BobZilla's Custom Build

[guyzzemf]

[QUOTE=BobZilla;19630]Hi guys,
Well at some point I had shut off and unhooked the primary because it was down to like 11 something under load. I sort of forgot about the cap but when I glanced at my chart I had 13.7 volts on the primary meter, I thought for a second like WTF because I knew I had just unhooked the battery.

this happen to people in the old yahoo ''it fires when i disconnect
run batt. either a cap across ft end or its closed which led to this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlO8UDsc-Fc
i ran 3 air coils on a V ssg this way 1 coil to drive the wheel 3 coils completely independent [no batt ft side ,ft closed] in what i called a force fire/'//// it is through back thursday
guy

[Tom C]

Patrick,

thanks for posting that circuit! I was running from memory and could not find it anywhere....

Tom C

[BobZilla]

Last nights run did not turn out well. I fell asleep and let her go way too long. I am going to do another gen mode run and try to post it though, I have not shown the machine running in that mode yet.

Yea Patrick I am getting pretty fast at changing out transistors. The thing that sucks is it is not the machines fault. Many people blow them out because of the way the machine is tuned or whatever but my problem has always just been myself and that darn switch. This last time I did mess up one of the traces a little, the circle conductor area on the bottom where the transistor leg goes through pulled off. I was able to scratch the surface of the trace and extend solder over on to it to make the connection though. If I do it again I may have to get another board though.

For everyone reading along i tell you what makes it a lot easier to de-solder. Get a good solder pump. I tried the little bulb kind, I tried copper braid but didn't have nearlyas much sucsess until I got this pump.

http://www.radioshack.com/radioshack...solder&start=4

So I had another thought here about utilizing the mechanical and genny type action. I have not tried it to compare yet but I am thinking,, what about if I were to disconnect the trigger on one or two of my boards and run in gen mode. It seems to me that would produce juice on those power windings without pumping them from the primary. The diodes on C would rectify the signal into a half wave and since gen mode places the back in parallel it seems to me that it would be like running those coils as genny's would it not?

[min2oly]

Tom, you're giving RF too much credit - this coast of his was NOT sending anything back to the primary as S2 disconnected the primary from the ckt completely so S1 could dump back to the primary.

The only way to do this is as I have shown on my vid and have explained in this thread. I'll give him this... at least RF had a DPDT switch on the trigger to help prevent blown transistors. Although that's not what he used it for, many people did.

Hi guys,
Well from what Patrick and Tom have said it sounds like this idea is worth at least a little experimenting with. I tell you what, I did notice this effect the other day in a small way. I had setup with a 15k cap in parallel with my primary. I was trying to recreate the cap dancing that I did awhile ago on the SS and that system had caps on both ends so that's why I put that on. Well at some point I had shut off and unhooked the primary because it was down to like 11 something under load. I sort of forgot about the cap but when I glanced at my chart I had 13.7 volts on the primary meter, I thought for a second like WTF because I knew I had just unhooked the battery. Obviously it was the cap but the interesting thing is that it was well over the voltage of the primary. I assume it got a little charge as the wheel spun down.

Now Imagine doing this with the trigger disconnected :-)

Anyway guys I just got home and I am going to setup a run. The lightsthing will have to wait if I ever get too it. I did give it a try but I blew one out I had 300 Ohm on it but I guess it wasn't enough so I will have to put more resistance on. I mainly want to just get into a run instead of wasting time on that at the moment.

This run will be like nothing I have shown so far. It will be a GEN mode under a heavy load. This machine is very freaking powerful and I want to show that off a bit ;-)

I may even post back again tonight with the run data. ..

Thanks again for all of the feedback!

Don't worry about the leds, take my word for it, you can change the length of the on time. You also only need one led to show this. I'm glad you have it up and running - so quickly to-boot...
KR - Patrick

[BobZilla]

Hi guys,
Well from what Patrick and Tom have said it sounds like this idea is worth at least a little experimenting with. I tell you what, I did notice this effect the other day in a small way. I had setup with a 15k cap in parallel with my primary. I was trying to recreate the cap dancing that I did awhile ago on the SS and that system had caps on both ends so that's why I put that on. Well at some point I had shut off and unhooked the primary because it was down to like 11 something under load. I sort of forgot about the cap but when I glanced at my chart I had 13.7 volts on the primary meter, I thought for a second like WTF because I knew I had just unhooked the battery. Obviously it was the cap but the interesting thing is that it was well over the voltage of the primary. I assume it got a little charge as the wheel spun down.

Anyway guys I just got home and I am going to setup a run. The lightsthing will have to wait if I ever get too it. I did give it a try but I blew one out I had 300 Ohm on it but I guess it wasn't enough so I will have to put more resistance on. I mainly want to just get into a run instead of wasting time on that at the moment.

This run will be like nothing I have shown so far. It will be a GEN mode under a heavy load. This machine is very freaking powerful and I want to show that off a bit ;-)

I may even post back again tonight with the run data. ..

Thanks again for all of the feedback!

[Tom C]

Just to chime in here,

When RF showed his "self runner" one of the things you notice on his diagram was an S1 switch.... it was used to turn the primary battery off. this would cause the machine to coast for a bit still charging the secondary. also he had his magnets north south north south. so that when the machine was off it would generate a sine wave in the genny coil to send it back to A FWBR and the primary battery. no scalar south on that rotor it was a true north south machine.

Tom C

[min2oly]

Little update:
I freaking blew transistors again! I was messing around trying to test the new lights I made and I guess I got distracted at some point. I spun the machine up, it ran funny for a split second and when I figured it out I had somehow thrown that same GEN/MODE1 switch into the center off position AGAIN.

Spent the next 4 hours replacing transistors. None of them are matched now on the machine. Bummer...

That bites! Sorry to hear that...
I wonder though - it seems like you documented some good runs. Maybe you could do the exact same experiments with the non-matched transistors to see the difference?

on your earlier question, that sounds like a pretty cool and interesting experiment. Keep in mind, the energy going to the primary is very conventional generator action and will never exceed the amount of energy required to drive the wheel.

I like the idea of placing a cap so as not to stress the primary. so the switch would have to disconnect the primary from the cap and simultaneously "click off" the circuit... the simple way to click it off would be the same way you could also be clicking off your gen mode switch - disconnect the trigger.

On your gen switch, what if you use a double pole triple throw switch. So the switch would handle the trigger and the gen mode.

1. when the switch is on one side the trigger would be on and in gen mode

2. then a neutral spot in the middle where the trigger and gen mode are both off

3. when switched to the opposite side the trigger and SSG mode are on.

there is still the slight chance the trigger might contact before the "mode" switch but it would only be a millisecond or so... less than a full spin.


When I first discovered this "back charge", I conducted many manual experiments using a momentary switch. I never did play around with a cap as a buffer though. My second reaction as I type is to make sure the time off does not charge the cap too high, or maybe within the off time you used it to cap dump to the primary... this is where your micro controller would come in very handy...

I have conducted several experiments using the "back charge" with a separate coil and using it to help send additional energy to the charging battery, it charges the battery faster than if I put a conventional generator coil with the single diode method. I made a video of it using the RF's window B kit.

I'll stop before this get's too long...
KR - Patrick A.

[BobZilla]

Little update:
I freaking blew transistors again! I was messing around trying to test the new lights I made and I guess I got distracted at some point. I spun the machine up, it ran funny for a split second and when I figured it out I had somehow thrown that same GEN/MODE1 switch into the center off position AGAIN.

Spent the next 4 hours replacing transistors. None of them are matched now on the machine. Bummer...

[BobZilla]

Patrick that was an awesome analogy of what is happening! Very well put and I follow you on all the aspects you point out.

Dave That may be worth trying out but I'm just not sure it would be worth it. We can increase the pull just by lowering the resistance but I think what your saying is another way to do it for sure. Another thing to increase torque would proably be to go back to repulsion mode but of course then we heat up that transistors.

Patrick,
I think you said somewhere that the primary gets a charge if the machine is spinning and the circuit is off didn't you? Such as when you click it off and it is spinning down. What about pulsing the main power sort of like a cap dump circuit to back charge on the primary? I could easily do it with my micro controller so it would run for say 30 seconds and then switch off for 10 and back on, whatever value really but the idea being to switch it off and on to take advantage of the stored rotational energy. You think that could be an advantage? Perhaps put a cap inline before the primary that could accept the charge better than the primary itself,maybe a diode to keep the primary from seeing it at all. Just thinking about the sloshing effect may not be good for it. I may try this but I'm curious if you think it would have any advantage.

Oh I am going to try and get some LEDS fixed up for that test tonight...

[Dave Wing]

I have tried out some genny stuff on it but I will e honest,, it was not all to spectacular. That is actually one reason I want to get this new regualr pole wheel on there. I'm pretty sure I can get the RPM's much higher with it and I think that is what I need to really get some good juice from a genny.

All along the genny was just an added bonus in my view. I would love to get it working good but this machine is a beast for output even without it.

As the Advanced SG Book goes into widening the generator coil to match the width of the magnet face. Why cannot the same be done for the power coil to develop more torque as the SG is only 20-26% mechanically efficient, which is poor. Is there a limit on how wide our magnets can be? Not many have spoken about this aspect. It can and will produce torque.

Just my two cents...

-Dave Wing

[min2oly]

"Well I was half right I guess, the change of resistance did lower the voltage which probably lowered the spike voltage as well, all the jibber jaber I already said"

"My original thinking was that if the amplitude was not the same then the larger spike voltage and the weaker spike voltage say in the video the spikes that would have come off the top board and the side board would mix and lower the total voltage and that was what we were trying to avoid. That probably is also an issue but it is not the whole issue.

This is an excellent line of thought, and I believe your thinking is correct with some additional caveats.

is the spike even rectified... and is the spike around long enough to be averaged with larger or smaller spikes on the same buss...

the current is definitely rectified and averaged however, the larger voltage will also bring up the lower ones and with a scope we can tweak the build to bring up the lower ones...

the way I think about the matching being a concern is by comparing it to the water hammer effect.

we have water pressure, then we open a valve, then close it hard and fast - boom - water hammer.

now we replace the valve with a manifold that has 4 valves. 4 guys open the valves at the same time and close them at the same time - boom because we have reduced the pressure in the line with 4 valves instead of one, once they are each closed at the same time, we will get a much larger hammer effect and perhaps burst a pipe somewhere....

now what if our guys have no sense of timing or rhythm if they each shut off at different times then the pressure in the line does not increase all at once but slowly and staggered. this will not produce the biggest BOOM.

also, what if one of our guys is very strong and another is very weak, the valves might open at different speeds or not open all the way so the flow in the weak guys valve might not be as strong so even if they shut off at the same time you might not get the same big boom as you would in a perfectly matched universe...

translate that to the transistor trying to fill a coil, we could be wasting energy because the strong guy lets too much flow so excess burns off as heat, or visa versa on the weak guy.

we can see, there is much more to it in our transistor situation, we are going the opposite direction as the water hammer. we are filling a coil that will back up and look for an exit. We have to take the coil into account as well....
now I jibber jabber.
KR - Patrick A.

[BobZilla]

Hi Gary,
Yes I am pretty sure your right about the multiple pulses. I do understand what your saying about tune to one per pass and then manipulate the On/OFF (width). I just got that new normal pole so I am having to learn this machines tuning all over again with that wheel. I'm not sure if I have the gaps right, still need to adjust and tweak, I mean it runs good but I could tweak a bit so that I can get to 1 per pass with a bit less input. As it is now I cannot get to 1 per until I am pulling around 4A which is reasonable considering it's 16 transistors but that is only to get in that gear, if I want to drag a bit for a stronger charge it's more like 6A or so which is a heavy pull on my primary. This machine I think is really better for larger batteries than I have. Too bad I can't try it against Mr.Bedini's huge banks Lol. It's also a compromise between different modes, I want too run both Gen and mode 1 so I have to tune it so that both work decent..

I will try to get a pot setup on one board and some LED's on both coils so we can see this in action. I'm sure a scope shows a ton of stuff I have never got into but every time I have thought to buy one the money has gone into more coils or transistors etc.. I was pretty happy to see that those boards seemed to be firing in unison both the frequency and the voltage were the same before intentionally changing the side one.

Anyway guys thanks for all the participation. It may take me a day or two to re-visit this test but we will have another look.

[Gary Hammond]

Hi Bob,

........ but i was NOT expecting that the two boards with a common trigger could fire at different frequency.

I suspect the higher frequency reported by the meter was a result of multiple pulses per magnet pass on the board with more trigger resistance. To see the effect Patrick wanted you to see, both boards should be independently tuned in a narrow range that produces only a single spike per magnet pass. Then the frequencies should be the same, but duty cycle and cutoff times could be varied independent of each other.

A dual trace scope would make this very easy to see. I know watching the scope has helped me tune my machines and better understand what's actually happening in various parts of the circuit.

[BobZilla]

Yea I may not be fully grasping but what I posted was a surprise to me. As I said a few pages back I always thought that that single trigger would force the same frequency BUT the matching was to ensure the same amplitude or voltage, however you look at it.

Well I was half right I guess, the change of resistance did lower the voltage which probably lowered the spike voltage as well, all the jibber jaber I already said but i was NOT expecting that the two boards with a common trigger could fire at different frequency. This truly opens a lot of doors I had thought were shut. I was only understanding half of the picture when it comes to matching and why we would do it. My original thinking was that if the amplitude was not the same then the larger spike voltage and the weaker spike voltage say in the video the spikes that would have come off the top board and the side board would mix and lower the total voltage and that was what we were trying to avoid. That probably is also an issue but it is not the whole issue. Just like when you take two batteries of different voltages on their charge and parallel them, they even out. Hmm anyway I am just rambling now..

[Gary Hammond]

Hi Bob and Patrick,

1. so once that is set then we talk about amplitude - does it really matter if the amplitude is different from one wire to the next as long as they all shut off simultaneously?

2. does the time they turn ON really matter as long as they all turn off at the same time?

re. 1,2 - I relinquish that the efficiency will go down ever so slightly, some fraction of a percent but not enough that we should be concerned since we are trying to obtain 4:1 or even 12:1 right... as long as the principle is sound. 16 hammers acting simultaneously on one spot can affect the concrete wall as a giant sludge. This is the OFF timing.

and if the above does not matter, then why match ALL transistors why not just match the set of transistors that are on each coil? of course this should only be true if you have a scope, otherwise there is no way to adjust the OFF precisely from one coil to the next that I know of.


Cheers - Patrick

I've been following your discussion and it seems to me that Patrick's analysis as quoted here is right on the money. Synchronizing the cutoff time of all transistors using a scope is probably the most effective way to maximize the output. And as Patrick has also pointed out, there is more than one thing that can affect the cutoff time.