Hi I'm working on a personal project where i pulse a 3 phase 24V AC voltage into a motor using a SSR. Then I pulse the voltage out of the motor using another SSR (both SSR's cannot be on at the same time), i have found that this voltage out of the motor is a mirror of the input voltage to the motor. This output voltage from the motor goes through a 3 phase rectifier. I've also found that the voltage out of the rectifier route 3 41VDC is mirrored also. meaning + terminal of the rectifier is - and the - is the + voltage. what circuit could i put together after the rectifier to correct, so that when i connect to a charge controller the positive terminal is + thanks

 

So you are using it as a motor and a generator?
What device are you using for the SSR ? All 3 phases?

 

Sounds suspiciously like a “free energy” project.

 

Nobody pulses voltage into and out of a motor. Where did you come up with this malaprop?

 

Sounds suspiciously like a “free energy” project.

When I pulse energy into a motor and not run continuously I'm extending the battery run time of the motor because im only energising the motor for 24 degrees of the full 360 degrees

 

So you are using it as a motor and a generator?
What device are you using for the SSR ? All 3 phases?

The motor is a ac squrral cage induction motor but yes it is driving a 240v 415v alternator. I'm using a pulse control circuit to control the pulses, the ssr is a 3 phase ssr

 

Nobody pulses voltage into and out of a motor. Where did you come up with this malaprop?

I came up with the idea to save energy and so far there is a difference of 5-10% energy saving with a slight reduction in torque 2.87nm to 2.75nm

 

Sounds suspiciously like a “free energy” project.

I'm realising the energy of a 4kg flywheel when it is spinning at 3000rpm. This aids rotation and drives some of the load of the excitation current of the alternator. I'm trying to extend battery run time

 

I came up with the idea to save energy and so far there is a difference of 5-10% energy saving with a slight reduction in torque 2.87nm to 2.75nm

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far, we have an incomprehensible question and a load of word salad. the immutable rule of ALL power conversion schemes is that power out will always be less than power in. Sometimes it will be a good deal less. This is true for AC-DC conversion, DC-DC conversion as well as AC to mechanical conversion.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far, we have an incomprehensible question and a load of word salad. the immutable rule of ALL power conversion schemes is that power out will always be less than power in. Sometimes it will be a good deal less. This is true for AC-DC conversion, DC-DC conversion as well as AC to mechanical conversion.

I'm finding that the spinning mass of the 4kg flywheel, (which is connected to the motor) at 3000rpm and pulsing the energy inline with the rotor every 90 degrees into the motor is reducing the energy required to drive the load, which in my case is the excitation load of the alternator. The current and wattage reduces. I'm seeing on a 415vac induction motor (pulsing) the run current is at 5.59A and the wattage is 912.6W, pf is 0.85. when i run the motor continuously, I'm getting 5.66A and the wattage is 928W and 0.85pf. i understand that power out will always be less than power in but why am i seeing a reduction in energy usage and still getting the same output from the alternator

 

I'm finding that the spinning mass of the 4kg flywheel, (which is connected to the motor) at 3000rpm and pulsing the energy inline with the rotor every 90 degrees into the motor is reducing the energy required to drive the load, which in my case is the excitation load of the alternator. The current and wattage reduces. I'm seeing on a 415vac induction motor (pulsing) the run current is at 5.59A and the wattage is 912.6W, pf is 0.85. when i run the motor continuously, I'm getting 5.66A and the wattage is 928W and 0.85pf. i understand that power out will always be less than power in but why am i seeing a reduction in energy usage and still getting the same output from the alternator

i know that once i pulse the motor in relation to the rotating magnetic field instead of the rotor i will obtain further saving in regards to the input and still be able to drive the alternator. with my pulse controller i can increase the rotations between energisation of the motor to every other turn. so instead of the motor being switched 56 times a second it will be 28 times a second and ill still be able to drive the load. Correct me if im wrong but with regards to the motor efficiency equation if i include rotating mass and momentum with the equation, i reduce the input energy to drive the same load

 

Indeed, this is another over unity project.

 

"" but why am i seeing a reduction in energy usage and
still getting the same output from the alternator ""

Because You are measuring things incorrectly,
The-End ...............

Demonstrate your device doing significant heavy WORK for at least 24-hours straight,
then, "maybe", You might peak someone's interest.
.
.
.

 

"" but why am i seeing a reduction in energy usage and
still getting the same output from the alternator ""

Because You are measuring things incorrectly,
The-End ...............

Demonstrate your device doing significant heavy WORK for at least 24-hours straight,
then, "maybe", You might peak someone's interest.
.
.
.

Fair enough where would you suggest to measure correctly. At the moment I'm measuring at the input terminals to the vfd.

I have been running under load with a 2kw heater plugged into the alternator.

 

Indeed, this is another over unity project.

I don't think it is, it just saves energy