PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-27, 22:52:32
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
Author Topic: Where i'm at 1+1=3  (Read 34699 times)
Group: Elite Experimentalist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 342
Hi Brad and all ,
I have been watching this process with some skepticism which seem to be fading , and my first point is that v belts wont hold the timing but toothed belts as used for automotive superchargers will or could be ok.

The belts that are used on cnc or 3d printers may also be viable as cheap as. They would have to be joined with superglue which could be an issue

I also wonder if the magnet rotor should be separate from the gears but locked in place with rotational adjustment/timing available.

If I have  this wrong please correct me

I never thought that spinning magnets could do what you are showing without an external kick however small.


I will get some magnets and be ready

This seems like much more fun than  frying Mosfets

Thank you

Lindsay
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Hi Brad and all ,
I have been watching this process with some skepticism which seem to be fading , and my first point is that v belts wont hold the timing but toothed belts as used for automotive superchargers will or could be ok.

The belts that are used on cnc or 3d printers may also be viable as cheap as. They would have to be joined with superglue which could be an issue

I also wonder if the magnet rotor should be separate from the gears but locked in place with rotational adjustment/timing available.

If I have  this wrong please correct me

I never thought that spinning magnets could do what you are showing without an external kick however small.


I will get some magnets and be ready

This seems like much more fun than  frying Mosfets

Thank you

Lindsay

Hi Lindsay

No need for cogged belts or the likes.
Well machined gears have the least losses of any drive system.

It wouldn't matter if the plastic gears only lasted 5 minutes, as there are no power measurements to be done, as there is no power entering the system.
If it has only permanent magnets, and it continuously rotates for 5 minutes, then that proves the motor works.


Brad


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

Posts: 329
You should use magnetic gears, very easy with a 3d printer, just embed magnets in your current "teeth" and no wear to boot.
« Last Edit: 2024-03-25, 17:24:56 by broli »
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
You should use magnetic gears, very easy with a 3d printer, just embed magnets in your current "teeth" and no wear to boot.

This is one of the reasons I have not, and will not start a builders group on this project--people like to change thing-deviate from the design that works.
As soon as you add other magnetic fields into this very magnetically balanced motor, it will not work.

You are of course, free to do as you chose with the design i have given.


Brad


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

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 782
Believing in something false doesn't make it true.

Hi Brad,

Got two printers going about 12 hours now.  One printing the base and the other printing the pair of gears using your latest stl file.

Thanks,
Carroll


---------------------------
Just because it is on YouTube does not make it real.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...

It wouldn't matter if the plastic gears only lasted 5 minutes, as there are no power measurements to be done, as there is no power entering the system.
If it has only permanent magnets, and it continuously rotates for 5 minutes, then that proves the motor works.

Brad

Have y'all seen this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4N4TiOHc-g


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Have y'all seen this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4N4TiOHc-g

I dare say it has something like a battery, reed switch, and coil in the base.
Easily tested by waving a magnet over the base, and see if you can feel an attraction or repulsion force on the magnet.


Brad


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

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Have y'all seen this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4N4TiOHc-g

Ok, this replication shows the mechanism being removed, and the wheel slows down.
Guess that eliminates the battery, reed switch, and coil in the base theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR-sdvX2_CE


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

Posts: 123
  That reminds me of Grumage's water wheel in the back yard. Had just enough umph to keep turning but any load and it quit. Eye candy but not really  useful.
thay
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 3
Ok Brad thanks for sharing your engine.
I downloaded and printed the parts from the 3D models.
Now I ask you for some information regarding the electrical part of the engine: it seems to me that it works like a Bedini circuit, with a trigger coil and a running coil.
The trigger coil is air core or ferrite core ? Resistance and impedance of the coil ? The same for the running coil, resistance and impedance ? Is the core of the running coil consisting only of 4 laminates of a transformer or is wider and the lamina between the two wheels are only the median tips ?
The transistor is a NPN ?

Thank you

Mac
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Ok Brad thanks for sharing your engine.
I downloaded and printed the parts from the 3D models.
Now I ask you for some information regarding the electrical part of the engine: it seems to me that it works like a Bedini circuit, with a trigger coil and a running coil.
The trigger coil is air core or ferrite core ? Resistance and impedance of the coil ? The same for the running coil, resistance and impedance ? Is the core of the running coil consisting only of 4 laminates of a transformer or is wider and the lamina between the two wheels are only the median tips ?
The transistor is a NPN ?

Thank you

Mac

The trigger coil is from a 12 volt relay-nothing special.
The drive coil had just 4 laminates from a MOT as the core, and about 250 turns of .5mm wire.
The transistor would have been a 2N3055
I don't measure impedances or resistances unless requested at the time.

Added--i still actually have the file for the drive coil former.


Brad


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

Posts: 48
The trigger coil is from a 12 volt relay-nothing special.
The drive coil had just 4 laminates from a MOT as the core, and about 250 turns of .5mm wire.
The transistor would have been a 2N3055
I don't measure impedances or resistances unless requested at the time.

Added--i still actually have the file for the drive coil former.


Brad

Not that there is any confusion here, but I had previously assumed that the magnet motor you presented was driven purely by the clever constellation of magnets, without any electrical input.

Are we talking about two different concepts here in the same thread, the motor from the video 4 years ago and the magnet motor currently presented?

Thanks for the clarification.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Right from the start, I explained that this thread was based on a flaw. 1+1=3 applies to forces, not energy. It's very easy to get a high force from a low force. We've known this since 387 BC, when Archimedes invented the lever. Whether or not the forces are magnetic in origin makes no difference: it's commonplace to create a large magnetic force from a weak one.
The balance of forces is irrelevant when it comes to energy. Only the work of forces counts. So we need to integrate the product of force x displacement over the course of a closed cycle of movement of magnets and magnetic parts. As long as this calculation based on measurements has not been made, saying that 1+1=3 has no relevance, because 1+1=2 remains for energy until proven otherwise.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 782
Believing in something false doesn't make it true.

Please go away and pester somebody else.  It is clear you don't know what you are talking about.  Brad never said 1+1=3 was about energy.  He has always claimed it was about forces.

You are nothing but a negative influence on this forum.  You don't build, you don't share, you just constantly spout negative comments.

Please just go away!!!

Carroll


---------------------------
Just because it is on YouTube does not make it real.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Not that there is any confusion here, but I had previously assumed that the magnet motor you presented was driven purely by the clever constellation of magnets, without any electrical input.

Are we talking about two different concepts here in the same thread, the motor from the video 4 years ago and the magnet motor currently presented?

Thanks for the clarification.

Call it a modified version.


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

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
 
Quote
author=F6FLT link=topic=4603.msg111074#msg111074 date=1711537391


Quote
As long as this calculation based on measurements has not been made, saying that 1+1=3 has no relevance

But it was made, graphed, and repeated by many involved in that topic, with the same results-the scientific method  O0
Perhaps go and read through the topic, and then you will fully understand what took place.
In short, it was about increasing force over distance, using the same power input.
By the addition of a PM, we could increase that force over distance by up to 5 times.

Brad


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

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Please go away and pester somebody else.  It is clear you don't know what you are talking about.  Brad never said 1+1=3 was about energy.  He has always claimed it was about forces.

You are nothing but a negative influence on this forum.  You don't build, you don't share, you just constantly spout negative comments.

Please just go away!!!

Carroll

It's all good Carroll.
I enjoy F6FLT's input, and have a great respect for him.

He is welcome on any of my topics.

Brad


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

Posts: 2072
Please go away and pester somebody else.  It is clear you don't know what you are talking about....


In addition to science, I'd have to teach you politeness.
 ;D



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
It's all good Carroll.
I enjoy F6FLT's input, and have a great respect for him.

He is welcome on any of my topics.

Brad

Thanks Brad. I'm well aware that you're taking a constructive and sincere approach, and that you're experimenting in a concrete way, which I respect.
When I respond to a specific subject, it's not about the person, it's about the subject, and it's facts and logic that I put forward, even if they may disappoint (and when I talk about a general context, like the FE movement, I don't accuse anyone by name).



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Thanks Brad. I'm well aware that you're taking a constructive and sincere approach, and that you're experimenting in a concrete way, which I respect.
When I respond to a specific subject, it's not about the person, it's about the subject, and it's facts and logic that I put forward, even if they may disappoint (and when I talk about a general context, like the FE movement, I don't accuse anyone by name).

I took the time to find the graphs from the tests carried out in the 1+1=3 topic.
As you can see, the torque over distance increase in the modified motor, for the same input power, is greatly different.
Rotational force over distance is work being done.

Brad


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

Posts: 143
I took the time to find the graphs from the tests carried out in the 1+1=3 topic.
As you can see, the torque over distance increase in the modified motor, for the same input power, is greatly different.
Rotational force over distance is work being done.

Brad

Hi Brad,
I've been interested in your project. A few months ago when you were explaining test methods which, if I'm not mistaken, were used to generate the data for these graphs, I had some questions, but decided to wait until you finished that exercise. Then I lost track. Well, you're back, and so are my questions. Those are centered around energy, work, power, torque and the like. I decided to give chatgpt a try.

Quote

User

With physics, is this statement correct? Rotational force over distance is work being done.

ChatGPT
The statement is almost correct but needs a slight adjustment. In rotational mechanics, the product of torque (rotational force) and the angle through which it acts is the work done, not simply the rotational force over distance.

So, the corrected statement would be:

"Torque (rotational force) multiplied by the angle through which it acts represents the work done in rotational systems."

User
OK. Thanks. bi

ChatGPT
You're welcome! If you have any more questions in the future, feel free to ask. Goodbye!


ChatGPT 3.5

User
In physics, is work the same as, and equal, to energy?

ChatGPT
In physics, work and energy are related concepts but not exactly the same. Work is the transfer of energy that occurs when a force is applied to an object and the object moves in the direction of the force. Energy, on the other hand, is a property of objects and systems that enables them to do work. So while work is a form of energy transfer, they are not identical. However, in certain situations, such as when work is done to change the kinetic or potential energy of an object, the work done is equal to the change in energy of the object. This is described by the work-energy theorem.

User
In rotational mechanical systems, torque and energy (or work done) have the same units, newton meters, but are not the same physical quantity, correct. Explain how to avoid confusion.

ChatGPT
That's correct. Torque and energy (or work done) both have units of newton-meters (Nm), but they represent different physical quantities in rotational mechanical systems.

Torque is a measure of the rotational force applied to an object, causing it to rotate around an axis. It is typically represented by the symbol τ (tau) and is defined as the product of the force and the perpendicular distance from the axis of rotation to the line of action of the force.

Energy, or work done, in rotational systems is the product of torque and the angle through which the object rotates. It represents the amount of energy transferred to or from the system due to the rotation.

To avoid confusion between torque and energy:

Understand their definitions and physical meanings: Torque is the rotational force, while energy (work done) is the result of torque acting over a distance (angle).

Pay attention to the context: Torque is usually discussed when talking about the rotational dynamics of an object, while energy (work done) is discussed in the context of changes in rotational kinetic energy or potential energy in rotational systems.

Use appropriate symbols and terms: Use τ for torque and W for work or energy, and ensure clarity in your communication by specifying which quantity you're referring to.

By keeping these distinctions in mind and using clear terminology, you can avoid confusion between torque and energy in rotational mechanical systems.



User
Thanks, good bi

ChatGPT
You're welcome! If you have any more questions or need further assistance, feel free to ask. Have a great day!

Comments and or discussion appreciated.
bi
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Hi Brad,
I've been interested in your project. A few months ago when you were explaining test methods which, if I'm not mistaken, were used to generate the data for these graphs, I had some questions, but decided to wait until you finished that exercise. Then I lost track. Well, you're back, and so are my questions. Those are centered around energy, work, power, torque and the like. I decided to give chatgpt a try.

Comments and or discussion appreciated.
bi

Well' I'm not quite sure what your question is ?

The graphs I shared, and the comments I made along with the graphs were-
(Rotational force over distance is work being done)
Rotational force is another name for torque-they are one in the same.

Your chatGPT says-(Torque is the rotational force, while energy (work done) is the result of torque acting over a distance)
My graphs show torque over a distance in a rotating system. So the graphs show the difference in work being done (energy) between the two motors, along with the input power required to do that work, which is the same in both cases.

In the graphs, you will see what i call !wasted torque!.
That is the attractive force over distance being applied along the axis line of the rotor between the electromagnet, and the rotors axle/center.
My motor design removes that wasted torque, and turns it into rotational torque, as can be seen in the graphed results.

Once we remove the back torque over distance for the torque plate to escape the PM's field, our total gain is about 75% more than the standard motor.


Brad


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

Posts: 143
Well' I'm not quite sure what your question is ?

The graphs I shared, and the comments I made along with the graphs were-
(Rotational force over distance is work being done)
Rotational force is another name for torque-they are one in the same.

Your chatGPT says-(Torque is the rotational force, while energy (work done) is the result of torque acting over a distance)
My graphs show torque over a distance in a rotating system. So the graphs show the difference in work being done (energy) between the two motors, along with the input power required to do that work, which is the same in both cases.

In the graphs, you will see what i call !wasted torque!.
That is the attractive force over distance being applied along the axis line of the rotor between the electromagnet, and the rotors axle/center.
My motor design removes that wasted torque, and turns it into rotational torque, as can be seen in the graphed results.

Once we remove the back torque over distance for the torque plate to escape the PM's field, our total gain is about 75% more than the standard motor.


Brad

Thanks for the reply.
You mix the linear and rotational mechanical parameters and then power to energy comparison omitting time.

Power is volts * amps, held equal for the two graphs.

Power is (radians /second) * torque.

You say.
"My graphs show torque over a distance in a rotating system."
That would be your graphs show torque vs angle (or radians). And that is not energy.

The graphs tell me nothing about energy or work. That's the question I have, you say they do. How?

And I totally missed your explanation of "wasted torque". Is that side loading or radial thrust? How does that enter into energy besides bearing friction?

Like I said, it is difficult for me to follow your method. Perhaps I should have just waited to see where it leads. Which I am content to do.

Regards,
bi


   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Quote
author=bistander link=topic=4603.msg111098#msg111098 date=1711592482



Quote
That would be your graphs show torque vs angle (or radians). And that is not energy.

Your chat GPT says-->-(Torque is the rotational force, while energy (work done) is the result of torque acting over a distance)
The graphs clearly show the rotational force (torque), and the distance traveled.
The graphs clearly show a torque curve over distance.

Quote
You mix the linear and rotational mechanical parameters and then power to energy comparison omitting time
.

Time is irrelevant when graphing the output torque curve v P/in between the two motors.

Quote
The graphs tell me nothing about energy or work. That's the question I have, you say they do. How?

Energy (work done) is torque over distance. Even your chatGPT says that.
Energy is the ability to do work, and the work being done is force over distance.

Quote
And I totally missed your explanation of "wasted torque". Is that side loading or radial thrust?

It is side loading.

Quote
How does that enter into energy besides bearing friction?

As you can see in the graph on the left, that side loading results in a large loss of rotational energy.
With my motor design, we take that wasted side loading energy, and add it to the rotational energy.
And as you can see in the graphs, when we do this, it results in almost double the rotational force over distance for the same power input.
It is much the same as trying to push a car forward from the side of the car, where you push at a 45 degree angle.
Half of your input energy is wasted trying to push the car sideways, while only half of your energy is used to push the car forward.
It is much better to push the car from the back, where the applied force is directly toward the front of the car.

Quote
Like I said, it is difficult for me to follow your method. Perhaps I should have just waited to see where it leads. Which I am content to do.

You are talking about two different motors here.
Work on the torque force motor has finished.
This motor we are discussing here, is a variation of the torque force motor, where the coil and input power are omitted, and where the magnets now rotate, and the torque plate remains stationary.

Brad


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

Posts: 143


Your chat GPT says-->-(Torque is the rotational force, while energy (work done) is the result of torque acting over a distance)
The graphs clearly show the rotational force (torque), and the distance traveled.
The graphs clearly show a torque curve over distance.

I disagree. Appears the graphs show a linear force (actually grams, which are used as a substitute for force) vs linear distance (mm). Even if it were "torque over distance", it is not indicating energy or power.

Quote
Time is irrelevant when graphing the output torque curve v P/in between the two motors.

And a graph of "output torque v P/in" does not relate to any power output. Time is relevant. You need rotational velocity to deduce power (and energy) from torque.

Recall my specific question:"The graphs tell me nothing about energy or work. That's the question I have, you say they do. How?"

Quote
Energy (work done) is torque over distance. Even your chatGPT says that.
Energy is the ability to do work, and the work being done is force over distance.

Force over distance in rectangular coordinates or torque over angle in polar. But not a mix of the two.

Quote
It is side loading.

Side loading (or axial thrust) does not substract from output power directly, just from extra bearing friction loss.

Quote
As you can see in the graph on the left, that side loading results in a large loss of rotational energy.
With my motor design, we take that wasted side loading energy, and add it to the rotational energy.
And as you can see in the graphs, when we do this, it results in almost double the rotational force over distance for the same power input.
It is much the same as trying to push a car forward from the side of the car, where you push at a 45 degree angle.
Half of your input energy is wasted trying to push the car sideways, while only half of your energy is used to push the car forward.
It is much better to push the car from the back, where the applied force is directly toward the front of the car.

Only the force in the direction of motion or displacement enters into the work formula.

Quote
You are talking about two different motors here.
Work on the torque force motor has finished.
This motor we are discussing here, is a variation of the torque force motor, where the coil and input power are omitted, and where the magnets now rotate, and the torque plate remains stationary.

Brad

Sorry, I didn't realize there were two different projects. I don't want to distract. Why don't we continue after you complete your plan? I really want to see you reveal this device.
bi
   
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-27, 22:52:32