stack.
The kicker is the triple stacked makes no differance indicating the core is saturated.
A larger or longer core would be needed for the triple stack to come into its own.

[Deuis]

Test Data on an 8 Filar 18ga Bedini Spec coil in series.
Neodymian magnets 1" x 1/2" x 1/2".
As supplied in Ricks 10coiler kit.

[Deuis]

Test Data on an 8 Filar 18ga Bedini Spec coil in series.
Neodymian magnets 47 x 22 x 10mm North Out.

[Yaro1776]

Test Data on an 8 Filar 18ga Bedini Spec coil in series.
Neodymian magnets 47 x 22 x 10mm North Out.

John looking good with the Neo comparison. The longer and stronger Neo's appear to stretch out the field that reacts with the coil yielding a beefier spike.
Two Thumbs up for your effort and data.

[Deuis]

Thanks Yaro,

I want to test Bedini's conclusion that the Neo's field is too tight and constricted to allow the magnet to flow past the coil once the field is reversed.
Sure it gives the greatest potential output but I have yet to test how this interaction effects the efficieny of the motor.
Should the neo "stick" rather than buck the field and glide past the core then voltage advantage may well be for nothing over the losses.
Then again if i can tune the wheel to adequately handle neo's then the potential advantage can be put to full effect.

John looking good with the Neo comparison. The longer and stronger Neo's appear to stretch out the field that reacts with the coil yielding a beefier spike.
Two Thumbs up for your effort and data.

[min2oly]

Thanks Yaro,

I want to test Bedini's conclusion that the Neo's field is too tight and constricted to allow the magnet to flow past the coil once the field is reversed.
Sure it gives the greatest potential output but I have yet to test how this interaction effects the efficieny of the motor.
Should the neo "stick" rather than buck the field and glide past the core then voltage advantage may well be for nothing over the losses.
Then again if i can tune the wheel to adequately handle neo's then the potential advantage can be put to full effect.

Trying to get a full grasp on your experiment...

So what you are doing is driving your wheel with conventional motor and from your charts the main items you are changing are:

-Speed the magnet passes the coil

-frequency

-coil gap

-Magnet type

-watts consumed by conventional motor



With this you are looking at two main things:



-how much voltage the "Bedini Coil" is putting out.

-Difference in magnet types VS ALL the above.



You are not powering the Bedini coil or shorting it in any way nor do you have a capacitor across it right?



I know there are many other discoveries here I just want to grasp the main thrust of this experiment and how it relates to neos vs ceramic on SSG.

Thanks – Patrick A.

[Deuis]

Hi Patrick,

I hope your last question was answered adequately.

This design is based on the 84' model of external motor with energiser.
The E-bike wheel just happens to be a neat design that gives a big wheel as a bonus.
The SG and the 84 are essentially the same except the motoring effect has been folded into the coils operation with some solid state gear.
This is great but it really limits the ability to test individual operations. (A great energiser may not be able to motor properly and never gets off the ground)
I am at the very start of this in terms of spitting out some raw data which I can return to later on.
All components are variable but im picking off the variables one by one until I find good combinations that fit.
For instance air gap is set to 3mm on everything.
All speed referances are in 50rpm increments. (50 - 500rpms for now)
The velocities are important to cross match with different diameter wheels.

Ive tried 20+ combinations of magnets but the simple North out is the best, stacked NSNS for larger field.
While the wheel was running today I put a neo and ceramic on the coil core, in and around the coil to see how the output would react.
The voltage never went up, only down. Not sure if the story of putting magnets on the other end of the core is correct but I would have expected a higher voltage if it was.

The wattage consumed by the conventional motor im actually using as a meter of sorts.
The output tells me the aerodynamic losses, bearing losses etc etc. Through tuning I should be able to see this output drop/increase in real time.

No im not powering anything as yet.
Through this data I have settled on two variables.
-18 magnet wheel.
-North out double stacked 2" x 1" x 1/2" ceramic magnets and the large north out NEO's.

I once again put 36 magnets on the wheel today, the magnets where definitely interfering with each other.
The gauss meter was showing a south pole half way through the north face.
This indicates to me that the core is probably fine at that frequency and the voltage drop was purely the magnet spacing.

Now the number and magnets are concluded I can start some other variables.
Im doing this with the coil and an ultrafast diode.
Clip half the wave as a gennie coil.
Hook a rheostat up and run a load from the coil at various resistances, note any differances in the prime mover.
I may play with the air gap. (I can push this real hard with the 1000W motor if i want too)
I can compare these settings with the charge time of a cap bank and determine where the most efficient combinations are.
Im not limited by the poor motoring effect of the SG so i can really push in any direction i want.

After this marathon is completed I can then decide which direction to go.
Fold data into an SG, keep ole 84 or a hybrid.

As for the NEO, ceramic debate this will show up easily in the above experments.
I will be able to find the sweet spot of both and make fair comparisons on calibrated equipment.
looking at the voltage output of the large neo versus the double stacked ceramic there isnt a huge gap <20%. (176 vs 206)

Trying to get a full grasp on your experiment...
So what you are doing is driving your wheel with conventional motor and from your charts the main items you are changing are:
-Speed the magnet passes the coil
-frequency
-coil gap
-Magnet type
-watts consumed by conventional motor
With this you are looking at two main things:
-how much voltage the "Bedini Coil" is putting out.
-Difference in magnet types VS ALL the above.
You are not powering the Bedini coil or shorting it in any way nor do you have a capacitor across it right?
I know there are many other discoveries here I just want to grasp the main thrust of this experiment and how it relates to neos vs ceramic on SSG.

Thanks – Patrick A.

[min2oly]

Hi Patrick,

I hope your last question was answered adequately.

This design is based on the 84' model of external motor with energiser.
The E-bike wheel just happens to be a neat design that gives a big wheel as a bonus.
The SG and the 84 are essentially the same except the motoring effect has been folded into the coils operation with some solid state gear.
This is great but it really limits the ability to test individual operations. (A great energiser may not be able to motor properly and never gets off the ground)
I am at the very start of this in terms of spitting out some raw data which I can return to later on.
All components are variable but im picking off the variables one by one until I find good combinations that fit.
For instance air gap is set to 3mm on everything.
All speed referances are in 50rpm increments. (50 - 500rpms for now)
The velocities are important to cross match with different diameter wheels.

Ive tried 20+ combinations of magnets but the simple North out is the best, stacked NSNS for larger field.
While the wheel was running today I put a neo and ceramic on the coil core, in and around the coil to see how the output would react.
The voltage never went up, only down. Not sure if the story of putting magnets on the other end of the core is correct but I would have expected a higher voltage if it was.

The wattage consumed by the conventional motor im actually using as a meter of sorts.
The output tells me the aerodynamic losses, bearing losses etc etc. Through tuning I should be able to see this output drop/increase in real time.

No im not powering anything as yet.
Through this data I have settled on two variables.
-18 magnet wheel.
-North out double stacked 2" x 1" x 1/2" ceramic magnets and the large north out NEO's.

I once again put 36 magnets on the wheel today, the magnets where definitely interfering with each other.
The gauss meter was showing a south pole half way through the north face.
This indicates to me that the core is probably fine at that frequency and the voltage drop was purely the magnet spacing.

Now the number and magnets are concluded I can start some other variables.
Im doing this with the coil and an ultrafast diode.
Clip half the wave as a gennie coil.
Hook a rheostat up and run a load from the coil at various resistances, note any differances in the prime mover.
I may play with the air gap. (I can push this real hard with the 1000W motor if i want too)
I can compare these settings with the charge time of a cap bank and determine where the most efficient combinations are.
Im not limited by the poor motoring effect of the SG so i can really push in any direction i want.

After this marathon is completed I can then decide which direction to go.
Fold data into an SG, keep ole 84 or a hybrid.

As for the NEO, ceramic debate this will show up easily in the above experments.
I will be able to find the sweet spot of both and make fair comparisons on calibrated equipment.
looking at the voltage output of the large neo versus the double stacked ceramic there isnt a huge gap <20%. (176 vs 206)

I'm really struggling to find the connection how this data will help the decision making when it comes to running an energizer. I'll continue to keep posted I must be missing something. Does anyone else here follow?

[Bradley Malone]

I'm really struggling to find the connection how this data will help the decision making when it comes to running an energizer. I'll continue to keep posted I must be missing something. Does anyone else here follow?

Correct me if I am wrong....but I believe the idea behind the data is this. Bedini didn't always have the motor section and generator section in one coil as in the sg. He had (I believe) just a pulse circuit like the SG that was very efficient and used that with a flywheel as the prime mover and a generator section of "low drag" coils. From what I have read in this post it appears that what is being tested are the variables for the generator side only. If you know what the best setup is for generation... what gap, magnet configuration, type of magnets ect can produce the best output for a given input, frequency, ect....then from that you can figure out the best setup would be. For instance to many magnets on a wheel cause there to be interference and no "complete off time" in the coils because as one magnet leaves another approaches. So in theory with all the data you can decide what configuration will give you the most out with the least in. From there move on to the prime mover and test multiple configurations against the known best generator configuration.

[min2oly]

Correct me if I am wrong....but I believe the idea behind the data is this. Bedini didn't always have the motor section and generator section in one coil as in the sg. He had (I believe) just a pulse circuit like the SG that was very efficient and used that with a flywheel as the prime mover and a generator section of "low drag" coils. From what I have read in this post it appears that what is being tested are the variables for the generator side only. If you know what the best setup is for generation... what gap, magnet configuration, type of magnets ect can produce the best output for a given input, frequency, ect....then from that you can figure out the best setup would be. For instance to many magnets on a wheel cause there to be interference and no "complete off time" in the coils because as one magnet leaves another approaches. So in theory with all the data you can decide what configuration will give you the most out with the least in. From there move on to the prime mover and test multiple configurations against the known best generator configuration.

I C, so the hunt is for the most efficient conventional generator not to find the best configuration for an "Energizer"/SSG. I was thrown with talk of neo vs ceramic 'n stuff. This "type" of experiment/testing would be amazing for the SSG as well...
If mimicking the 1984 machine you might want to add a couple more coils and get them off TDC...

[Bradley Malone]

deuis....another thing to think about is this....for a low drag coil, either bedini or lindemann described it not sure wich, but the reason for the large wheel being better is because it makes the coil magnet interaction more vertical. Think of this. when the magnet is approaching or leaving the coil the movement is horizontal to the core. when a current is flowing in the coil that causes resistance to the approach and a drag back on the exit of the magnet. Imagine haveing a rotor sitting still and you aproach one of the magnets with another opposing magnet....if they are directly in line ,in a perfect scenario, the rotor would not be pushes in either direction because the reaction is directly in line with the radius from magnet to rotor shaft. so in a normal configuration of a rotor and generator coil if you only connect the coil to a load during the time that the magnet is vertically aligned then any induced field in the core from current flowing in the coil will only push the magnet vertically into the wheel wich does not cause drag. on a scope if looking at the waveform created by a magnet passing a coil the area between the peaks is what you want to use. it will still cause some drag but the idea is to use the induced voltage "mainly" when the coil magnet and rotor shaft are in alignment causing the back-emf force to not slow rotation. Sorry if this is a jumbled mess my ADHD medication wears off this time of day and well....formulating with words what is in my brain becomes very hard. Other than that THANK YOU for the effort put into collecting this data!

[Deuis]

Hi Bradley,

Break up your writing with plenty of full stops and paragraphs, should help you out a bit.
Then you can adress your thoughts in small parts rather than the whole.

Yes im well aware of the smaller angle of incidence with a larger wheel.

"when a current is flowing in the coil that causes resistance to the approach and a drag back on the exit of the magnet."
I think you have this wrong, depending on the polarity it will attract in one direction and resist as it passes Top Dead Centre.
The idea of the low drag generator is the core attracts the magnet, the coil then turns on diode to drain past TDC and the small charge repels the magnet out.
So first process is to build the charge without current, then dump charge with current, drain current into something useful, wash rinse repeat.

The rest of it sounds good.

Here have some more data.

deuis....another thing to think about is this....for a low drag coil, either bedini or lindemann described it not sure wich, but the reason for the large wheel being better is because it makes the coil magnet interaction more vertical. Think of this. when the magnet is approaching or leaving the coil the movement is horizontal to the core. when a current is flowing in the coil that causes resistance to the approach and a drag back on the exit of the magnet. Imagine haveing a rotor sitting still and you aproach one of the magnets with another opposing magnet....if they are directly in line ,in a perfect scenario, the rotor would not be pushes in either direction because the reaction is directly in line with the radius from magnet to rotor shaft. so in a normal configuration of a rotor and generator coil if you only connect the coil to a load during the time that the magnet is vertically aligned then any induced field in the core from current flowing in the coil will only push the magnet vertically into the wheel wich does not cause drag. on a scope if looking at the waveform created by a magnet passing a coil the area between the peaks is what you want to use. it will still cause some drag but the idea is to use the induced voltage "mainly" when the coil magnet and rotor shaft are in alignment causing the back-emf force to not slow rotation. Sorry if this is a jumbled mess my ADHD medication wears off this time of day and well....formulating with words what is in my brain becomes very hard. Other than that THANK YOU for the effort put into collecting this data!

[Bradley Malone]

When , let's say for example, a North Pole is approaching a core it is attracted in. That's a definite. The voltage induced in the coil would be of the polarity that if "used" would cause the core, the end near the magnet, to become a North and would resist the approach.

Take the same magnet aligned with the core and pull it away, the induced voltage will cause south in the end of the core near the magnet which would resist the magnet "leaving".

If you are saying that you allow the magnet to be pulled in untill tdc then use the current created from there on untill they are completely separated....then that is just using half of the wave that will cause half of the drag. That mixed with the momentum added to the flywheel from the approach of said magnet sounds like it would be "low drag" but really it is the same.

Here is why. The voltage induced is due to "rate of change" in the core. If you allow the approach to add momentum to the flywheel from the attraction without "using" the induced voltage then you get more speed. Then as the magnet leaves the core that "speed" creates a higher rate of change therefore inducing a larger voltage that will, when used, cause a larger drag on the magnet leaving the core.

So in essence you are making a trade that works out the same. Not using the voltage on the approach gives higher speed which in turn gives you more voltage when the magnet leaves the core causing more drag so it equals out to the same as if you just used it like a normal generator.

When a magnet is approaching, the rate of change peaks before and after tdc. When the magnet approaches the core, as the face of the magnet starts to align with the coil the voltage on a scope will start to rise to a peak. That peak is before tdc when the magnet is about 1/2 to 3/4 coverage of the core. From that point untill tdc the magnet is not putting any more magnetism into the core and the voltage drops to zero at tdc. Same goes for the magnet leaving. The charge in the core is being lowered by the removal of the magnet from the core causing a negative peak somewhere around 1/2 to 3/4 of the alignment. So if you utilize the time when the magnet face is half way aligned with the core on approach and use the induced voltage untill it is half way aligned on the exit. The voltage induced and the drag induced will be MORE vertical than horizontal and will therefore not effect the speed. The core will still be a North to resist approach of a North Pole and south to resist the leaving of a North Pole. But if those poles are only there when most of the resistance would be vertical into the wheel it will not cause a drag proportional to the energy you are using.