Join us in the search for Free Energy. Share your experiments and discoveries, post your build logs, and discuss.

We have a strict No-Troll policy. So you can post without fear of being ridiculed.

New Members- Check Your Spam Folder For Activation Link

Please read our Rules. Any problems or suggestions- Contact Us

 


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Reversing Lenz Project
I couldn't resist trying it quickly because it was dry..   The iron powder bridgers cog almost equal to the laminates, despite the different sizes / thickness.

The output is again "almost decent"  but not still not enough..  

The output wave with this number of magnets to bridgers is NOT a pure sinewave..  Here's what I know so far..

1.  IF there are 150% of bridgers to magnets, the output was a pure sinewave
2. IF there are 150% of magnets to bridgers, the output is more like a 1 polarity wave (with humps on either end)

And so far, the best results were with configuration #1, where the bridgers outnumbered the magnets by 150%.

A few things are for certain..  We can absolutely get true and full wattage outputs, or even full Amperage outputs.  And the wave / cogging / and drag can be varied and tinkered with, as the magnetic dynamics are completely different from a standard generator..

Before I go much further on rotor design, I want to get longer core bolts and attach a 2nd isolated output coil on 1 bolt, (transformer style)..  I have a feeling that by adding another coil on the bolts, I may be able to take advantage of the mutual induction between both coils to increase output..  We will see
Reply
(01-13-2025, 08:36 AM)Jim Mac Wrote: I couldn't resist trying it quickly because it was dry..   The iron powder bridgers cog almost equal to the laminates, despite the different sizes / thickness.
YOUR COGING CAN BE GREATLY REDUCED BY HAVING ODD AND EVEN ROTOR STATOR.
As one is being attracted another is leaving thus never making a strong sticky/stuck spot.

The Mueller generator did that and with very low Lenz you should have great efficiency.
JUST DO IT.

Norman
Reply
(01-13-2025, 10:22 AM)Norman Wrote:
(01-13-2025, 08:36 AM)Jim Mac Wrote: I couldn't resist trying it quickly because it was dry..   The iron powder bridgers cog almost equal to the laminates, despite the different sizes / thickness.
YOUR COGING CAN BE GREATLY REDUCED BY HAVING ODD AND EVEN ROTOR STATOR.
As one is being attracted another is leaving thus never making a strong sticky/stuck spot.

The Mueller generator did that and with very low Lenz you should have great efficiency.
JUST DO IT.

Norman

I already posted that the number of rotor poles is NOT equal to the number of magnets or coils when I stated this:

Quote:" 1.  IF there are 150% of bridgers to magnets, the output was a pure sinewave
2. IF there are 150% of magnets to bridgers, the output is more like a 1 polarity wave (with humps on either end)"

And keep in mind, I am not rotating the magnets or coils..

Now I desire a nice sinewave out, so I need 150% more bridgers than magnets (based on my last build).  Since I am using 6 magnets, I am next printing a 9 pole rotor..  9 is 150% of 6.

As a side note-  I am NOT seeing any speedup under load..  And honestly I do not expect to..
Reply
The first 9 pole rotor is done printing..  Tonight I will fill it with iron filings / powder and let it dry overnight..  I am predicting this will output a decent sinusoidal waveform... And hopefully with the least cogging yet.

   


I also tried extending a core and adding a second coil outside the rig.  The results are not promising with that technique.  Both coils induce a current when open-circuit.  But shorting the inside coil takes less voltage away from the outside coil.  But I will be trying again once I get a true sinewave, + some other configurations.

When I know more, so hall you!
Reply
It took between 13-14 Ounces of dry Iron Filings..  But it looks like it came out decent...

   

I'll give this till tomorrow morning to dry, and hopefully I can do a quick test in the AM before work..

Till then...
Reply
I tested the new 9 pole rotor...  The cogging is significantly less..  And as predicted, I get a pretty clean Sinewave output.. 

But the drawbacks outweigh the positives..

Even though it spins easier with less cogging, the input power required to drive this rotor is almost Double the current as opposed to the 4 pole rotor.  (I assume because the weight)..  Also the output on the 4 pole rotor is significantly more..

Next I will continue with the 4 pole rotor, but try to alter the dimensions of the bridgers to maximize output while lowering input
Reply
Well I finished and tested the last rotor..  The output is almost a sinewave with jagged peaks.  Cogging is vastly diminished.  But input requirement is more compared to the rotor with the most cogging..  Apparently, cogging is not much of an issue when comparing to power usage...  

Other bad news is the output sucks..  The axial flux design I first made and posted in previous posts in this thread was the clear winner..  

Since I tested 4 different rotor designs, and am not seeing the output numbers I seek- I will keep this setup, but put it aside for the time being..
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)