BobZilla's Custom Build

[BobZilla]

Patrick you were right Sir ;-()

I ran some tests with my meters and I believe it demonstrates what you have been saying. I did not use the LED method but I think it shows what is important, if not it has at least opened my eyes a bit wider.

Thank you for your persistence! Theory is no substitute for bench testing and I was wrong in my theory, plain and simple.

The video explains how I tested but it is worth noting that the first part was a baseline which clearly establishes that the two test boards were operating exactly the same prior to base resistance manipulation. I think other things could throw different results such as gaps being different but the baseline shows that they were the same and only the resistance change could account for the finding.


Link:
https://files.secureserver.net/0sEzyk3ohDZJjw

[min2oly]

Patrick you were right Sir ;-()

I ran some tests with my meters and I believe it demonstrates what you have been saying. I did not use the LED method but I think it shows what is important, if not it has at least opened my eyes a bit wider.

Thank you for your persistence! Theory is no substitute for bench testing and I was wrong in my theory, plain and simple.

The video explains how I tested but it is worth noting that the first part was a baseline which clearly establishes that the two test boards were operating exactly the same prior to base resistance manipulation. I think other things could throw different results such as gaps being different but the baseline shows that they were the same and only the resistance change could account for the finding.


Link:
https://files.secureserver.net/0sEzyk3ohDZJjw

Hi Bob,
I like those wheels are you having them made locally? what do they cost? I'm just thinking down the line :-)


it looks like the side coil was driven into multiple spikes per magnet pass. that's why I suggested a pot or 10 ohms resistor (after watch vid I might go 5ohms), pot would be best. the frequency should stay the same, it's the length of the pulse we are trying to change. Nice one using the meter though. I believe that meter also has a duty and width setting you can play with:

1. Rotate the function selector to Hz/Duty.
2. To select the frequency function,
repeatedly press SELECT until Hz, kHz,
or MHz appears.
3. Press RANGE to manually select the
range, then repeatedly press RANGE
until the desired range appears.
4. To select the duty cycle function,
repeatedly press SELECT until %
appears.
5. Connect the black test probe to a ground
reference for the signal, and connect the
red test probe to the signal source.
http://support.radioshack.com/suppor...oc67/67321.pdf

I have not used this function so I can't be much help. If I lived down the block I would have those led's wired up and delivered already :-)
KR - Patrick A.

[BobZilla]

Ahh ok i got you, you want to see the width.

I will try to get a pot and a light hooked up tomorrow. Sorry man I am not focused on this very well. I have been fooling around with the machine checking out other stuff. The new wheel lets me get back to more of the things I am used to playing with on smaller machines. I have been going back and comparing some results from old stuff to the new machine to better understand how a multi coiler behaves. GEN mode runs like a dream on this thing now but of course the new wheel also pulls a lot more juice because of the longer on times in either mode.

I Paid $150 bucks for that wheel fabrication plus magnets and axle/bearings. Probably close to $200 all said and done.

[min2oly]

Ahh ok i got you, you want to see the width.

I will try to get a pot and a light hooked up tomorrow. Sorry man I am not focused on this very well. I have been fooling around with the machine checking out other stuff. The new wheel lets me get back to more of the things I am used to playing with on smaller machines. I have been going back and comparing some results from old stuff to the new machine to better understand how a multi coiler behaves. GEN mode runs like a dream on this thing now but of course the new wheel also pulls a lot more juice because of the longer on times in either mode.

I Paid $150 bucks for that wheel fabrication plus magnets and axle/bearings. Probably close to $200 all said and done.

Hi Bob - No worries.
"I" don't want you to do anything. Only do it if you want to see it. You already see that you can affect the number of times it shuts off from one coil to the next with a little resistance - and truly that is enough :-)



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

ps. you can remove that resistor on the fly as long as you are not touching any of it to the hot rail, or you can put it in beforehand, shunt it with a clip lead and remove it on the fly....

[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.

[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,

........ 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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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...

[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...

[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.

[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

[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!