|
Post by Marathonman on Feb 5, 2020 13:52:01 GMT -6
What i am trying to say is if your part G is only 85mh that will allow a lot of amperage through it. remember part G controls the current flow not the primaries. first you had to much induction of part G now you have to little. you need to find a happy medium to properly control your current flow of your primaries.
Marathonman
|
|
|
Post by creasysee on Feb 5, 2020 15:12:54 GMT -6
first you had to much induction of part G now you have to little. you need to find a happy medium to properly control your current flow of your primaries. What is criteria? The electronic part G had 3H and this gives 942 Ohms @ 50 Hz. Now I have 85mH and this gives 26 Ohm @ 50Hz. Max current will be I = U/R = 100V / 26Ohm = 3.8 Amps. I think it is a bit little. Currently, tests of my Part G gives 4 Amps without sparks (1000min-1 (16 Hz) @ 24V on active load), I think 10 Amps is achievable by increasing voltage (tests were without primaries, they will reduce the current).
The energy in inductance W = LI2/2. By increasing the current 10 times I increase the energy 100 times. No make sense to increase inductance. Need to increase the current.
Regards, creasysee
|
|
|
Post by Marathonman on Feb 6, 2020 8:45:43 GMT -6
True though remember part G will need to reduce current according to your core set up to just clear the secondary then back to full potential. it is much easier to subtract winding's to part G then to add them to get desired inductance/reduction.
Marathonman
|
|
|
Post by creasysee on Feb 6, 2020 14:18:07 GMT -6
The first layer is wound, inductance 0.24 mH: The core size 2.5cm x 4cm x 10.5cm (0.99" x 1.6" x 4.13"). The first layer has 47 turns 1.8mm (AWG13). Looks like two layers have less inductance than one. I may well have to wind the normal winding.
Regards,
creasysee
|
|
|
Post by creasysee on Feb 7, 2020 15:25:05 GMT -6
I was not lazy and wound the third layer:
Confirmed. The inductance decreases.
Regards, creasysee
|
|
|
Post by creasysee on Feb 8, 2020 15:19:00 GMT -6
Hi all. It seems I going to write the biggest post from all my posts. I need advise here where I'm wrong or this idea might be right. I need to calculate inductance of primaries exactly. If I make a mistake and the device doesn't work, I am afraid that I will not find the strength to configure it and change something. I'm trying to figure it out and get a working device right away.
This picture was posted few posts ago and explains how the energy circulates between a part G and primaries:
Calculations on the picture are fixed!
I assumed that the energy flows completely from the part G to the primary and back. Now I'm posting a new picture that explains that the energy only flows to half (remember MM told that primaries are never emptied to 0, they are only emptied to half?) The picture shows 3 steps of the brush movement.
Step 1: the brush closes the power supply to the primary 1. The energy in primary 1 is equal to WP1+WG. I won't explain why this is the case in the current step. Obviously, the primary 2 has energy WP2 and the part G has energy WG. Step 2: the brush rotates to right and we will look at its position in the middle of the winding. The half of energy WG from prymary 1 flows to the part G. The half of energy WG from the part G flows to the prymary 2. Step 3: the brush rotates to right and closes the power supply to the prymary 2. All energy from the part G went to the primary 2. At the same time, the same amount of energy was transferred from the primary 1 to the part G. Obviously the primary 1 CANNOT BE EMPTY. The prymary 1 CANNOT HAVE ENERGY IS EQUAL ZERO. Because the Primary 1 has inductance and the part G has inductance. I'm not yet ready to estimate the required inductances for primaries, but the important thing is that the previous calculation does not seem to be correct. Comments are required. Thanks, cresysee.
|
|
|
Post by cornboy on Feb 8, 2020 22:40:31 GMT -6
Hi Guy's, my advice to you is to go to Aboveunity.com and open account and find the Clemente Figuera thread.
Go through the thread and read all posts by member Aetherholic, he had a successful build by commutation directly on the wiring of part G-R.
MM has been trying to explain to us, till he's blue in the face, that this is the way to go, and that the commutator in the patent is just to explain the operation in very simple terms.
This is the way i will now go with a new build.
Let me know what you think. Regards Cornboy.
|
|
|
Post by cornboy on Feb 9, 2020 0:44:58 GMT -6
Yes i am still learning and trying to move forward Skyrob.
Regards Cornboy
|
|
|
Post by creasysee on Feb 9, 2020 9:00:25 GMT -6
Ok, I'll build the primaries for double energy, 5 triplets, 2*0.85 J=1.70 J, 2*17 mH = 34 mH.
I'll build primaries 17 mH and increase number of triplets based on test resuts.
So, I think you understand now why the device has 7 (or 6 or 5) triplets, not one. Because you cannot build primary with required inductance on one open core. A wire must hold high current and inductance requires a lot of turns. So, few primaries reduce current for each and inductance reduces per each. It's easy for understand, I think. EDITED: I'll wind the first primary and will decide how many triplets I need. May be I cannot wind 34 mH on one core by wire 1.8 mm (AWG13). Also, the few triplets reduce total resistance of primaries. Regards, creasysee
|
|
|
Post by Marathonman on Feb 10, 2020 12:59:39 GMT -6
Blue in the face is not even the half of it and thanks for the acknowledgement there of.
the use of smaller wire and 6 parallel winding's can be used say 18 awg on primaries to reach desired volt amp relationship. this will keep have the proper number of ampere turns plus keep the self inductance low. Still working on the mess i got my self into.
Regards,
Marathonman
|
|
|
Post by Marathonman on Feb 12, 2020 19:20:09 GMT -6
The inductance reduction of party G will be dependent on your primary and secondary ratios, material used, winding's ect... this outcome will dictate just how far you are to reduce your primary to get thew proper sweeping action to just clear the secondary. i do not have the math prowess to calculate these figures with unknown materials as did the original replicator, he used known materials that had a known output, turn ratio ect. that could be calculated per lbs of material or watts per lb. if i had it all to do again i would of started with three inch primaries with one and a half inch secondaries with the secondary core being larger then that of the primaries to take advantage of the bulging effects of the magnetic fields. as it is my core will be just fine and i will deal with the same size cores. when building your part G it will be much easier to take off winding's then it would be to add if to little that is what i was telling you creasysee that you can still remove winding's to match just what your cores need for reduction. all you need is a magnetic gauge of some sort to tell you where the field is at. once you are there you will know because your output will rise substantially.
Please be aware Cornboy Aetherholic was not getting much output because of the improper reduction or rather to far and the pressure between the primaries were to low. his primary to secondary ratio was off also thus unable to sustain proper compression.
Regards, Marathonman
|
|
|
Post by cornboy on Feb 12, 2020 21:31:02 GMT -6
Hi MM, what exactly do you mean by improper inductance reduction ?. Are you referring to number of turns on his partG CIC core, compared to the size of the core?
Regards Cornboy
|
|
|
Post by creasysee on Feb 13, 2020 8:09:06 GMT -6
Hi Skyrob! Possibly that you all know it but for me it was big surprise! i made coil 950 turns of 1 mm wire it showed 30 mH on short core then I have add core for secondary and core for other side of primary to my surprise inductance went to 738mH! I know about this few months only My one layer core has 0.24 mH without additional cores and 0.33 mH with an additional core the same length (I don't have other yet). in your case, the increase in inductance is too large. I can't comment on this. Regards, creasysee
|
|
|
Post by creasysee on Feb 13, 2020 9:02:58 GMT -6
what exactly do you mean by improper inductance reduction ? MM means this: Commutator must have a work area on all width of winding. This is the same that MM is saying about my electronic part G. Aetherholic and me have a lot of turns at the left and the right side of a work area of a commutator. Regards, creasysee
|
|
|
Post by Marathonman on Feb 13, 2020 12:58:50 GMT -6
Cornboy;
Yes, i am referring to the amount of inductance winding's on part G which is the amount of reduction since it will oppose the original current flow. improper inductance reduction. core size is not as critical as are the inductive winding's.
he did not have enough winding's on his part G from what i gather at the brush travel. there was not enough reduction of the reducing primaries to get a proper sweep across the secondary. the amount of turns on part G will be exactly what is needed for the sweep to clear the secondary. also his ratios were off which effected the compression and sweep.
if the induction of part G is small the sweep will be small also which will then output very little. a full sweep is a must at proper lbs per square inch per your required output. this is basically most replicators problem with either to much induction of part G or to little and improper field line compression between electromagnets.
Creasysee;
Aetherholic has to little of winding's in his brush rotation and you had to many on your electronic version. if you reduced your electronic version to about half of your winding's you would be in the ball park for your required inductance reduction of part G. you just had to many inductive winding's associated with that circuit which reduced it to almost zero which is not what we all are aiming for. remember you only need the amount of winding's on part G to get a full sweep then back to full potential as the other is reduced. not enough winding's your sweep will be small and to many winding's your sweep will be to much and possibly loose field line compression.
this is the reason why the gap is needed between the cores to avoid the double spike on the secondary output. the second spike in Aetherholics case was the secondary lenz law field entering the reducing primaries core. this lenz law field is what is swept from side to side across the electric field thus creating a motional EMF in the secondary.
these reasons are why i put the electronic version on hold to finish the mechanical version which when finished i can then know exactly just how many taps for the electronic version then build from there. once the mechanical is finished i can then build an exact copy having as many transistor taps as there are winding brush contacts. also this is why i made an adjustable part G so i can dial in the exact window i need of current reduction. if i need a larger current window all i have to do is widen the brush circumference or even remove a few winding's if i need to.
Regards, Marathonman
|
|