____
EMBARRASSING ! -
Stupid-me ! ... Here I've been left on page-13 since the 18th, patiently waiting for a new post from Bill,, and not-realizing that page-13 was already filled-up with it's 10-post limit !
Luckily, my Firefox-browser chose to crash (for some unknown reason when I wasn't using it),, and then just recently reopening it, has now allowed me to discover that page-14 had long-before come-into existence !
__ Instead of posting on THIS-page (as I should've been doing), I've been adding to my last-post on the previous-page, (as can be seen done in blue-wording),, and-so likely no-one has noticed what I've added to that post (since the 18th).
__ NOW, it's going to take me too-long to respond to everything that's been transpiring on THIS-page.
But I'll try to get caught-up with most of the rather important stuff by the next few hours.wcorey wrote:____ As you load-tested with resistance-values that continually moved further away from .2-ohms, the resulted wattage should've likewise continually diminished.
No, as I went down in resistance values the output decreased steadily, regardless of which coil configuration.
____ I'm left to gather that what it seems that you're saying, is that as you lowered the resistance-level of the test-load (from 11-ohms ?), the resulted consumed-wattage also accordingly decreased along-with as well ?
__ Anyhow, that actually makes fair sense,, cuz my quoted-statement stupidly neglected to also take into account the 'impedance' factor which will ADD-to the .2-ohms of mere resistance, (although I had indeed previously remembered to include that additional factor as a
relevant factor to be kept under consideration).
STILL however, (as you must already realize),, once the upwardly-increased (from .2-ohms) resistance-level of the test-load has been set to exceed the resistance/impedance-level of the power-winding under testing, then the power being consumed (by the test-load) will also begin to fall-downward, in that direction as well.
" I just tried a .5ohm resistor (with the large coil in parallel config) and got 12w. It goes up gradually to almost 14w all the way into double digit ohms. "
____ I assume this to mean that with the large-coil left arranged with it's double-winding connected in parallel, that a 1/2-ohm load-resistance resulted with 12-watts consumed,, but yet a number of higher values of trialed test-loads (possibly exceeding 11-ohms) only found just 2-watts more (over a very-WIDE range).
Which leaves the question as to just how high the load-resistance can get before the consumed-wattage falls-off back-down to under 12-watts !?
It seems that the impedance-factor is so very spread-out, that something-else must be involved to prevent it from more normal/peakyer peaking. _ I had of-course expected some impedance* to be added to the resistance of the power-winding, but not so much over such a WIDE-range !
(* 'Impedance' is a form of resistance that affects the flow of AC [or even pulsating-DC] type of current, and it's resistive-effect is intensified as frequency is increased, [due-to fighting the flywheel-effect of flowing-current]!)
__ It would be quite interesting to know-of the results of the same-testing but with the double-windings rather connected in SERIES (instead of parallel) !
" Slightly improved with the addition of the caps and a bit more with the mosfet r/r. "
____ To help narrow-down the test-circuitry so that there's less chance for unexpected factors, (not to mention somewhat easier to set up),, we probably ought-to consider connecting the test-load DIRECTLY-to merely-just the raw power-output of the tested power-winding itself, alone. _ That way, we could then possibly see what's happening exactly where.
" what I think was aprox .2ohm or a bit less, output went down to .6vdc, 4.3a. "
____ Probably pretty-close to a short-circuit at that point.
__ The test-load should never be allowed to become less than the power-winding's 'resistance'.
" Put both coils (individually having both windings wired in parallel) in series and just as before only got a few more watts. "
____ I gather that you mean to indicate that you connected both the small & large power-coils together in series (whilst keeping both their double-windings left in parallel), which thus should've been the "main/intended-test" (that was most expected to be conducted).
But your included wording: "and just as before only got a few more watts.", leaves me wondering '
a few more watts than what?'.
" What other readers? "
____ Have you not noticed the well-over1000 hits that this thread has accumulated ?
__ I'm sure there's likely some unregistered followers in addition to those who've let you know.
" Maybe, I never got that straight, or figured out a way to test for it short of physically unwinding a coil (which I never did).
Even if they did, It may have been simply for the more convenient placement of the connections. "
____ I would tend to agree that the reasoning for alternated winding-directions would only be due-to more convenient/shorter wire-connections between the neighboring power-coils, but then that good-reasoning gets fairly shadowed since the outlet-locations of the interconnecting lead-ends don't exactly follow-suit very-closely in that sensible regards.
__ I'm thinking that since the magnetic-poles (of the mag.rotor) alternate N/S/N/S/N/S,, that then logically, the coil-windings thusly
need to ALSO alternate in direction correspondingly, so that THEIR very-OWN produced magnetic-fields are kept in coherent-harmony with the fields of the rotor-magnets (so that no magnetic-field cancellation [between the two field-sources] could possibly occur).
So just as electrical-polarity is-not something that can be ignored,
MAGNETIC-polarity should-not be overlooked either ! _ As both polarity-types ought-to be considered as
equally important !
__ So it
seems fairly important (to ME) to find-out if Bruce had wound his pair of power-coils OPPOSITELY, or not !?
If it's not obvious as to whether both coils are wound oppositely from one-another, or not,, then a small DC.source could be (identically) fed into both power-coils, and if wound oppositely, then one coil should attract the N.pointer of a compass while the other-coil repels it (and instead attracts the S.end).
Bill wrote:____ Even-so however, there should still be some 'leftover' power to be measured, (as the large-coil should overpower the smaller one).
Why I said "CLOSE to no output". It also applies to the pair of windings on the an individual coil (stock as well as rewound) when wired in series, backwards = low or no output, respectively.
____ RIGHT, all quite-sensible ! _ Just checking to make-SURE (that all adds-up as it ought-to).
Bill wrote:__ I assume that you always tested the pair of coils with them loaded onto stator-core fingers that were next-door neighbors ? ...
Yes
____ Your disappointing test-results had led me to hope that you had-not done-so, and perhaps had-not bothered to make-sure that the pair of power-coils were located under oppositely polarized mag.fields.
__ Now my (similar) hopes lay with the possibility that Bruce's two separate winding-jobs were-not done oppositely.
Bill wrote:I think it would be a worthy test to try the two power-coils loaded onto the core-fingers located at the 9 & 3 o'clock positions, with a series-connection made between those two power-coils.
Likely not going to happen, it's simply inconvenient to remove another never-been-removed stock coil on the stator and then have to re-setup the test rig, unless of course there is further evidence that this would change things in some significant way.
____ I really don't think that it would change anything in any significant way, (but still might learn something however).
When I stated "the two power-coils", I had specifically meant BRUCE's coils,, so now assuming that you had correctly realized that, I thusly gather that he hadn't also sent you a bare stator-core to go-with.
So in that case,
never-mind.
" What further requests (before I reduce the windings as per Bruce's request)? "
____ Please hold-off on that until I'm sure we haven't got anywhere-else to proceed onward to.
" I've tried most every combination of things (within reason) I can think of to try and have seen no change in the trends. "
____ Wish I could've watched-over while you did-so, so I'd then know whether you possibly overlooked anything.
" I know this whole thing seems to be an inexplicable conundrum that we'd love to have an answer to but IMHO it's time to just let it go, "
____ I-myself just can't feel that way, and never would unless another independent tester also came-up with the EXACT-SAME results which you have.
" Wouldn't be the first time in the history of this project that something didn't work out as planned/theorized. "
____ I well recall (most of) my past training in this technical-field (of power-generation & electrical-motors, etc.), and I was taught all the various factors that yield the strength of power-output,, and wire-LENGTH was one of the main-factors !
Now I thought that the positive effect of extended length was a straight-forward/linear type of outcome, (meaning that doubling the length would equally double the tension),, but perhaps the relationship is actually rather a diminishing-returns type of outcome, (but that doesn't make good/logical-sense to me).
Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob
