PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-10-23, 16:32:31
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Author Topic: The Non-Sense Pulse Motor.  (Read 83462 times)

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1501
Ok here's a draft of my rotor for the poles to screw into. I have not printed this yet. The learning curve was long for me to work out how to place threaded holes evenly in a 3D disc. The axle hole was designed for my 6mm ex Fax machine axle. I wanted a snug fit. The size is easily changed in in tinkercad using the Tire parameters. https://www.tinkercad.com/things/3lMv1XNqPID-non-sense-rotor-25mm
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1501
@JimBoot
I have been using a Robo 3D and design on Solid Works. I have never been able to edit an .stl with it. Might be good to upload the dwg file if you are ok with edits.
By the way, DO NOT GET THIS PRINTER. Support is nonexistent and am sure I received a refurb for a new one. Case broke in transit and will not even talk to me. I am ordering a new one, Creality CR-10S to replace it.



I've only done around 45 projects in tinkercad so I am green. It will only allow export of svg, stl or obj files. But you cand edit direct in tinkercad. I have not used solidworks but I believe it's the ducks nuts. https://www.tinkercad.com/things/iDOajWO2B2y-non-sense-rotor-poles-20mm
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
Hi Brad,

I did put together the test circuit like you have shown.  My test coil is NOT exactly the same as yours.  When you posted you thought we should probably cut a slit down the side of the pipe I had already finished my coil.  So my pipe does not have a slit down the side to prevent it from acting like a shorted turn.  When I did some tests to see how much current it would take to neutralize the magnetic attraction it took several amps.  I am thinking now it is because of the pipe not having the slit cut in it.  So I rewound the coil with 275 feet of wire.  By the way 200 turns comes out to be 51 feet of wire if you wind it on the pipe of the size you recommended.  So I have increased the length of the wire by a factor of over 5 times.    You can clarify that if you wish.  Anyway I am now planning to make a new coil with the split in the side of the iron pipe and the correct number of turns of wire.

Okay, now for some test results.  I have not had time to take pictures or a video of what I did but hopefully anyone that has been following your tests will understand my results.

I connected my scope leads just as you have shown in your schematic.  I was using my Rigol DS1102E.  Channel one across the supply and channel 2 first across CR1 and then across CR2.  I did not bother to use the math functions for two reasons.  I haven't learned how yet.  LOL And since channel one across the supply never changed I realized all I needed to do was look at what I could see on channel 2.

I measured both CR1 and CR2 with a precision meter for measuring ohms into the milliohm range.  Neither of my resistors were rated as precision resistors but amazing they both measured the same at 10.18 ohms.

Since my coil has a lot more wire on it I had to tune the function generator to find the sweet spot for the frequency.  I kept the pulse width at the 5% you recommended.  I found the best transfer of energy to the second cap to be when my frequency was 22khz.

I measured the voltage across CR1 and CR2 a couple of ways and got some strange results.  When I measured the RMS values I got 1.44 volts across CR1 and 1.88 volts across CR2.  I was using a regulated power supply set to 9.02 volts instead of a battery as I wanted to keep the input power steady.  I believe these results are similar to what you were getting with a higher RMS value across CR2 than across CR1.

However what seems really strange is that my scope showed the average voltage across the resistors to be the opposite with the drop across CR1 being 550 mv and the average across CR2 being 235 mv.  Of course the much lower value for the average voltage across the resistors is because of the very short on time of the pulses.  But why the average value shows the opposite of the RMS value is something someone much smarter than me will have to figure out. 

Take care,
Carroll

Hi Carroll

I only operate in a frequency range between 50 and 100 Hz.
This is around the frequency we can obtain from the RPM of our rotor,with the 4 to 6 pulses per revolution.

Quote
Maybe you can do the test again and see what you scope shows for the average value of voltage drop across the resistors.

Yes,did that some posts back,but i have attached the results below.
As you can see,my average voltage across CVR 2 is also close to double to that of CVR1
Confirmation this is correct is--CVR2s temperature is around 5*C hotter than CVR1

Quote
I now believe you probably wanted the shorter wire so that you could hit the coil with a very short high amperage pulse.

Yes,high current ,short pulses for several reasons--
1-low I/R losses
2-will run fine on low voltages
3-produces a strong magnetic field to both pust the rotor magnet away,and induce rotor coil with strong magnetic field.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 41
Hey Jim:
   Every link you gave just sends me to AutoDesk instead of a d/l. Just me?
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
Ok,lets see this one explained away.

I spent most of last night thinking (instead of sleeping)about how i could go about proving this another way.
It then hit me-->show in a physical way that there is more energy flowing through CVR2 than there is flowing through CVR1.

So here is what i did--
I removed both CVRs,and replaced each with a capacitor/DC motor combo.
Both caps,motors,and props are identical,and i have swapped each around to make sure the results are the same.

Even though we can see the results physically,i also placed my scope across each cap,so as we could see the average voltage across each motor/cap combo.

The only possible way one motor can start up before the other,is if more current is flowing through it,resulting in more power being delivered to it.

Take a good look at the circuit.
The source is not in series with the inductor,it is in parallel with C1.
This means that the source supplies the energy to C1,which supplies the energy to the circuit.
The voltage across the coil is the voltage across C1,minus V/drop across CVR2 during the on time.

Below is the circuit and scope probe placements.

And the video of the visual test  O0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSODFYCqQH8


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1501
Hey Jim:
   Every link you gave just sends me to AutoDesk instead of a d/l. Just me?

Ok yeah - that's if you want to edit it with their software. It's where I created it. I'm not sure how to give you a downloadable editable file with all the component parts.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1501
Ok,lets see this one explained away.

I spent most of last night thinking (instead of sleeping)about how i could go about proving this another way.
It then hit me-->show in a physical way that there is more energy flowing through CVR2 than there is flowing through CVR1.

So here is what i did--
I removed both CVRs,and replaced each with a capacitor/DC motor combo.
Both caps,motors,and props are identical,and i have swapped each around to make sure the results are the same.

Even though we can see the results physically,i also placed my scope across each cap,so as we could see the average voltage across each motor/cap combo.

The only possible way one motor can start up before the other,is if more current is flowing through it,resulting in more power being delivered to it.

Take a good look at the circuit.
The source is not in series with the inductor,it is in parallel with C1.
This means that the source supplies the energy to C1,which supplies the energy to the circuit.
The voltage across the coil is the voltage across C1,minus V/drop across CVR2 during the on time.

Below is the circuit and scope probe placements.

And the video of the visual test  O0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSODFYCqQH8


Brad

Great video Brad.  O0
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1501
I've just designed this solid spool in Tinkercad . I'll be printing it in iron PLA (minus the keepers) to use as my iron core coil.  It's dimensions are easily adjustable in tinkercad. https://www.tinkercad.com/things/arwolzR7kv8-solid-spool
« Last Edit: 2019-01-09, 11:40:36 by JimBoot »
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
I've just designed this solid spool in Tinkercad . I'll be printing it in iron PLA to use as my iron core coil.  It's dimensions are easily adjustable in tinkercad. https://www.tinkercad.com/things/arwolzR7kv8-solid-spool

What is the solid spool for?
And you do not want the two ends to be magnetic.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1501
What is the solid spool for?
And you do not want the two ends to be magnetic.


Brad
- Yeah thought you'd say that. You can edit the keepers out and have a nicely flared core, then simply glue some keepers on. I'm also always looking for spools, so at least now I can print one in whatever material I choose. Post edited.
« Last Edit: 2019-01-09, 11:41:04 by JimBoot »
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
I've just designed this solid spool in Tinkercad . I'll be printing it in iron PLA (minus the keepers) to use as my iron core coil.  It's dimensions are easily adjustable in tinkercad. https://www.tinkercad.com/things/arwolzR7kv8-solid-spool

What is the iron cored coil for?  ???


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1501
What is the iron cored coil for?  ???


Brad
sorry just for experimentation not for actual motor
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2377


Buy me a beer
Ok,lets see this one explained away.

I spent most of last night thinking (instead of sleeping)about how i could go about proving this another way.
It then hit me-->show in a physical way that there is more energy flowing through CVR2 than there is flowing through CVR1.

So here is what i did--
I removed both CVRs,and replaced each with a capacitor/DC motor combo.
Both caps,motors,and props are identical,and i have swapped each around to make sure the results are the same.

Even though we can see the results physically,i also placed my scope across each cap,so as we could see the average voltage across each motor/cap combo.

The only possible way one motor can start up before the other,is if more current is flowing through it,resulting in more power being delivered to it.

Take a good look at the circuit.
The source is not in series with the inductor,it is in parallel with C1.
This means that the source supplies the energy to C1,which supplies the energy to the circuit.
The voltage across the coil is the voltage across C1,minus V/drop across CVR2 during the on time.

Below is the circuit and scope probe placements.

And the video of the visual test  O0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSODFYCqQH8


Brad

Ha now I see what you are getting at.

There is a time difference on your measurements, CVR1 is 95% on to charge the C1 and 5% on through the CVR2 when the transistor is on. The thing is when the transistor is on power is also coming from the C1 at a higher current, as you know caps give up current near instantly, this adds to the current from the supply. So you need to put the CVR2 between the C1 negative and the ground connection so as to measure the power from the cap C1 via CVR2, and the power from the supply via CVR1.

I think I have that right

Regards

Mike 8)

PS the other post I made was looking at another part of it which does seem an anomaly ;)

Corrected the cap polarity


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
Ha now I see what you are getting at.

There is a time difference on your measurements, CVR1 is 95% on to charge the C1 and 5% on through the CVR2 when the transistor is on. The thing is when the transistor is on power is also coming from the C1 at a higher current, as you know caps give up current near instantly, this adds to the current from the supply. So you need to put the CVR2 between the C1 positive and the ground connection so as to measure the power from the cap C1 via CVR2, and the power from the supply via CVR1.

I think I have that right

Regards

Mike 8)

PS the other post I made was looking at another part of it which does seem an anomaly ;)

Err--so you want to put CVR2 from positive of C1(which is also the positive of the supply),to ground,which is the negative of the power supply--> ???

At 12 volts,and the CVR being 1 ohm,that would result in 12 amps flowing through CVR2 continuously.
I think you have something mixed up there Mike  :D


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2377


Buy me a beer
Err--so you want to put CVR2 from positive of C1(which is also the positive of the supply),to ground,which is the negative of the power supply--> ???

At 12 volts,and the CVR being 1 ohm,that would result in 12 amps flowing through CVR2 continuously.
I think you have something mixed up there Mike  :D


Brad

Sorry Brad, I corrected my mistake, it is the negative of the c1 cap to ground :-[


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
Sorry Brad, I corrected my mistake, it is the negative of the c1 cap to ground :-[

But CVR1 is from the negative of the cap to ground.
See circuit below.
CVR1 measures input current from source.
CVR2 measures current flowing through the coil.

Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 928
Hi Brad,

Do you plan to remove the permanent magnet from the coil so that you are left with the iron sleeve as the core? I believe that would be a step forward to find out where the 'extra' the measurements show comes from.

Or go on the direction to utilize the 'extra' in the 2nd coil's output you kindly showed as a much longer time duration than the input pulse width was.  Of course it is possible that if the 2nd coil is moving and not stationary, then thing change either for worse or better. 
Just thinking loudly, I do not mean to direct you in any way. 

Thanks for sharing.
Gyula
 
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
Well it would seem i made a mistake--i think.

After looking at my own circuit,it appears to me that C1 is not receiving any of the inductive kickback energy-->unless some how current can still flow through the transistor when it is open ?

If we look at the circuit,when the transistor is open,then the inductive kickback current can only flow through the coil/cap/LED loop,as depicted by the red arrows.

So,this brings even more confusion-->where is the extra current coming from that is flowing through CVR2 ?

As i did not get a definitive answer on how to correctly calculate the power measurements using the scope,i went on the hunt for a thread that covered this very thing.

I found this one by Poynt,but Smudge's post seem to make the most sense to me

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=704.0

Quote Smudge :For simple continuous waveforms we don't need to take samples and do the math, there are standard values relating peak or peak-to-peak to rms and we use those.  But modern digital 'scopes can do math and they do not use those simple values, they calculate it properly from the train of samples so they can give correct rms values for arbitrary waveforms.  But there is a catch here, the averaging has to be done over an integral number of cycles else the result is wrong.  For a continuous waveform where the samples just keep coming the 'scope math averaging effectively takes place over many many cycles so the error for not using an integral number becomes insignificant.  But this is not so for single shot or a small number of cycles, so there you need care in using the scope.  Some scopes allow you to set cursors to select integral cycles.

Some scopes can multiply the voltage and current waveforms to display the power waveform.  Its "DC" value is the average.  But again the average must be taken over an integral number of cycles.  Just because scopes can give you rms or mean there appears to be confusion over the use of the rms function applied to the power waveform.  For us engineers this has no real meaning and is useless.  It should not be used.  In the electrical world the RMS function gives you an effective DC value for the power capability of a voltage or current waveform and the M stands for Mean.  That is the Mean of a power waveform, not the RMS of a power waveform.


Ok,so if i understand this correctly,then CH1(voltage) and CH2(current) are multiplied together using there RMS values.
The math function must then be set to display the average value(not the RMS value)of that multiplication result,and this is our DC value of power--is that correct?.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
Hi Brad,

Do you plan to remove the permanent magnet from the coil so that you are left with the iron sleeve as the core? I believe that would be a step forward to find out where the 'extra' the measurements show comes from.

Or go on the direction to utilize the 'extra' in the 2nd coil's output you kindly showed as a much longer time duration than the input pulse width was.  Of course it is possible that if the 2nd coil is moving and not stationary, then thing change either for worse or better. 
Just thinking loudly, I do not mean to direct you in any way. 

Thanks for sharing.
Gyula

I believe that with the moving magnet/coil on the rotor,the effect will be amplified some what due to the motion of the rotor magnets. We will see a generating effect as the rotor coil/magnet approaches the drive coil/magnet combo. This we dont have ATM,due to there being no motion of the fixed second coil.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
Hi Brad,

Do you plan to remove the permanent magnet from the coil so that you are left with the iron sleeve as the core? I believe that would be a step forward to find out where the 'extra' the measurements show comes from.



Thanks for sharing.
Gyula

My magnets are glued in,but i should be able to get them out,as not glued in that well.
I will give that a try,and see what happens  O0


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 928

...
Ok,so if i understand this correctly,then CH1(voltage) and CH2(current) are multiplied together using there RMS values.
The math function must then be set to display the average value(not the RMS value)of that multiplication result,and this is our DC value of power--is that correct?.


Brad

Yes it sounds correct but it is a question if a scope has such feature to choose that.  And add to that the use of the integral number of cycles, assigned even between vertical cursors if needed.

Gyula

EDIT:  Thanks for the other reply you posted in the meantime a minute ago.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
Yes it sounds correct but it is a question if a scope has such feature to choose that.  And add to that the use of the integral number of cycles, assigned even between vertical cursors if needed.

Gyula

EDIT:  Thanks for the other reply you posted in the meantime a minute ago.

Well after reading this thread,im even more confused
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=786.25

To quote poynt
Using a ~3kHz square wave (~50% duty) drive from a 555 circuit (more or less the original Ainslie circuit built using Groundloop's PCB), I was able to confirm what the Pin measurement was with ~15VDC supply input through the switching circuitry on a 10 Ohm inductive resistor.

The 100W load resistor got up to about 64ÂșC, and the measured Pin's using 4 different methods were as follows:

1) PSU meters: 0.68A x 15.2V = 10.3W
2) Scope:  MEAN[vbat(t) x 4icsr(t)] (4i to account for the 0.25 Ohm CSR) = 9.88W
3) Scope: MEAN[vbat(t)] x MEAN[4icsr(t)] = 9.91W
4) DMM: 15.18VDC x 158.2mVDC(Vcsr) x 4 = 9.6W

No external filtering was used for the DMM measurement, and the signals were fairly "clean" with little ringing. So far, so good.


This is the confusing part-->
2) Scope:  MEAN[vbat(t) x 4icsr(t)] (4i to account for the 0.25 Ohm CSR) = 9.88W
3) Scope: MEAN[vbat(t)] x MEAN[4icsr(t)] = 9.91W


Mean is average-right?,as my scope only has average,and not mean.
Now,im sure Poynt told me that you do not average both voltage and current to get power measurements.
Is it not suppose to be max voltage x average current,or max current by average voltage to get power?
Im sure you do not average out both values to get your real power value  ???

Poynt says,using the scope,we multiply the average(mean) voltage by the average(mean) current to get the real power value.

If anyone could clear this measuring with scope mess up,that would be great  O0.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3205

Brad,

just use CH1 x CH2 for your scope (it does not matter how you display those 2 signals (rms, average, p2p) as
the scope Math function does it its own thing with them (like Partzman said:  "every instantaneous value of
voltage v and current i must be sampled and multiplied together with each product stored in a table etc.).

The important thing is to have the output (power) in average (not rms as you now have it).
You then have the average output power.

Itsu
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1502
Well after reading this thread,im even more confused
This is the confusing part-->
2) Scope:  MEAN[vbat(t) x 4icsr(t)] (4i to account for the 0.25 Ohm CSR) = 9.88W
3) Scope: MEAN[vbat(t)] x MEAN[4icsr(t)] = 9.91W


Mean is average-right?,as my scope only has average,and not mean.
Now,im sure Poynt told me that you do not average both voltage and current to get power measurements.
Is it not suppose to be max voltage x average current,or max current by average voltage to get power?
Im sure you do not average out both values to get your real power value  ???

Poynt says,using the scope,we multiply the average(mean) voltage by the average(mean) current to get the real power value.

If anyone could clear this measuring with scope mess up,that would be great  O0.


Brad
If you have a 50% duty cycle square wave from a switching circuit ito is OK to use the average value of current multiplied by the DC supply voltage. That is a particular case and the protocol does not apply to other cases.  Of course to tell the scope to use the DC voltage you can ask it to smooth out any ripple by demanding the average value be used.  I would say just do as pm or itsu said and just multiply the two channels to get the power waveform then ask for the average (mean) value of that power waveform over full cycles.  That works for any waveform and any duty cycle.
Smudge
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2377


Buy me a beer
But CVR1 is from the negative of the cap to ground.
See circuit below.
CVR1 measures input current from source.
CVR2 measures current flowing through the coil.

Brad

Like I have altered below.

How you have it CVR1 is measuring to C1 when you have a low duty cycle, as you increase the duty it will start to measure to the coil as well because the C1 can't supply sufficient.
When it is a short duty the power comes just from the C1, C1 gets charged when the transistor is off and not supplying to the coil.

As I have said, it is a timing (duty cycle) problem. If you move CVR2 to the new position then it will read what is coming from C1 "only".

As you increase the duty cycle, C1 will not be able to supply enough current, the voltage will drop and more will be taken direct from the source to charge the coil.
The new position of CVR2 will be able to measure what goes in and out of C1, and as you change the duty you will see the difference.

Going back to my first post, what was interesting for me was the L1 and magnet (they do not charge C1), they charge C2. C2 can't be charged directly from the source as you have it wired. So all the charge in C2 comes from the coil and magnet setup.

What seems to be happening is that the PM field is being compressed, and then released, which then generates a current greater than what was used to compress the field in the first place by the coil, hence my reference to spring, compress and release. But here the release is two fold, the coil + the added field change of the magnet on the coil.

Now you need to measure all the energy to the load (LED)

Regards

Mike 8)


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-10-23, 16:32:31