Go to Otherpower.com Home Page Go to Forcefield Shopping Cart Go to Wondermagnet.com Home Page
Front Page - [Homebrewed Electricity-- (wind) (solar) (hydro) (steam) (controls) (storage) (mechanical)] - Classifieds - Site News
Everything - Newbies - [Remote Living-- (housing) (heat) (light) (water)] - Reviews - Diaries - Our Products
This Design is:

Ill Conceived and a waste of time and materials ... Forget About It!   2 votes - 100 %
Been tried millions of times with little success ... But if you want to try it, be my guest.   0 votes - 0 %
Not my choice, I don't like radials, not very efficient and hard to build.   0 votes - 0 %
It might work but there are easier ways to get the same efficiency from the neos.   0 votes - 0 %
Give it a try and see, it will probably work as planned, nothing ventured, nothing gained.   0 votes - 0 %
Looks like a good design and probably easier to build than I had imagined.   0 votes - 0 %
Go for it dude! This is rad! I want one of these.   0 votes - 0 %
Great proof of concept, lets scale it up and use some monster mags.   0 votes - 0 %
 
2 Total Votes
9" Radial Axial - Mags on Armature - Renderings | 9 comments (9 topical)
Re: 9" Radial Ax (3.00 / 0) (#1)
by Flux on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 04:56:33 PM MST

You are just reinventing the wheel but doing it in a way that is less effective than has been done for the last 100 years.

Alternators have been built that way from about 1880 onwards but most used wound fields until recently, Permanent magnets made little inroad until neo became available.

Never in that 100 or so years has anyone chose to leave out most of the coils and stick to this 4/3 ratio single layer winding. It just happens to suit axial air gap machines, it makes no sense in a radial iron cored machine.

The fundamental problem with iron cored machines is that they need very specialised magnetic steels to work acceptably with reasonably low loss. For the average person the only option is to adapt a commercial core ( motor conversion).

Wind is particularly demanding in that the efficiency needs to be highest in the lowest wind. All conventional alternators are designed for maximum efficiency at full load and under those conditions the iron losses are not serious and in fact you trade iron loss for copper loss with maximum efficiency when the iron and copper losses are equal.

A wind alternator with high iron loss doesn't work in low wind, something we fought hard with for many years and it was something of a revelation when we suddenly had magnets strong enough to get rid of the iron completely.

Yes it is perfectly possible to build what you propose but you need the patience and experience of Ed Lenz to put up with the physical challenges and even then you will have core material costing several times the magnets. If this is a labour of love but no cost project then avoid iron cores at all cost.

Flux



Re: 9" Radial Ax (3.00 / 0) (#2)
by arc on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 05:29:22 PM MST

well, I'd rather hear if from you than to go to all the work of building it then discover it will only light one LED.

As always, appreciate your comments.

arc

[ Parent ]



Re: 9" Radial Axial - Mags on Armature (3.00 / 0) (#3)
by ghurd on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 06:52:35 AM MST

Under the "cut it to ribbons" section,
Never sink magnets in an iron hole.  It sort of shorts out the flux.

Seems like a lot of work (and more money) for basically a large diameter, very thin, motor conversion.
G-
Ghurd.info



9" Radial Axial ... "NOT!" (3.00 / 0) (#4)
by arc on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 01:13:07 PM MST

Hi Ghurd,

I just learned something then, didn't realize that burying the magnets would mess up the flux ... now that you pointed it out, it makes good sense.
I guess the plan is to let the magnets do their thing and just draw from that potential with copper windings moving through the path of the natural flux lines.

At the far end of that flux loop, iron (if placed along the natural flux path) helps bridge (or complete) the circuit to bring it back home to the (attracting) opposite pole. I can see now how "burying" just bridges ("shorts out") the circuit right at the magnet so it doesn't ever reach out to where it can be utilized by the windings.

It's bad enough having rather small magnets ... let alone squandering the potential that they do have. I can sure see how attracting poles placed at that far end of that loop (on the opposite side of the windings) helps tremendously.

Yup, dual rotor axial (with attracting, adjacent poles) is the way to go. I can still place the neos near the perimeter of the 9" disk (on just one rotor for now) and still come out way ahead (of anything like what I've shown above).

Flux ... Ghurd ... ya both saved me headaches, broken knuckles and some major disappointment in the results. So thank you for that ... ;)

If I ever go the radial route it should definitely be with another conversion.
They have shaft, bearings armature base and fields in a handy package and have some potential if the right one is chosen and it's done Zubbly style. I'd make sure I had access to a lathe and learn to pour resin if I were to ever try one again.

I'm convinced that a small axial designed in such a way as to allow more magnets to be added later would be a fun project that might be able to take advantage of the poor wind conditions here and still produce some usable energy.

Thanks for the input!
(Literally, "back to the drawing board")

arc

[ Parent ]



Renderings (3.00 / 0) (#5)
by Airstream on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 01:57:54 PM MST

Please don't take offense, you've done some precision renderings that I'm sure you took some time with...

I have to point out the waste in using 600kb of images where 60 or 80kb would have sufficed. Non-photograph graphic images can use a very small file size and still have all the information present that was intended.

The following two images were stolen, starved, and snuck back into this post are 1/10th the size of those posted above. The first has displayed colors limited to 128 and the second 64, both were blurred slightly even before saving at the lowest JPEG setting.

Don't get me wrong, I think the pictures up above are Art, but the reason I post this tip is I just spent four minutes on dial-up looking at bars and blocks loading one line at a time across all your eight images, I could not view one while the others loaded. And maybe 8kb or 11kb is extreme but few images warrant more than 50kb or 60kb when 640x480 format, and with the auto-scaling web browsers even a 500 pixel image can work well.







Re: Renderings (3.00 / 0) (#6)
by arc on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 04:44:31 PM MST

Hi Airstream,

No offense taken ("so it won't hurt my feelings one bit"), I'm glad you said something so I won't keep making the mistake. I may be up on dial-up soon myself, so your comments do resonate and I can relate to having to wait for painfully slow, huge files to download.
I was trying to be sure to comply with the pixel restrictions and never even looked at the file size, my apologies to all who were effected by these.

With that in mind, I can always show an abbreviated version here and link to my Flickr account for higher resolution drawings showing greater detail if I feel that's needed.

Thanks for pointing this out, point well taken and I'll be more thoughtful in future posts.

arc

[ Parent ]



Re: Renderings (3.00 / 0) (#7)
by arc on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 05:20:28 PM MST

They should be quite a bit better now, I got them all pics down to the neighborhood of 12-15kb file size now ...
... surprisingly enough it doesn't make that much difference to the eye.

arc

[ Parent ]



Re: Renderings (3.00 / 0) (#8)
by ghurd on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 09:30:21 PM MST

They still look great.
Curious.  Can you save them as a gif file, and if so, how drastic is the quality change?
G-
Ghurd.info
[ Parent ]


Re: Renderings (3.00 / 0) (#9)
by arc on Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 07:31:12 AM MST



Quality doesn't suffer any as far as I can tell ...
... but the file size is more than half again as large.
Jpg file that was 97k went to 166k when I converted it.

A good use for gif's though is for small animations which are larger than still pics for the same pixel size but can be a reasonable file size, if kept to around 10% of allowed picture size (or 64 pixels) width.





[ Parent ]



9" Radial Axial - Mags on Armature - Renderings | 9 comments (9 topical)
Menu
· create account
· How to use the board
· FAQs
· search the board
· Google search the board

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

Powered by Scoop
You must be a registered user to post here. It's easy and free, and the link is on the upper right side of your page.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Postings are owned by the poster, but may be deleted or moved at the ADMIN's sole discretion. The Rest © 2009 Forcefield.
You can Email the board ADMIN here. PLEASE include the username you signed up with!