5 filar specs

[Robert Darrah]

Hi,

Here's an update on my 5 filar build. I've done 15 runs now and it's like watching a horror movie in slow motion. On run 1 the discharge amp hours was 14 and by run 15 it's down to 6. The charging input has a similar story. It started at 15 amp hours with run 1 and is down to 7 by run 15. Here's the 15 runs:



I see the resolution is poor, so let's try it in 2 parts:





The degradation started from the beginning and has been gradual and progressive throughout, so it's not like something just failed. Disconnected, the 2 charging batteries are holding at the same voltage so I don't think I've got a bad battery. It's more like the charger is degrading the ability of the batteries to hold a charge.

Can anybody advise what is happening? The specs and pics are on the first post of this thread. Oh yeah, ignore run 2. I must have made a mistake when writing down the times.

Thanks,

Robert

[Rob_Esq]

Hi Robert. Sorry mate, I wouldn't like to try and guess what is going on with your battery's capacity. One thing I would say though is that your input and output currents seem a bit high to me. I've recently started playing with an 8 filar, with about 50m (150ft) on each coil, and firing on seven transistors. I'm getting a primary draw of about 320mA and charging input of about 80mA. (Compared with your 1.3 A and .665 A on five files.) I think you might have it tuned in as what someone recently described as a 'brute force' charger. R

[Prinsloo]

Core to magnet spacing

Hi Bud

Sorry to see you work a month and no joy.

You say you just need to give it a slight push and it goes, magnets to close, too much amps, that’s maybe why it just takes off, (tuned for GRUNT mode) the coil is hogging the magnets/rotor/wheel. You should barely feel the interaction between the magnets and the core when you free wheel turning the wheel. Remember what JB said, more current less radiant spike, less current beter radiant spike iaw if the current comes the radiant disappear.

What is the distance of your magnets to the coil core? Increase the distance and redo the base resistor tuning, do 5 or so COP tests and see if there is an increase. Those bats should be nice conditioned by now.

It will also increase the free wheel time on your wheel, iaw, even less resistance, a better COP. You will how ever need to give the wheel a bigger push to get it going, slow steady start = better !

Just my 1 c

Thanks

Theunis

PS : On your scope you should have a " ACQUIRE " button under MENU, hit that and select "ANTI ALIASING - ON" - should give you a better view of the radiant spike.

[Robert Darrah]

Thanks Rob and Theunis. I've got some new batteries, so I'll go back to looking at the tuning and spacing and the little details that make all the difference.

I picked up Free Energy Generation and on page 69 here's a quote that might apply to what happened:

"I must make a stern warning here! The time of the stimulating pulse is very important. If the time is too long, the battery will burn itself out."

So the way I read it is if the base resistance is too low, then the pulse is too long and it's running too many amps through it, enough to burn out the battery apparently. I had no idea that you could actually burn out a battery with an energizer (and I read that before too).

I guess I can't complain, really. At least I didn't blow up the batteries!

thanks,

Robert

[caldovicd]

Hi,

I built a 5 filar along Tom C.'s guidelines and it's running now...

....I would get about 6 triggers per pass.

Hi Robert,

Can you post Tom C's guidelines?
How did you got number of triggers per pass?

Regards,
cald

[Robert Darrah]

Hi cald,

Tom's specs are in a thread called "Advancement process gone?" There aren't too many specs really, mostly the coil size. There are a number of posts about it in that thread, mostly in the 20s, that describe the coil size.

I know there is another thread somewhere too that talks about a 5 filar, which is where I got the #19 for the trigger, and I think it said either #18 or #19 will work. If the resistance is too high with the #19 then just go up to the #18. I found the #19 works ok but my base resistance has to be down around 100 ohms. It works for my 5 filar, but #18 would probably be better if you might want to add more circuits to it later.

You can tell the number of triggers per pass by looking at your scope if you've got one. If you don't, you can kind of tell from the amp draw on the primary. You can't tell how many triggers you are getting without the scope, whether it's 2, 3, 4..., but when you get the resistance right the extra triggers will go away so you just have a nice h wave and you'll see the draw on the primary drop, which puts you real close to your sweet spot. That's the point where the primary draw goes non-linear. The extra triggering draws more current but doesn't really speed up the wheel, so it's just wasted power.

Robert

[Prinsloo]

Hi Guys

Vtech posted a vid on Youtube some time ago, that shows the extra pulses by using a timing led on the SG, you can tune it till the extra pulses disappear. Something visible to see/work with for the guys that don't have an O/scope.

Tuning SSG with LED Strobe - YouTube

Theunis

[Tachyon Catcher]

Tuning,
I have used an old induction automotive timing light with great success. if you're getting more than one pulse, the magnets appear to jump around. Stupid Simple.
Randy

[Robert Darrah]

Hi,

I did some tests with adjusting the air gap on my 5 filar just to see what difference the gap size makes. I took 4 pieces of aluminum angle (2 on each side of the rotor) and separated them with ¼” NC carriage bolts. See pic below.



This way I could adjust the air gap by turning the nuts and measuring the distance between the aluminum angles with a caliper. I tested in increments of .025” and set myself a tolerance of +/- .003 for each adjustment. I thought I might need finer threads to get the adjustments within tolerances, but it turns out that it actually wasn’t too difficult to adjust with the NC bolts.



I did two sets of tests, see above. The first set of tests I did with 18 magnets on a 20 ¾” diameter rotor, which was from my original build. 18 magnets on the rotor was within specs of the 2 to 5 magnet width spacing, and with 36 spokes on the wheel it was easy to line up the magnets with 1 magnet for every other spoke. Then I read on the forums JB’s specs for the 8 filar, where he found 21 magnets on a 16” diameter wheel was optimal. The spacing on that is just about 1.5” between magnets, so I decided to try the same spacing on my rotor and see what difference it makes.

For my 20 ¾” diameter wheel, 27 magnets would yield a space of 1.5”, almost exactly the same spacing JB used on his 8 filar, so I went with that. I wanted to compare apples to apples with the air gap tests, but changing the air gap also changes the tuning a little. So for my tests I would adjust the air gap and then using the scope I would decrease the base resistance until I just got a good h wave with no extra triggering. I did the tests with the 18 magnets first, and then I rebuilt the rotor and did the second test with 27 magnets on the rotor. I was a bit more careful with tuning on the second tests, and it shows in the results, as the data is more linear than with the first test.

I took all my measurements with the aluminum adjuster and a dial caliper. This made it easy to take the measurements. When adjusting I could adjust each bolt and then measure by that bolt, so I had 4 places to adjust and measure before each test. This made the measurements quite uniform, and as it turns out a lot more uniform than was needed, given the results of the test.

To get the air gap measurement I first used a telescoping gauge to measure between the magnets and the coil and then measured the gauge with a caliper. Then I added the thickness of several layers of tape (I had 4 wraps of electrical tape and 2 wraps of gorilla duct tape around each magnet) to the measurement to get the true gap measurement. I compared this to the measurement on the adjuster and found the adjuster read .942 larger than the actual gap between the magnet and the coil. This gave me a constant of .942”, so for all my measurements I could measure at the adjustor and then subtract .942” to get the true air gap between the magnet and coil.

I found there was about .020” variance in the air gap measurement between the different magnets and the coil, depending on which magnet I was measuring, and that tells me how much the rotor is out of round. This is interesting, because looking at the data, a difference of .020” in air gap might change the primary draw by 30 to 40 milliamps. If I added a second coil to the machine, the gaps between the 2 coils and the passing magnets would always be different from each other and constantly changing, so the coils wouldn’t be anywhere near matched. I’d have to use maybe some nonmagnetic shims to standardize the air gap, or maybe true the wheel on a lathe if I wanted to add more coils.

Ok, so what did I learn from all this? If I use magnets/milliamps as a measure of efficiency, then I see that this only changed a few percent throughout the range of air gaps I tested for. JB says make the gap about the thickness of the magnet, which I measured at a pretty consistent 3/8” or .375” with several magnets. In the 27 magnet test the closest gap to 3/8” I tested was .383”, and it yielded the highest mag/mA in the range tested. (Side note: I stopped testing at 1.375” because it was becoming difficult to get it to trigger and run at that point)

I also calculated the ratio of primary mA to charging mA. I know we’re not charging with current and the charging reading doesn’t tell what’s really going on, but there was a consistent change in the ratio as the air gap increased. Interestingly, the ratio keeps dropping as it reaches the highest mag/mA. What’s also interesting is that this happens a lot more with the 27 magnet test than with the 18 magnet test.

One other point to look at is the difference the air gap makes in the amp draw on the primary. For the tightest gap I measured on the 27 magnet rotor it drew .802 amps, and for the largest gap .480 amps, quite a difference. Even the difference between the primary draw between ¼” (.258 closest measured) and 3/8” (.383 closest measured) is .159 amps, not insignificant when you’re trying to improve your efficiency, though of course the rpms will increase as well with the higher amp draw/closer air gap, and you’ll get more charging for the extra amp draw.

So at this point one could say, ok, forget all this messing around and just put in an air gap of 3/8” and call it good. And I would agree. The main point for doing this was to see just how much of a difference the air gap adjustment makes, and how close it needs to be adjusted for maximum efficiency.

Knowing how much the air gap matters is part of a larger question, which is: what are the most important variables to adjust to increase the machine’s efficiency? So the tests showed how much effect changing the air gap has, but if we look at the tests again the real gain in magnet/mA was made from adding the extra 9 magnets to the rotor and changing the magnet spacing.

For the 18 magnet test all the mag/mA results were below 7. But adding another 9 magnets to the rotor for the 27 magnet test yielded results slightly over 10 mag/mA. So by adding 50% more magnets the mag/mA ratio also went up 50%. It makes sense, as you can either increase the magnets or decrease the milliamps to increase the ratio, so the question is how many magnets can I add before I pass the top of the curve?

Again, JB said the (implied) 1.5” spacing on the 16” wheel is optimal, so I’m going to just go with that and leave it at 27 magnets. The next thing to do then is do some runs and see if the new rotor will have significantly better charging with the 50% increase in the mag/mA. That’s the next question I want to answer for myself. What kind of efficiency gain will I see, if any, by having raised the mag/mA ratio by 50%?

Cheers,

Robert

[Prinsloo]

Hi Robert

Good work laddie, good work ! I'm impressed. One question, are your magnets arranged S/Norths or normal magnets?

Maybe do a test with S/Norths then as well and put the whole question of which is better normal and/or scalar-north magnets to bed then as well,