3 Simple Ways to
Share What You Make

With Instructables you can share what you make with the world — and tap into an ever-growing community of creative experts.

PhotosPhotos

Share one or more photos of a project, recipe, or whatever you've made, quickly and easily.

Step by StepStep-By-Step

Share your step-by-step photos with text instructions of what you made so others can do it too!

VideoVideo

Share your how-to video. You'll need your embed code from a video site such as YouTube.

Nice Easy Magnetic Generator Light

Nice Easy Magnetic Generator Light
«
  • genlite1.jpg
  • steplite.jpg
  • genlite2.jpg
People look like they are having a good time charging up those other magnetic torches but it's definitely more fun to watch. This one may require 2 hands but at least you can go all night if you want to.

All you need is a stepper motor and some White LEDs, but a handle is optional.
If you think you have a stepper motor but aren't sure, turn it and see if you can feel the steps.

This motor came out of a big old floppy diskette drive but I think they are very common in other stuff
I took apart, like printers.

A resistor is probably a good idea because it's so easy to make power that you can burn out the LEDs.

It's easy to find the wires on a stepper motor that will light up an LED
but soon I'll show a good way to connect several.
Sorry about the blurry picture I'll update this and fix it soon.

Ok here it goes, this is one time that it's nice that the camera takes so long to take a picture.
I just fixed it up a bit and found something like a propeller to crank it with too.
And dont get mad... because that finger is not the one it probably looks like.
 
Remove these adsRemove these ads by Signing Up
 

Step 1Step 1

Step 1
Under construction.

I know I'm being bad but the magnet contest is almost over.


The schematic below is basically how I have the stepper hooked up now.
The diodes are white LEDs. The resistors are not there yet, so sometimes the LEDs blow.
The resistors will probably be 100 or 470 ohms.
They may be moved off the center tap because they really belong in series with each LED.
I may add reversed LEDs in parallel to get twice as much light,
but then I expect the motor to be harder to turn.

There was a crank on the motor but someone broke it off.
It was just a wire with a loop at the end to put a finger in and go around in circles.
This particular motor can blow LEDs without the crank which is why I didn't bother fixing it Yet.
It's pulley can be turned instead.

Stepper motors may have 4 (no center taps) or 5 (common center taps) or 6 (2 center taps)
in their stator coils. The rotor is a magnet with lots of virtual north and south poles so that
there are a lot more than 4 steps per revolution. Too many to count easily. It seems to have
end pieces with lots of teeth.

Figuring out the wires can be done with a meter. Except for the 5 wire motors there is
no voltage or continuity between the two coils. The center taps will have half as much voltage
or resistance than just the ends of the coils.

For 4-wire motors you can't just have 2 LEDs facing each other like this,
need to reverse the polarity of one (and maybe put it in parallel with the other one,
and leaving out that LED is another option).

Summary, you can easily connect up to 8 LEDs to the stepper motor to use all of it's power generating phases,
but you can also get the LEDs to light just by trying different wires,
and current limiting resistors seem practical and essential.

A hand crank, or a pulley with a finger-hole in it is very good too,
because otherwise just turning the shaft gives annoying pulsing light output.

This does not "charge up". It produces light as soon as you turn it, and until you stop.
But it could... batteries or capacitors may be added. Maybe I will do that later.
« Previous StepDownload PDFView All StepsNext Step »
66 comments
1-40 of 66next »
Mar 3, 2011. 7:42 AMelainek says:
Reading the posts, and I see where a lot of "can't create energy" thinking enters in - true, we can't 'create' energy, but we can tap all kinds of 'free energy'. There's a wonderful batch of information in a free, downloadable book - PJK book - it can be viewed at http://www.yudu.com/item/details/203017/PJK-Book-July-2010 and other sites.

I liked the comparison of a sail boat crossing the ocean; the energy put in by humans was minimal compared to the 'free energy' of the wind. Energy is all round us in many forms - sound, wave, vibration, magnetic, electric, heat, water, decomposition - learning to recognize and tap into these isn't 'free' energy or 'creating' energy, but it's the principle of 'catching the wind' with a sail.

The PJK book is around 2000 pages of massive information! I'm not experienced enough to absorb a lot of it, but it's fascinating.
Feb 5, 2010. 11:40 AMrpvanpatt says:
 hey, I was wondering if you have had any progress on this project?  I wand to make something similar, like a dynamo charger or something.  You may have said already, but what are all the parts that you need to make you basic plan, and maybe if you know how to add in somethin like AAA battery charger to it.  Thanks
Oct 13, 2006. 9:11 PMpaper warrior says:
just an idea: Attach an electric motor to the generator instead of leds and replace the crank with the moving part of the motor then tap it for infinite energy.
Feb 8, 2007. 10:34 AMCameronSS says:
uh... no. Wouldn't work. If you had a 100% efficient system you could make the motors spin infinitely, but friction will slow them down, and you cannot create energy. Well, you can, but it requires a nuclear reactor, a nuclear or thermonuclear bomb, or a star.
Jun 26, 2007. 12:55 PMgirrrrrrr2 says:
what if you had a few highoutput generators..., a few doubling circuts..., a motor..., a gew gears..., a chain..., and a few batterys..., and of course batterys... you can see where i am going with this right... would this work better???
Jul 1, 2007. 12:25 AMCameronSS says:
No...I will explain as well as my brain-dead mind will allow. I just got home from a week of travel and I leave at 6:30 tomorrow morning. If you had a 100% efficient system, it could run indefinitely, but without an output. If you tap any energy, whether it be a sound, lights, motion, anything, it will slow the system down. Perpetual motion is physically impossible. I drive an electric truck, and you have no idea how many times I have heard the comment, "You know, if you hooked a generator to one of the wheels, you could recharge the batteries and extend the range." It DOESN"T WORK.
May 25, 2009. 9:57 PMjimbo333 says:
perpetual motion/energy is not physically impossible, we just have not accomplished it yet. with the right system it could work.
Jul 6, 2007. 11:01 PMCameronSS says:
I never said that regenerative braking didn't work. We would hook it up on our truck if it was an AC motor, but its DC, which can't do regen without a huge cost. The concept I always hear, and all the other guys in the local EV club hear, is to attach a generator to one, two, or four wheels, depending on the genius, which would run constantly, thereby topping off the battery pack and giving us infinite range. If that worked, someone would have put it into use in the last hundredsomething years that EVs have been around. Regen works great! I know some people with Solectria Forces, which were nice AC drive cars made some time ago, factory converted Chevy Geos. They have drum brakes, but they are never used because the automatic regen works so well. It just doesn't reclaim that much energy, and not what Toyota wants you to think the Prius does.
Jul 1, 2007. 12:49 AMgirrrrrrr2 says:
i was just putting that out there... and i only ment would this work better as longer... but thanks for explaining it to me...
Feb 15, 2007. 3:20 PMpaper warrior says:
Why not just put it in a container with no air and give it an additional spin once in a while.
Jun 4, 2007. 2:55 PMn0ukf says:
Air is not the only friction to consider, there's also gear friction, bearing friction, magnetic friction (or drag) and electrical friction (resistance).
Feb 14, 2007. 3:24 PMCameronSS says:
I drive an electric car. Okay, so technically it's a pickup, but it was built in the early '80s and still works perfectly. The problem with solar panels is that they are so darned inefficient. It's nearly impossible to find a commercial panel more than 15% efficient, and NASA's space station panels are only around 25-30% efficient.
Feb 14, 2007. 5:50 PMCameronSS says:
but less efficiency means more is required to create the same output, which ultimately costs more.
Feb 23, 2007. 1:28 PMGenevamech says:
More importantly, low efficiency means you need more which has costs BEYOND money. It means more material and, in the case of solar power, more physical space.

For example, 100% solar powered cars will never exist. This is because there jsut isn't enough solar energy shining on the footprint of the average car to actually power the car. Your average car is 6 feet wide by 12 feet long, or 72 square feet. At roughly 100 watts per square foot (optomistic), you would need 7.5 square feet of solar panel for every 1 horsepower assuming *everything* was 100% efficient (which is thermodynamically impossible).

So a 72 sq.ft. vehicle can't possibly be more than about 9.6hp unless you use batteries to store energy when not driving or some other energy source.

After you factor in real world inefficiencies (15% solar panels, 80% driver electronics and battery storage, 80% motors) you're down to just 10 watts per square foot, or ONE horsepower for a full-sized vehicle. Good luck with that.
Jun 24, 2007. 5:29 AMSlushba132 says:
Also going along with Einstein's theory the more solar panels you need the heavier the car will get and require more solar panels which in turn way the car down more so nothing could be 100% efficient unless its power supply were weightless. And even going back to the beginning the "tapping" I assume would require chemical energy from your body. Not really certain though because I haven't actually read the instructable...whoops.
Feb 12, 2007. 12:25 AMPunkguyta says:
Lol, I can't wait till scientest discover a way of actually creating more matter, as for now, we are simply reusing matter. So for people that don't know what I'm talking about, there is no way to actually "make more matter" but rather it gets processed and turned into something else. Sorry for the crappy explanation, but it's hard as hell to explain that. Perhapes you have a better explanation?
Feb 14, 2007. 2:38 PMPunkguyta says:
Virtual matter, yes, but as far as actual matter, soil, elements, materials that make up this world all get reused and made into other materials, so in other words, we can't actually "destroy" or "create" more "matter" because this is all we have to work with. That's what the laws of physics say, I'm a bit rusty on that one, but I remember have a in depth discussing with my science teacher about it one day.
Jun 26, 2007. 3:59 PMPunkguyta says:
oh, not only that, but do we have a way to not only gather unknown materials from space, or even process it into anything we can use? Thought so, we can't, this civilization we call earth is such a fucking fluke.
Feb 15, 2007. 12:16 AMPunkguyta says:
Not saying there isn't plenty, but just saying, there isn't a way to add matter, just use what is already there
Jun 26, 2007. 2:51 PMSlushba132 says:
And actually come to think of it. Mass and matter can be converted. So I guess there could be more matter just at the expense of overall energy.
Jun 26, 2007. 4:01 PMPunkguyta says:
Yes you are right, trash can be converted even. But we don't really have any way of making it efficient enough, the different trash plants that do process garbage and melt things down aren't that big because that's just it, it's too in-efficient and too much pollution/heat loss. I figure it, unless we can find some new kind of matter out in space and then convert it to material usable here, we're totally fucking screwed eh?
Jun 26, 2007. 9:13 PMSlushba132 says:
I kind of think if maybe we cant fix the problems we have here on earth without going and trashing another planet maybe the species doesn't deserve to live. If we can't change as a species I kind of hope we die out before we drag the whole planet down with us. It doesn't seem that bad in the long run to trade one species for a whole worlds existence, even if that species is our own.
Jun 27, 2007. 8:14 AMPunkguyta says:
I'd have to agree 100% with you on this.
Jun 24, 2007. 5:33 AMSlushba132 says:
I understand you. Everything in this entire existence is recycled on its own to make way for new things to come and go. planets and stars will blow apart and collect to make new planet and stars. Trees will die so other things can eat it and die and then give back to the trees which once helped it. I tried bringing this up in science class and no one understood me at all. I guess thats the problem with being 14. I don't see why we recycle though. If you look at it aren't we just making carbon fumes melting stuff were to impatient to just let sit there and decompose?
Jun 24, 2007. 5:52 PMPunkguyta says:
Well yes and no, because we could let these things decompose, but because a lot of the stuff in the landfills are mostly man made products, they tend to take several decades for things to start decomposing, I honestly don't think anyone has that kind of patience. You know why they're melting things down even more today than 20 years ago? Because everyone knows natural supplies are running out.
Jun 26, 2007. 2:49 PMSlushba132 says:
You know what I don't get. Why don't stores just sell us the bottles and then sell the contents separately like from a soap dispenser all you would have to do is get like one bottle for shampoo and just refill it. But then again I guess the petroleum bottle's are made and the chemicals that are made after reusing...Why don't we just get rid of plastics all together.
Jun 26, 2007. 9:09 PMSlushba132 says:
Yeah but ceramics decompose just as slow as plastics do. We still have pots from hundreds of years ago. I think iff we switched to pots we would have the same problem with not being to wait for it to decompose naturally.
Jun 27, 2007. 3:21 PMSlushba132 says:
Yeah but people would have to learn to get used to some sand and clay particles in our drinks. It does seem like a good idea though. The problem is converting the whole world away from what its use to. That and we still have to figure out an alternative way to make power.
Oct 30, 2007. 4:21 PMnightmaresyndrome says:
Think of how impractical it would be...would you want to go food shopping and carry all of those heavy pots, having to worry about them breaking in your car on the ride home? "Damn, my Pepsi just busted all over my trunk...again!". Many safety issues. Furthermore, sure you could refill them...but what would you utilize to carry and transport said soap or shampoo from its source to your now empty bottle/pot? Probably another bottle or pot...and thinking of how lazy people can be, who would want to sit there and pour shampoo from one bottle into another when you have another full bottle (and you'd still have one empty bottle!). Good idea in theory though!
Oct 10, 2007. 4:38 PMBuckyOHare says:
Mar 6, 2009. 1:06 AMimakethings says:
you can also use a geared motor
Sep 25, 2006. 3:29 PMFrenchCrawler says:
FrenchCrawlersays: You do realize that there is still one week left before this month is over? Why not just leave it unpublished until it's finished or at least until you have some kind of schematic for it to post (even use paint to draw us a simplified picture of how it will work). How ever it works, it looks (as blurred as it may be) like we're all in for a treat. Don't let us down :P
1-40 of 66next »

Pro

Get More Out of Instructables

Already have an Account?

close

All Steps Viewing
View all steps of an Instructable on the same page when you're a Pro Member.

Upgrade to Pro today!
59
Followers
12
Author:VIRON
I'm a figment of my own imagination. ---- To Win the war on Terra Means to END the WORLD. How about a nice game of Chess? ---- I'm chilling, but forgive me for sometimes believing I invented everythi...
more »