Motor -Generator loop

[TinMan]

I found the video below interesting.
A generator is concidered to be a loss,in that you have to put more mechanicle energy into it than what you get back in electrical energy.So in the video below,we have an electric motor coupled to a generator. While the generator is disconected and the motor is then disconected from the power source,we can see the run down time is quite quick. But when the generator is looped to the motor input ,and the batteries are disconected from the motor-we get a longer run down time. So how is it by adding a loss to the system,we get a longer run down time from the motor?.

Edit:  This has now turned into a hands on reserch project.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl57y-c_bWc

[e2matrix]

Since it's looping some power back to the motor it seems to make sense.  Even though it's a load it is supplying somevoltage versus no voltage to the run motor so I would expect it to take longer to run down.   At least if I got it right as to what they are doing in the video. 

[evolvingape]

The motor and the generator are basically the same system operating in reverse to each other, they are mirrored, the motor is the driver and the generator is the driven.

When the battery circuit is connected to the motor the electromagnetic field generated in the motor coil causes the magnets to spin the shaft. The motor shaft is connected to the generator shaft which causes the magnets in the generator to spin and induces an electromagnetic field in the generator coil which outputs electricity. I assume that the generator has a built in full bridge rectifier to output DC electricity.

When the battery circuit is disconnected from the motor the generator runs down fast because in addition to the friction from the bearings and air induced drag on the rotor there is also electromagnetic drag in both the generator and the motor (which are directly coupled) caused by the magnets spinning inside the coils.

When the generator is spun up to speed and the DC output from the generator is quickly switched to the motor input the run time is longer. This is because the motor and generator have stored energy in the rotational moment, that energy is compatible with the input required by the motor after conversion to electricity by the generator, and so the energy is recycled around the system. At this point the system runs down slower than before as the flywheel energy (mechanical) is recycled to the motor driver input (electrical). Friction losses and electromagnetic induced drag as the system slows causes it to eventually stop.

This video is actually a very good demonstration of the principles involved and makes it easier to understand why all self running motor/generator claims to date have been scams.

Rob

[TinMan]

.

When the battery circuit is disconnected from the motor the generator runs down fast because in addition to the friction from the bearings and air induced drag on the rotor there is also electromagnetic drag in both the generator and the motor (which are directly coupled) caused by the magnets spinning inside the coils.

When the generator is spun up to speed and the DC output from the generator is quickly switched to the motor input the run time is longer. This is because the motor and generator have stored energy in the rotational moment, that energy is compatible with the input required by the motor after conversion to electricity by the generator, and so the energy is recycled around the system. At this point the system runs down slower than before as the flywheel energy (mechanical) is recycled to the motor driver input (electrical). Friction losses and electromagnetic induced drag as the system slows causes it to eventually stop.

This video is actually a very good demonstration of the principles involved and makes it easier to understand why all self running motor/generator claims to date have been scams.

Rob

Hi Rob
There will be no electromagnetic drag(lenz force) when both the motor and generator are open circuit.The flywheel energy you speak of is there regardless of wether it is turned into electrical energy or not. If we say the generator is 90% efficient,then 100% of stored flywheel energy is converted into 90% electrical energy. This is without taking into account the losses in the motor itself. The bearing and other friction's are also the same regardless of wether the generator is looped or open.
If our motor is 90% efficient and our generator is 90% efficient,we should see a 20% loss(there abouts) in run time when looped-not a gain on top of the friction within the system. This is like saying if i put a trailer behind my car,and get up to 100kph-i will roll further once the engine is turned of to that if i didn't have the trailer on.

[ion]

Tinman quote:

"There will be no electromagnetic drag(lenz force) when both the motor and generator are open circuit"

There are two types of drag, one is due to Lenz force of electrical load on the generator, the other is due to eddy currents induced into a metallic rotor, independent of coils. The two need to be separated out.

The eddy current drag is much less than the Lenz force drag due to loaded coils, however it's effect can be somewhat reduced if the coils are excited. This can explain the longer run time.

[TinMan]

Tinman quote:

There are two types of drag, one is due to Lenz force of electrical load on the generator, the other is due to eddy currents induced into a metallic rotor, independent of coils. The two need to be separated out.

The eddy current drag is much less than the Lenz force drag due to loaded coils, however it's effect can be somewhat reduced if the coils are excited. This can explain the longer run time.

Hi Ion
Yes that is why i stated lenz force drag. I wouldn't have thought that eddy current drag would have been enough to increase the run time that much. Maybe ferrite core's would eliminate most of the eddy current's,but even with today's laminated steel core's ,they have eliminated most of the eddy current's. I have done many test placing a laminated core close to a spinning rotor with magnet's,and noticed very little change in current draw or RPM from the prime mover.
The eddy current drag will also depend on wether or not it is a PM generator,or excited field generator. If it is the latter,then no eddy current drag when open circuit.

[evolvingape]

Hi Tinman, ION,

My apologies, I was not clear enough in my previous post about what I meant when I was talking about electromagnetic induced drag, I meant cogging:

http://www.thingap.com/news/articles/pr052306.htm

Hi Rob
There will be no electromagnetic drag(lenz force) when both the motor and generator are open circuit.The flywheel energy you speak of is there regardless of wether it is turned into electrical energy or not. If we say the generator is 90% efficient,then 100% of stored flywheel energy is converted into 90% electrical energy. This is without taking into account the losses in the motor itself. The bearing and other friction's are also the same regardless of wether the generator is looped or open.
If our motor is 90% efficient and our generator is 90% efficient,we should see a 20% loss(there abouts) in run time when looped-not a gain on top of the friction within the system. This is like saying if i put a trailer behind my car,and get up to 100kph-i will roll further once the engine is turned of to that if i didn't have the trailer on.

Every motor or generator has an efficiency curve, it does not run at 90% efficiency from 0 RPM to max rated RPM (eg. 3600 RPM for a 2 pole motor at 60 Hz), The relationship is not linear.

If our motor is 90% efficient and our generator is 90% efficient,we should see a 20% loss(there abouts) in run time when looped-not a gain on top of the friction within the system.

This sentence in particular is wrong. You have not accounted for the output energy from the generator being a prime mover source for the motor. When looped the input energy driving the system is not 0, when open circuit (disconnected from the battery) it is 0. This is why the run down times are different.

Rob

[TinMan]

Well being as this is oevrunity reserch,i have decided to put together a motor generator loop system. I wish to make it clear that i have no expectations that this will return more than is given,but is more a reserch project into the claims made by many on OU looped system's like this. So i will make the system as efficient as i can,and we will see how close we can get. The first video(below)show's how much you can reduce power draw from a brushed DC motor simply by giving it a good service.

I will be using my old 1943 GenEmotor as the generator,simply because i can control the current output/voltage/RPM ratio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlcjtrEiImA

[evolvingape]

Hi Tinman,

This will be a very worthwhile project for the community if the data is collected correctly. All claimants for OU looped motor generator devices will have to prove that the system they have operates differently to yours and also show the same quality of data collection and analysis. If this is done right I don't think you will see any new claims appearing in this area in the future, unless they are ignorant of your work.

So, my recommendation would be to use a laser tachometer data logging system to record the rotational rate of the shaft. As the motor and generator are coupled in direct drive only one reading is necessary. Laser tachometers can be picked up cheap on ebay but they don't have the data logging function which will be essential. Ideally the laser tachometer will be able to trigger external sensors to record Voltage and Amperage readings, something like this maybe with remote sensors:

http://www.monarchinstrument.com/product.php?ID=24

If we set the circuit to record data at the correct frequency, effectively taking a snapshot of the readings once per revolution, we will be able to accurately plot performance curves for each variable. I think I would go with one laser tachometer on the shaft to record RPM, however frequency considerations will be important as we want to log the RPM once per revolution, so something with a resolution of 60Hz will probably be required for a 3600 RPM motor.

We would then need a method to accurately take Voltage and Amperage readings once per revolution. An opto interrupter would be a good choice as the slot can be aligned on the shaft with the reflective tape from the laser tachometer ensuring readings are taken at the same time. You would need one opto interrupter for the motor and one for the generator, so two in total. Now you just need a circuit to log the data as it is collected, maybe some of the electrical people around here can help with that ?

As the data collection points are synchronised on the shaft the data collected can then be superimposed on the same graph as the time base is set by start up and shut down of the system, 0 RPM in both cases. If this is done correctly you will put the motor / generator OU scam artists out of business permanently!

Rob

[EMdevices]

Nice work tinman, you inspire me to search for my electric motors and generator that I have packed away in some boxes.  Rob makes a good point, you should measure the rpm, the emf depends on it, and so do losses.

I would also suggest a flexible shaft coupler, it will relax the shaft alignment tolerance.  you can probably build your own if you have a machine shop.

Once you get all done, there is more fun to be had, regardless of the outcome.  I'm speaking about building an efficient pulsed motor drive, like Ismail Aviso.  A motor/gen system was quite a common sight early 1900' , now in the age of electronics we instantly jump to the conclusion that somebody is trying to achieve over unity, but that wasn't the purpose at all.  They were used as DC to AC converters and a whole lot more, even as high frequency amplifiers, lots of patents out there.  It's an era that's gone by due to constant advances in power semiconductors.

EM

[TinMan]

Nice work tinman, you inspire me to search for my electric motors and generator that I have packed away in some boxes.  Rob makes a good point, you should measure the rpm, the emf depends on it, and so do losses.

I would also suggest a flexible shaft coupler, it will relax the shaft alignment tolerance.  you can probably build your own if you have a machine shop.

Once you get all done, there is more fun to be had, regardless of the outcome.  I'm speaking about building an efficient pulsed motor drive, like Ismail Aviso.  A motor/gen system was quite a common sight early 1900' , now in the age of electronics we instantly jump to the conclusion that somebody is trying to achieve over unity, but that wasn't the purpose at all.  They were used as DC to AC converters and a whole lot more, even as high frequency amplifiers, lots of patents out there.  It's an era that's gone by due to constant advances in power semiconductors.

EM

Hi EM
There is no need for a soft couple,as it is a direct couple generator-motor shaft carries the rotor for the generator.
We still use poly phase inverters over here to convert 440v single phase into 450 3 phase,mostly on farm's where 3 phase is not available. I would guess that we will get maybe 50 to 55% back from the generator from what we are putting into the motor. It will be interesting to see how the 70 year old generator performs compaired to today's generators..

[TinMan]

In the video below,i am just showing the progress so far.The generator housing is bolted up,and the motor shaft extended with taper machined for the rotor.I have also shimmed the stator coils so as we have only about .5mm gap between the rotor and stator coil's-as apposed to the 2mm gap from factory.
Now it is just a case of reassembling the generator,and making a test bed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijkI92kmk68

[TinMan]

The video below is the first run of our looped system project. I am a bit supprised with the outcome and the result's so far-can you see why?.I will be trying many things with this setup,and what makes this even better is that the generator itself also has a leg so as it can be used as an electric motor itself. This was to start the gas engine that it use to be coupled to.
Nothing like old school stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30t9LTTh-rk

[EMdevices]

vey nice,  we're seeing the ol' popular higher speed under load phenomena, due to the effects of hysteresis losses being minimized when the load is added and current flows.

Can you measure the output power as well? and make a chart of in vs out?

EM

[TinMan]

Hi EM
I will do,but no one is going to believe it lol.Still trying to work this one out myself befor i go posting to much.I need to be able to lift the resistance up on the exciter field's some how?,as i dont have any resistors that can handle that sort of power.The higher i lift the resistance on the exciter winding's,the less amp's the prime mover draw's-and the more power i get out of the generator. This seems to be opposite to the way it should work??,so this is why i am taking my time on this one. For something that was suppose to be a straight forward project,it has already taken a backflip.But i suspect there is a simple answer in there some where of why things seem to be opposite to what they should be.

[Farmhand]

I get a longer run down times with my pulse motor from just having two generator coils with cores placed at the rotor, connected to capacitors through FWBR's, no load (other than that, load disconnected). Also acceleration under short circuit. Neither is a big deal because neither produces any extra energy. But the run down time with the generator coils in place is much longer than when they are removed altogether.  I think I've determined the Moment of Inertia of my rotor by both calculation from the rotor dimensions and by experiment via the drop method that MileHigh detailed. They annoyed me and so I am annoying them back now. They would not confirm my calculation so I am peeved. Whats the point to learning a new thing if the people showing me won't confirm my result or say it's wrong. Both methods concur so I am going to assume I calculated correctly. I'll repeatedly ask them silly questions now for annoying me, until they ignore me. I'm tired of being misunderstood and misrepresented. Frankly I'm disappointed by the more educated folks and where they focus their attention and efforts. Most seem to like only to talk and tell the average experimenter how they are misunderstanding things but they are not so smart, to me they seem to ego strokers. They've taken up a lot of my time and showed me nothing but a few formula's and the dropping weight method of determining the MoI of the rotor. Other than that I got a lot of misunderstanding and what seems like deliberate misunderstanding and misrepresenting of what I say.

Anyway it looks good at 2200 RPM the rotor would appear to have about 26 Joules of energy and I can get that with 7.8 Watts input while powering other loads (generator coils with loads) as well as using load switching with a 90000 uF cap bank that receives the coil discharge energy. It can discharge a several joules per pulse and cause pulsations of over 2 amperes. With the fan on the shaft the speed is reduced for the input because of the lower speed but the work done is significant for the input used, and I;ll bet the motor as a whole can be over 90 % efficient, I say so because of the lack of heat and the obvious work done, but I am working towards a valid efficiency figure. Please nobody misunderstand me or misrepresent me on the 36 joules and the 7.8 Watts I am not saying that is OU or anything, I'm just saying what the figures are or would seem to be from my investigations. Usually if I post something like that someone like ex. will coma along and accuse me of claiming OU or just tell me that it's not OU out of the blue, because people have OU on the brain. And yet no one has shown any yet.

My motor does output free energy though. All of the output is free energy. And that is because all of the input is free energy so the output is free as well. It's very easy to do.  

I still need to collect more data to determine the total efficiency of the motor but I'm getting closer.

The efficiency depends a lot on how the motor is used.

Tinman are you noticing any extra energy ?

One thing I am considering is that if more of the more educated folks don't start to take on the false and fake higher level "OU" claims. I am gonna start to show a few implied results myself and refuse to discuss it.
May as well join in the fun. 

Cheers

[PhysicsProf]

I get a longer run down times with my pulse motor from just having two generator coils with cores placed at the rotor, connected to capacitors through FWBR's, no load (other than that, load disconnected). Also acceleration under short circuit. Neither is a big deal because neither produces any extra energy. But the run down time with the generator coils in place is much longer than when they are removed altogether.  I think I've determined the Moment of Inertia of my rotor by both calculation from the rotor dimensions and by experiment via the drop method that MileHigh detailed. They annoyed me and so I am annoying them back now. They would not confirm my calculation so I am peeved. Whats the point to learning a new thing if the people showing me won't confirm my result or say it's wrong. Both methods concur so I am going to assume I calculated correctly.

I'll repeatedly ask them silly questions now for annoying me, until they ignore me. I'm tired of being misunderstood and misrepresented. Frankly I'm disappointed by the more educated folks and where they focus their attention and efforts. Most seem to like only to talk and tell the average experimenter how they are misunderstanding things but they are not so smart, to me they seem to ego strokers. They've taken up a lot of my time and showed me nothing but a few formula's and the dropping weight method of determining the MoI of the rotor. Other than that I got a lot of misunderstanding and what seems like deliberate misunderstanding and misrepresenting of what I say.

Who are "THEY"?  and which forum?

Anyway it looks good at 2200 RPM the rotor would appear to have about 26 Joules of energy and I can get that with 7.8 Watts input while powering other loads (generator coils with loads) as well as using load switching with a 90000 uF cap bank that receives the coil discharge energy. It can discharge a several joules per pulse and cause pulsations of over 2 amperes. With the fan on the shaft the speed is reduced for the input because of the lower speed but the work done is significant for the input used, and I;ll bet the motor as a whole can be over 90 % efficient, I say so because of the lack of heat and the obvious work done, but I am working towards a valid efficiency figure. Please nobody misunderstand me or misrepresent me on the 36 joules and the 7.8 Watts I am not saying that is OU or anything, I'm just saying what the figures are or would seem to be from my investigations. Usually if I post something like that someone like ex. will coma along and accuse me of claiming OU or just tell me that it's not OU out of the blue, because people have OU on the brain. And yet no one has shown any yet.

My motor does output free energy though. All of the output is free energy. And that is because all of the input is free energy so the output is free as well. It's very easy to do.  

I still need to collect more data to determine the total efficiency of the motor but I'm getting closer.

The efficiency depends a lot on how the motor is used.

Tinman are you noticing any extra energy ?

One thing I am considering is that if more of the more educated folks don't start to take on the false and fake higher level "OU" claims. I am gonna start to show a few implied results myself and refuse to discuss it.
May as well join in the fun. 

Cheers

Wow.  Seems like you're determined in your announced role, Farmhand. 

I find that people are being more careful in their claims in general; perhaps a self-runner is the best to be sure of results, and I have used calorimetry in a number of tests which I think is a solid method for measuring output power.

[muDped]

Who are "THEY"?  and which forum?

I believe FarmHand was making reference to
this discussion.

This one is interesting too.

Those links are for pages with the most recent
postings.

[TinMan]

I get a longer run down times with my pulse motor from just having two generator coils with cores placed at the rotor, connected to capacitors through FWBR's, no load (other than that, load disconnected). Also acceleration under short circuit. Neither is a big deal because neither produces any extra energy. But the run down time with the generator coils in place is much longer than when they are removed altogether.  I think I've determined the Moment of Inertia of my rotor by both calculation from the rotor dimensions and by experiment via the drop method that MileHigh detailed. They annoyed me and so I am annoying them back now. They would not confirm my calculation so I am peeved. Whats the point to learning a new thing if the people showing me won't confirm my result or say it's wrong. Both methods concur so I am going to assume I calculated correctly. I'll repeatedly ask them silly questions now for annoying me, until they ignore me. I'm tired of being misunderstood and misrepresented. Frankly I'm disappointed by the more educated folks and where they focus their attention and efforts. Most seem to like only to talk and tell the average experimenter how they are misunderstanding things but they are not so smart, to me they seem to ego strokers. They've taken up a lot of my time and showed me nothing but a few formula's and the dropping weight method of determining the MoI of the rotor. Other than that I got a lot of misunderstanding and what seems like deliberate misunderstanding and misrepresenting of what I say.

Anyway it looks good at 2200 RPM the rotor would appear to have about 26 Joules of energy and I can get that with 7.8 Watts input while powering other loads (generator coils with loads) as well as using load switching with a 90000 uF cap bank that receives the coil discharge energy. It can discharge a several joules per pulse and cause pulsations of over 2 amperes. With the fan on the shaft the speed is reduced for the input because of the lower speed but the work done is significant for the input used, and I;ll bet the motor as a whole can be over 90 % efficient, I say so because of the lack of heat and the obvious work done, but I am working towards a valid efficiency figure. Please nobody misunderstand me or misrepresent me on the 36 joules and the 7.8 Watts I am not saying that is OU or anything, I'm just saying what the figures are or would seem to be from my investigations. Usually if I post something like that someone like ex. will coma along and accuse me of claiming OU or just tell me that it's not OU out of the blue, because people have OU on the brain. And yet no one has shown any yet.

My motor does output free energy though. All of the output is free energy. And that is because all of the input is free energy so the output is free as well. It's very easy to do.  

I still need to collect more data to determine the total efficiency of the motor but I'm getting closer.

The efficiency depends a lot on how the motor is used.

Tinman are you noticing any extra energy ?

One thing I am considering is that if more of the more educated folks don't start to take on the false and fake higher level "OU" claims. I am gonna start to show a few implied results myself and refuse to discuss it.
May as well join in the fun. 

Cheers

Hi FarmHand
Well maybe your on the wrong forum?,as i have had nothing but help here on OUR. Both Ion and Poynt have spent there own time helping me out with a few thing's on skype,like power supply builds and working out how to get the math function to work on my new Atten scope (still trying on that one). And as much as we don't like to say it,people like MH and Ex are much needed people. Ex isn't here any more,but he was sure needed to keep some on the straight and narrow. I think we just don't like to hear from people like MH and Ex,because there normally right-wich makes us wrong. So our once fantastic machine just became nothing out of the ordinary.

As far as an OU device go's-well there isn't any such thing as OU,as you cannot create energy-it has to come from some where.The so called OU device will only be called an OU device until the energy source is found. It then becomes another solar panel situation or free energy device-in that we don't have to pay for the energy supplied to the device,or the energy we pull from the device. Now a self runner(in the true sense of the meaning)would be something for sure,as a self runner supplies it's own energy-and not from an outside source. I believe that there is only on device that could ever be a true self runner,and that device would have to have permanent magnets. Many say that PM's cant do useful work,but i say they can. Take a DC PM motor and replace the PM's with iron or any other magnetic material,and see how useful your motor is then. Try and find any other material or device that can be substituted for a PM in a DC motor,that doesn't require any more P/in to obtain the same rotational force as when the PM's are used. This can only mean that the PM's are the source of the extra energy. No one to date has been able to figure out as to how to arrange the PM's in a way as to create a continual rotational force. But it will only take one,and it will be a game changer for the world as we know it.

As far as this experiment go's,well it was just suppose to be a research project that was simple. But already there seems to be something wrong with the measurement's I'm seeing,so it now requires a more in depth look before i make any conclusions. I suspect a simple error is being made some where,and today i will try and find what that error is. The motor is 16 years old,and the generator is 70 years old-so there should be large losses with this setup. But insted i see that the losses are very small from the testing i have done so far. So now i will spend the time making a test bed where everything is set out very clearly,and see if i can find out what is going on . Until then,i can only show what i see.

[PhysicsProf]

Tinman:

As far as an OU device go's-well there isn't any such thing as OU,as you cannot create energy-it has to come from some where.The so called OU device will only be called an OU device until the energy source is found.

Agreed -- as I have said numerous times in the past also, but it's worth repeating! 

So now i will spend the time making a test bed where everything is set out very clearly,and see if i can find out what is going on . Until then,i can only show what i see.

Just the right thing to do!  Good work, my friend.

[PhysicsProf]

   Thanks, Dumped. 

Latest motor by Lidmotor uses the DadHav circuit.  "OU" not claimed, of course.

http://youtu.be/XHGQZucIMl8

[GibbsHelmholtz]

I have another explanation for the power reduction under load effect besides core loss.  However, until measurement confirm, this remains occult. lol  But if one recall the Lewin experiment where he lift a resistive ring with AC due to residue inductance, one may gain some insight. 

[Allcanadian]

@tinman
That is an interesting video however I think the most important point to remember is that under ideal conditions the unloaded motor should be pulling near zero power. I may be biased in this respect because I was testing pulse motors with magnetic bearings where no load power draw was a primary concern. In fact a motor with magnetic bearings can remain in motion(free wheeling) for over an hour after the power has been switched off and requires almost no power on idle. As such my first reaction was shock as to how in the heck an unloaded motor could possibly be pulling four amps when it wasn't actually doing anything.

If I was testing this apparatus I would try to establish a new baseline for the motor and if it can run at under two amps under load then it can do the same under no load. Then we start tweaking efficiency from that point until we find the sweet spot. A means to adjust the brushes on both the motor and generator on the fly would help.

In any case I have built many motor/generators and found it was always best to integrate the two into one unit. The Adam's motor/generator was a neat project and I learned more from testing my little unit than I ever did from a textbook.

Best of luck
AC

[TinMan]

@tinman
That is an interesting video however I think the most important point to remember is that under ideal conditions the unloaded motor should be pulling near zero power. I may be biased in this respect because I was testing pulse motors with magnetic bearings where no load power draw was a primary concern. In fact a motor with magnetic bearings can remain in motion(free wheeling) for over an hour after the power has been switched off and requires almost no power on idle. As such my first reaction was shock as to how in the heck an unloaded motor could possibly be pulling four amps when it wasn't actually doing anything.

If I was testing this apparatus I would try to establish a new baseline for the motor and if it can run at under two amps under load then it can do the same under no load. Then we start tweaking efficiency from that point until we find the sweet spot. A means to adjust the brushes on both the motor and generator on the fly would help.

In any case I have built many motor/generators and found it was always best to integrate the two into one unit. The Adam's motor/generator was a neat project and I learned more from testing my little unit than I ever did from a textbook.

Best of luck
AC

Hi AC
You are talking about two different types of motor's. You wont get a brushed motor of this type (or any) that wont draw a bit of current when unloaded. How much depends on many thing's-like brush width,armature segment width,RPM's and of course winding configuration-size of wire and resistance.
I have also built maglev pulse motor's,and had one run on a 1000uf cap for over 2 hour's.With the use of a transistor,and no friction(or very little)you don't need much of a pulse to keep it spinning. But with a large brushed motor having 4 brushes and large bearing's,you will always draw a certain amount of current to keep it going.

You will notice in my video's that i managed to decrease the unloaded current draw by more that 50%. That's about as good as it gets with a motor like that.
If it were a brushless motor,we could do a little better-but an unloaded motor isn't going to do us any good.With all motors,the current draw will go up as a load is applied.

[Allcanadian]

@tinman

You are talking about two different types of motor's. You wont get a brushed motor of this type (or any) that wont draw a bit of current when unloaded. How much depends on many thing's-like brush width,armature segment width,RPM's and of course winding configuration-size of wire and resistance.

I would agree however four amps is not a "bit" four amps unloaded for that motor is absurd. As well there are things we can do to improve efficiency like using lapping compound to loosen tight bearings then washing them out and using a light synthetic oil so they run perfectly free. The brushes can be very loose and one half the width so they cover less than one half a segment. Then diodes, zener diodes, capacitors or NE2 neon's can be soldered across the commutator segments to solve the sparking issue completely. At this point timing is not dictated by brush sparking which is absurd, why not just solve the issue once and for all?.

You will notice in my video's that i managed to decrease the unloaded current draw by more that 50%. That's about as good as it gets with a motor like that.

I understand your point however a 50% decrease in an extremely large unloaded power draw is still excessive in my opinion. It is like saying that man threw a hand grenade at that person but thankfully it was only half a hand grenade so he was only one half dead.

AC