John K's Superpole Bike Wheel SSG

[John_Koorn]

Hi John
Thanks for your response, what would be the max amp hours that the one coil set up like yours would do with reasonable time ?

George, this setup is designed for 12-20Ah batteries.

Would it be fair to say that the quicker the field collapses the grater the spike?

Yes, it would. But there are also other factors that determine the level of the spike.

If I remember correctly the rule of thumb with the single magnet spacing was 3 to 5 magnet widths apart, if I were to use the a superpole set up and I used the centre of the two magnets as a centre point what would be the min and max between the two centres.

The minimum I would go for is 2 magnet widths (i.e. twice the width of a pair of magnets that make one superpole magnet)

I have brought several of john B. DVD’s when he talks about the coil as a pump, how the bloch wall expands and contracts, so what you’re saying is if we don’t allow the bloch all to fully expand and contract we aren’t using the coil to its full potential and that is dependent on the spacing of the magnets, when I think about it, the speed of the wheel would have a factor to play as well.

Cheers,
George N.

Yes, that's correct about the Bloch wall. However, it's the time that the transistor is on that determines if the coil is fully saturated or not (allowing the Bloch wall to fully expand).

Again, what advantage (or disadvantage) would super-pole magnets have on your setup. This is a test to see if you understand what the purpose of the super-pole magnet is.

Clues: Why do you think JB used super-pole magnets on his 10 coiler? Why doesn't he use them on all of his machines? Think about what was different on his 10 coiler than his other machines.

John K.

[Nofear]

Ok, Ok,ok...I think I know this one.
The 10coiler has one trigger coil on the master coil and all the other coils are slaves...!?

NoFear

[John_Koorn]

Sorry NoFear, you are correct but that's not the answer I was looking for.

You need to have your thinking chaps on

Another clue: When would it be an advantage to reduce the amount of time the transistor is switched on for?

John K.

[erfinder]

The difference is current density. The super pole configuration is a poor generator, its worse than the monopole (all North). This being said, there's even less CEMF inhibiting the supply current, and the coils are able to reach saturation much faster. Owing to the fact that the coils can saturate faster, the switch can/must transition faster.

In my opinion the super pole configuration is an attempt at demonstrating that the effects found in the zero force device can be setup in salient pole devices.

I believe this because this is what I tried, and accomplished. I think there's more to the super pole config but that strays from your question.

I hope this qualifies as a suitable answer....

Regards

[Georgey Nico]

John i was going to say that the faster the switching the less heat the coil would have, and the supper pole would have more spikes in one revolution , but i think erfinder has just upped the anti, what is current density?, is that amount of current?
counter-electromotive force, can someone explain this in simple terms.

Cheers,
George N.

[Nofear]

OK thanks for the clue...as long as it doesn't mean you are deducting points because of that


One big one comes to mind: Reducing primary power consumption.

Having thought about this a bit more I feel tempted to do the following grouping: The transistor Switch-ON speed and the ON time will be having a direct impact on primary power consumption, whereas a faster switch OFF speed will generate cleaner radiant energy.

The primary power need to come on fast and stay on to quickly bring the coil to saturation but not be kept ON further, any energy spend beyond that point should be consider a loss. On the other hand the transistor need to snap OFF also very fast to capture the radiant energy.

NoFear.

[John_Koorn]

Thank you erfinder, you have explained something's I had not thought about during my study of the super pole configuration. I will keep your thoughts in mind when I get my zero force motor out next time.

Everyone, what I was trying to get, and this is just my opinion based on my study, starts at the wave form of the super pole compared to the normal monopole configuration. If you scope just the trigger winding with out running the machine you will see (sorry I don't have pictures). The superpole will give you a wave that is taller and skinnier compared to a normal magnet, as it passes the coil's core.
So if you consider that the transistor will turn on when biased enough and switch off again once that bias has gone, you can imagine that the super pole triggered transistor will be "on" for less time that a normal pole triggered transistor.
For example, let's say the super pole triggered transistor will be on for 10mS but the normal pole triggered transistor will be on for 20mS at the same rotor RPM.
OK, let's now say that we have a coil of 8 130' strands of #20 wire on our machine and we find out that (for example) it takes 20mS to saturate the coil's core (I.e. To fully magnetize the core). Let's also say that at 12v input, there is 10 amps drawn for that 20mS period.
If we were to use the super pole magnet to trigger the transistor the coil is not going to fully saturate in the 10mS the transistor was on for. Because the coil was not fully saturated, when the transistor switches off the collapsing magnet field will be less and thus less energy will be collected by the charge battery. So for this particular coil, we would be better off using a normal magnet to trigger the transistor as it will be on long enough to fully saturate the coil's core.

So now let's swap our coil out for a coil with 8 130' strands of #18 wire. Now we find out that (for example) it only takes 10mS to saturate the coil, because the total DC resistance of the coil is lower, but we have pulled 20 amps at 12 volts instead.
If we were to use a normal pole magnet to trigger the transistor (which turns the transistor on for 20mS remember) we can see that the transistor was on for twice as long as it needed to be. Because we applied more energy to energise the coil than we needed to, it's gotta so somewhere, so it is converted into heat - the coil heats up and our power source is drained a lot quicker. On the plus side, when we turn the transistor off, we now get the full extent of the collapsing magnetic field (the spike) being collected by the battery.
With this particular coil, we now need to reduce the time that the transistor is on for so we don't waste as much energy - this is where the super pole triggered magnet would be a better choice. In our example, the super pole magnet will only switch the transistor on for 10mS, which is how long we calculated it would take to saturate this coil. We still get the full extent of the collapsing magnetic field, but we used less energy from the power source to do it.

One thing you might have also picked up on is that with both coils we used the same amount of energy to saturate the coil's core. If the core used is the same for both coils, you're still making the same size electromagnet no matter what size wire you use for the windings. The difference of course is the speed at which the electromagnet is saturated and also the speed at which the energy can be released when it is de-energized.

Now it's a little more complex than the simple example I've given here and there's also well established formulae for calculating these things, but that is the way I see the SG running and the reasons I see for choosing the the type of magnet configuration for your particular build.

As erfinder said, there is also a lot more to super pole magnets than this, but that is for another day.

John K.

[John_Koorn]

OK thanks for the clue...as long as it doesn't mean you are deducting points because of that




One big one comes to mind: Reducing primary power consumption.


Having thought about this a bit more I feel tempted to do the following grouping: The transistor Switch-ON speed and the ON time will be having a direct impact on primary power consumption, whereas a faster switch OFF speed will generate cleaner radiant energy.


The primary power need to come on fast and stay on to quickly bring the coil to saturation but not be kept ON further, any energy spend beyond that point should be consider a loss. On the other hand the transistor need to snap OFF also very fast to capture the radiant energy.


NoFear.

Yes NoFear, you got it whilst I was typing. So to close the loop (pardon the pun), JB was using 4 strands of #18 on each of the coils on his 10 coiler. He and Peter also ran it at 24v, so what does that say about using super poles?? Additionally, he had 20 super pole magnets on a 17" rotor - or about 2 magnet gaps between super poles.


What does that also tell you about the 8 100' strands of #20 wire Rick was using on his 10 coiler kit with 20 neo magnets (that had a field as big as your shoe) and people wondered why it wouldn't charge batteries???


John K.

[James Milner]

Slightly off topic, but as you know superpoles can be notoriously difficult to get the trigger to provide a good switching signal particularly using #18 wire. My magnets were a little smaller than the standard. At 25 x 40 x 10 mm. I think this what you used John K?
I found that if I double stack the magnets it creates a better superpole. Therefore improving the trigger voltage and significantly improving rotational speed.
NN(S)NN
Just wondering has anyone else tried it?
James

[John_Koorn]

James, sorry I should've mentioned in my example the #18 is only for the power windings. I wouldn't ever recommend #18 wire for the trigger, as you said it's too hard to tune. I would go for #23 for the trigger.

i was was using the 40 x 25 x 10 magnets for a whole but now I only use 50 x 20 x 12.7 magnets.

Not sure how you are double stacking the magnets though. Does that mean you have 4 magnets for one super pole?

John K.

[James Milner]

John,
I changed the #18 to a #21 and it was still pretty tricky to tune. The double stacking is simply adding an extra magnet to each side of the superpole. This increases the magnetic flux just as double stacking them in a monopole would but as they are glued N-N the scalar south increases. It's just the equivalent of using a thicker magnet. So yes four magnets!