|
1
« Last post by webby2 on October 15, 2025, 03:00:59 am »
Instead of using a resistor I could simply turn down the supply voltage to 1V leaving me with 1A still passing through the coil,, or,,
I could use a second source connected in parallel with the first source that is at 9V instead of 10V leaving me with a 1V drop and 1A of current still passing through the coil.
If that second source was at 10V then there would be no voltage difference across the coil and no current would flow.
If I had a group of coils all connected in series and closed upon themselves, so say 36 coils in a circle all connected in series with the first coil and the last coil also connected.
My first source is connected one side to a coil to coil connection point, then 18 connections later the other side of my source.
I now have 18 coils seeing the current flow relative to the coil winding direction CW and I have 18 coils seeing it flow CCW, my first source would energize all 36 coils.
My second source then advances one connection set with the same polarity, this stops current flow through 2 of the coils and leaves the other 34 still seeing basically no change.
Disconnect the first source advance one connection set past the second source and connect,, rinse and repeat.
This ends up having basically 17 coils with a N electromagnetic pole emanating and 17 coils with a S electromagnetic pole emanating, these "polarities" are then rotating around the ring of coils as the connections are moving around the ring of connections.
The partial simple test-beds I have tested this with work but I do not know if it is of any use since I have not built one with all the connections and stuff to just spin the contactor and see what happens.
2
« Last post by webby2 on October 14, 2025, 05:21:49 am »
If i take 10 100 turn coils and connect them in series and there resistance is such that my supply provides 10V @ 1A, then each coil would provide 100 amp-turns of electromagnetic potential, 1000 amp-turns total. If then I remove 9 coils and replace them with a resistor so that my supply still provides 10V @ 1A, my cost has not changed but I have given up 900 amp-turns of electromagnetic potential.
If I compare that to a hydraulic system of 10 pistons then if all the pistons are connected in series and to the same load my pump must provide not only the pressure but the volume of fluid that is needed for each piston, if I remove 9 pistons then my pump volume goes down to 1\10 and all things are happy and no extra resistor is needed.
If i have a given inductor and it sees a given change in flux density then a given quantity of charge carriers will move, with no resistance and no time consideration then they will be moved at zero volts, fluid being squished out of a pipe full of fluid, if you will, will discharge the same amount of fluid regardless of the time it takes to squish the pipe.
3
« Last post by webby2 on December 30, 2024, 06:30:30 am »
just adding this video
4
« Last post by webby2 on October 29, 2024, 02:16:38 am »
It feels kind of strange to sit here with nothing I can really do at the moment.
Debby flooded my house, I lost almost all of my test-beds and most of my equipment, I did save 2 of my printers and recovered one of my hard drives.
I have been in rentals since 8\5 and have not felt like setting up my printers to do anything.
Hopefully soon I will get started up again.
5
« Last post by webby2 on July 24, 2024, 09:14:57 am »
picked the test-bed back up,, I need to remove some parts that are not going to be used and while I had it apart I thought to "test" the output section with only part of the system and it still does its thing, it seems to be more touchy about RPM and mass and stuff but it still shows the same feel.
Simplified like this I think I was still overthinking what is going on, and in this setup it would be very easy to think that the work out is from the mass falling under the influence of gravity but I think that is wrong.
6
« Last post by webby2 on May 20, 2024, 12:04:26 pm »
Maybe the simple thought that if I can run this setup with a loss of work performed I should be able to "reverse" that loss into a gain,, is to much.
I have been trying different things and maybe got a little oversized even, but right now one way is so close to a 1:1 that I am happy to call it that, after all that is what it should be, but when I run it the other way I am now loosing almost 1\2 of the work I am putting in.
What is frustrating about that is that I can clearly see where and why that loss is occurring but have not been able to figure out how to use that to my advantage.
7
« Last post by webby2 on May 04, 2024, 12:19:44 am »
This is one of those things that has bothered me for as long as I can remember.
I come up with some mechanical idea, do a rough sketch and a very crude approximation of forces and distances and all that, build and test.
Now in the process of all this I get these force amplification relationships. In a lot of systems what I see, and can calculate, is a massive force being created but since it is against a non-changing part there is no work being performed and the very small reflected force that can move happens to match the input to the output for a 1:1 work value.
The part that bothers me is that I can build something to where that non-changing force goes to infinite, I can build this in the real world but of course things don't hold up to an infinite force but I can see these ridiculous force values trying to manifest. The bothersome part is HOW does the system only reflect the exact amount for a 1:1 work transfer? what is 0.1 percent of infinite?
I can't help but think that there is another level of communication that is happening between the input and output that I am missing, maybe we all are missing it.
8
« Last post by webby2 on April 26, 2024, 10:40:49 am »
This is odd.
I can move the system with the same force on each side, if I start at the right non sticky spot that is.
I am not taking any notes on this but one way I can keep adding in more prime mover force while maintaining the same resistance force. This is not the same for all ways I can measure I think but the simple fact that I can do it at all is very odd.
Maybe it is just tweaking the frames and connection belt??? not sure.
9
« Last post by webby2 on April 26, 2024, 03:55:05 am »
Getting a little confused.
I decided to add a pulley on the go-between part that rotates at a 1:1 with the input and output.
I measure that to the output and I get close to a 1:1 value, that is 1000g of pull on the prime mover needs about 900 to 950g on the resistance side, either direction of rotation.
I measure that to the input side and I get a much larger difference, that is close to 1200g for the prime mover needs about 900 to 950g on the resistance side, either direction of rotation.
I was getting a difference one way when measuring between the input and output, then I advanced the output and locked the output in place and now it is close to a 1:1 either direction.
10
« Last post by webby2 on April 21, 2024, 06:59:27 pm »
0.017453292519943
(2*PI)/360
PI/180
so for 90mm arm and 360 degrees the distance is
((π÷180)×90)×360
565.486677646
or any degree you wish to use
((π÷180)×120)×360
753.982236862
In my system I do not need to worry about any of that stuff because I set all things, except those arm lengths, to 1:1. The input and output move the same distance, the force applied to the end of the arms moves the same distance,,,
In other words my belt needs to spin the identical pulleys so many times for the arms to make 1 complete revolution, it is not the length of the arms that counts.
I thought I only had to worry about 1 feedback loop that I easily took care of, however.
There is the lever relationship between the arms.
To simplify what I tested I will put it this way,
I applied a force into the connecting belt and measured the torque imparted into each arm without the rest of the system, so 10N of tension on the 90mm arm made 900Nmm of torque, 10N of tension applied to the 120mm arm made 1200Nmm of torque.
Then I started testing the steps, independent of the complete system looking for the other feedback loop that I missed.
I found the loop and it was not hiding at all I just missed it. The system is collapsing the distance of change into an internal change, or conversion. This feedback is between the go-between part and the output arm\pulley and it supplies a force of opposition to the change in position relative to the go-between parts that seems to mirror the change in distance of the arms, the output is 1.333 times the size of the input.
The force of opposition in my system then should look like 900g of pull on the input then goes across the system via the belt and drives the output arm to 1200g of force, then there is the internal force of opposition that reduces the available force down by 1\3 of 900 (the input force) or 300g of force leaving me with 900g of force on the output side.
The thing is that feedback oppositional thing is applied against the output and just like the spring between levers it does not matter which way the levers are moving that opposition is against the output arm. This then would infer that for me to take 900g of force from the input side I would need to supply the output side with 900g + the 300g for a total of 1200g of force.
Force must be supplied to both sides, that is how things work after all.
|
Recent Posts