A purpose for an interested internet community: Build a more powerful electric motor, which will drive cars, lorries, buses, motor cycles, boats, planes, Etc. with ease, and require only a new twelve volt battery every three to four years. Provide enough power for a house electricity supply.
Has anyone considered using a computer, the same as electronic ignition in a car, to switch the magnets on an electric motor?
It would mean total control of them. Thus giving the possibility of adding to them a driving ‘FLYWHEEL’ on the same axle. (Shaft) Or even two flywheels with opposite poles on them pulling together, instead of alternating both poles on the one as happens at present. It is this which limits the power of an electric motor. Meaning, at present, if you want more power, you build bigger motors, and use more battery or electric. This one would have only one ‘spark’ computed to where it is needed, when it is needed. Impossible without the computer ignition control. (electronic ignition)
Such a secondary flywheel, powered by magnets the same as now, would increase the power enormously, because of the additional leverage. It would also give self start, (Just run the computer through the program and it will find the opposites needed to start the motor in a split second, and then continue under it’s own power) and with a car type alternator fitted as well to charge the battery, would mean little or no battery power, except to the computer. A normal car battery would give all the power required. (Better battery start?)
If it could be done, several flywheels could be added to an existing motor design?, and synchronised. All powering the same (Axle) shaft. It could drive my yacht. When I can afford one. (I wanted to do a diagram, but the Paint program in these computers is not fit for purpose, like the old NT windows was. Not clean when saved)
19.03.13: This is how simple they are
With a flywheel (Is my calling it a flywheel confusing you? large diameter drive wheel might be less confusing) even a clutch and gear box can be added. Giving reverse gear without reversing the alternator, along with, say a five speed box, and any other driven parts you might add. It’s how I think I’d make it. Because it again increases the power, and makes it possible to adjust it up or down on demand. (At present they rely on the motor speed only, and lose out on potential power) With an accelerator it would be normal to drive. Even with a choice of an automatic or manual gear box) An electric motor is a simple thing, but in order to make them bigger they use bigger shafts. Instead a driving wheel on a smaller shaft, still big enough and more for purpose, will increase the power to the point that some is ‘extra power’. It is the extra power that is needed for things like the alternator. I remember years ago people used to complain that lorries had too much power, and things got broken because of it. Half shafts Etc. Now lorries have far more power – up to a hundred times more – and all they did to stop breakages was make the other parts bigger as well. Now they are safer, faster on the road, much more versatile. Farm tractors the same. Some parts of the electric motor would require to be more substantial, but only the wheel and the shaft. Consider the hardened steel shaft in a car lorry gearbox and you get the ideal requirements. Add those and you add very little weight. An equivalent electric motor at present would be so large it would not fit under the bonnet of a family ca, and one that does needs a power pack of batteries so big it’s laughable.
When one is fitted to an F1 car and touches 200 mph, and wins, I’ll know you have been thinking about it, and it’s not impossible. Nothing is.
08.01.14 I’ve added this (Below) because I feel it might explain better what I mean.
Many years ago, during the industrial revolution, factories, meal mills and woollen mills Etc. were powered by a simple device known as a water wheel. A very simple, but efficient device indeed.
A big heavy wheel on an axle which was driven round and round by a single bucket attached to the wheel which filled with water from a higher source letting gravity do the turning. As it turned another bucket was filled, the first one emptied underneath, and so the turning was continuous.
An electric motor is exactly the same, but requires too much expensive power to turn it, because of the too small radius of the power points. The buckets if you like.
A bigger wheel. Fill all the buckets at precisely the same time even, empty and fill again all in a split second, and the power is going to be much greater. As the power used, maybe from a dynamo, Magneto device, is different from the power taken off by an alternator to power the start and the lights on a vehicle, there can’t be much problem. Computers today can do all the synchronizing if required. It is not rocket science. I still think they should turn in one direction only. A gear box doing the reversing Etc. To begin with anyway.
Electric motors were designed when power was thought to be infinite, and the internal combustion engine ran on a plentiful supply of cheap gas. (Fuel) They were only designed for the purposes they are used. They need to be re-thought to do more now.
Of course they might need to be renamed. How about ‘electric (as in water) wheels?’ Oh, maybe not.
‘Fred Dibnah And David Hall – Age Of Steam’: (2003 – BBC Books)
I bought the book last week, or so, ago from W.H. Smith’s. Reduced, or I’d not have bought it, but I’m glad I did. (No longer stocked)
I’ve only read the beginning so far. However it spells out the methods of power that were used to power the industrial revolution so well.
Water Wheel: With it’s water buckets filling and emptying to turn the wheel and drive the machines.
Steam: With it’s piston action powered by steam and a vacuum filling and emptying to drive the machines.
Internal Combustion Engine: With it’s compression and fuel ignition driven pistons driving a crank shaft, to drive almost anything.
Electric Motor: With it’s shaft driven by electricity in exactly the same method as a water wheel.
Apart from the obvious, what do they all have in common?
They require/d expensive fuels to turn them.
Fred Dibnah and David Hall made the point that the first steam engine used in the coal mines to pump water out of the mines required tons of coal a day to operate. No problem for coal mines, but it took James Watt to come along later, and make them more efficient, before they were viable for other applications.
All power should be free. “Thine will be done on earth as it is in heaven ” includes endless supplies of free power, I’m certain.
It is certainly true that we must at least try to create a free power source.
Steam and water wheels were often used together. With steam pumping the water back for reuse. Hydro Electric is often made that way. Water powering the turbines by day, and the electricity pumping the water back at night for reuse when demand for power is much less. (In the book, because I didn’t know that)
It is almost in my mind how to put all the elements of the past to use as a free power source. Required Power. Can you?
There is an equation you know from the above, and it’s basically simple.
‘ The power used to drive a wheel could be got from the wheel itself if the initial input were immediately and efficiently reused. ‘
For Example: If an electric motor had power points all the way around the drive wheel, which put power in, and at the same time gave power off. In equal amounts it would not deliver enough power to use for driving it, but supposing, just for the sake of easy maths, only four points on the wheel were used to drive it, but Fifty Six were used to gather power to be used again. The equation could be any number of either within the circumference of a circle. (Of course you could have more points side by side. Thus doubling both input and output)
I’ve based that on the seconds on a clock. Inputs at twelve, fifteen, thirty, and forty five.
Outputs between = Fifty Six. The most efficient could be totally different. E.g. Inputs could = twelve. Outputs = 48. (Also a clock face example may not be the best spacing)
Input and output need not be on the same wheel, but if they could be, motor size would be greatly reduced, and repair would be a simple wheel replacement.
Good Luck with that. Put it in a Porsche and complete a 24 hour race. No need to win it, first time.
Electric Motors Modernized Will Power Themselves: And a lot more besides.
My first computer was an old BBC Basic. It used 7″ discs as it’s only memory, and if you’d had a modern colour photo it could not have handled it leave alone stored it.
My next computer had memory (8G) and 3.5″ floppys. (One of the problems I had making music on it was I had to break single songs into parts and rejoin them)
Silicon Chip technology is the answer to separating the working parts on an electric motor and electricity generator combined.
In tyre manufacturing this process is already in use.
The old radial tyres had wire wound around the tyre. The crossplys have a fibre mesh from edge to edge around the tyre several times. Thus the ply 4, 6, 8. Like fibreglass reinforcing but using strong fibre. Those are set up in the mould and the rubber / nylon mix is injected around them. Like Silicon chips, once set up and working, they can be mass produced in minutes.
Someone/s out there knows how to put all of this together for the good of mankind. The importance is immense. Wars are being fought over the lack of fuel to feed people and power industries such as farming, weaving, making machines etc.
A self driven electric motor and electricity generator all in one is possible using all modern techniques and the experts from each required field.
The copper coil to generate electricity wrapped in a suitable insulation is easy. Coil it on a strip of insulating material moulded exactly for the purpose. With nylon plugs and wire insulation cover on the terminal wires (Make sure they’re properly trapped inside. Use a clip if needed) to be let through the mould and then the alloy casing housing the flywheel. Snap the two ends of the coiled mould together to form a circle, and place it in the finishing mould on preformed guides to form the exact circumference. The exact tolerance could be as small as 1mm that way, but more might be allowable. I see the finished ‘Tyre’ as no more than an inch in thickness, but? The magnets should work through the material, but electricity must not. Magnets are not clever enough to know what part they should be using. They’ll ignore the insulation. Electricity can be insulated. Or it will cross onto the drive parts. How the coils should be arranged is beyond me, but many people know how to do this, I’m certain. It’s less than a micro chip calculation.
The ‘Tyre’ should fit half in the casing around the wheel, and half in the cover. The clutch and gearbox on the other side of the flywheel. (Removing the cover, fitted with a suitable bearing for the drive shaft, and pulling the flywheel, off the spline would allow easy clutch maintenance?)
I see it all as about 18″ long with gearbox, and the size of the gearbox / flywheel in diameter. Didn’t that racing driver once test a small automatic gearbox in a F1 car before returning to his old one and winning the championship, then the U.S.A. championship before he retired? (Make mine a manual box)
Note: Remember to add suitable ballast if testing in a conventional vehicle. Or it will be difficult to control. Future designs will allow for less weight.
Such a motor should not turn backwards in my opinion. Impossible to drive. It should be set to idle at the same revolutions as a well tuned car engine. With top revolutions of under seven thousand rpm. Normal usage is from around 2.5 – 5.5 rpm. (I think) That is ample driving a five speed gearbox with reverse. Racers could make their own arrangements. Because it is taking it’s power from itself, unless someone can turn it into AC, I’d want it DC. With wizard circuitry, which does exist, and the excess power bled of to the battery and lights etc, etc. Less stress on a battery if the power can be sent straight back from the first revolution.
All that’s beyond me, but can already be done. I’ll give you an example. A woodturning lathe with variable speed can revolve at anything from zero to six thousand rpm at the twist of a handle. The same control switch with a return spring can be just as easily operated by a foot pedal for infinite rpm between their given ranges. (Their switches are turned by hand usually, but that’s for operator convenience)
Should the ‘Tyre’ be on the wheel instead? Or both? Moulded nylon could insulate on both. Thus completely seperating one from the other)
Note: I’m sure such a ‘Tyre’ would need a lot less copper wire as well. Just better calculations instead. They just used plenty without a care for excess, but we can do better. Smaller and neater. (Is copper the only, and best, material now?)
Note also: Good gearing is better than masses of power. It would surprise most people how little power a good car design needs. (A little excess is not a bad thing, ‘specially if it’s free, and the larger the wheel the more possible coiling, so a ship could even be driven by a big wheel)
If one put the drive on the outer rim, and the electric power take off point on the end, under the cover, would this make it easier? Using the flywheel rim and side.
22.04.17 Addition (Taken From A Post)
I thought I’d improve on the idea of a self powering electric motor. This is not definitive in any way, just a brainstorming idea from a tired brain. Paint is not a good programme. for spirals, and the configuration is likely to require to be different, but the idea is to make the shaft contacts on a spiral configuration on a straight shaft, or even on a near oval shape shaft, which has several spiral contact points. (Allowing more than one drive acting at the same time in the same direction. Both directions. How many would be possible?) It could be doubled up or more as well, because the points would not interfere with each other, (Contradict) providing they were synchronised. Imagine the power. Interestingly the configuration could be the same regardless of the motor size? Difficult to work out, but once calculated?