Self Running 40kW (40,000 Watt) Fuelless Generator from witts.ws scam?

[lamare]

I have been looking at this and other tech for years, this is how I see things, how I see things isn't subject to change anytime soon because I am not only speculating on the subject, I am actively pursuing the subject on the bench. 

Well, if Ron did achieve a COP >> 1 with these kinds of motors, we should be able to figure out how this worked and why.   

I'm more of an analyst and theory guy and studied quite a lot on the subject of free energy and aether theory, but perhaps we can come to some conclusions.

I've posted a new thread at energeticforum with what I found out so far:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20682-ron-brandts-perm-mag-qeg-meg-magnetic-flux-switching-explained.html

Ron's plans for his Perm-Mag motor have recently been released:
http://www.bestenergy.ws/FreeRonBrandtPlans.html

With respect to "flux switching", I highly recommend watching this video by Lee Kenny, one of the inventors of the MEG, which shows you exactly how magnetic flux switching works and how they got to the current design of the MEG:
https://youtu.be/no50_5iSr2Y

What is important in the simple experiment they show, is that the flux has a preferred path. There's one strong path and one weak path. Further, it is also important to realize that a magnetic field is actually a *vortex* in the aether, which enables you to visualise in your head what is going on in such a motor, although that is not what Kenny talks about.

Further, Ron made a presentation in 1995 about his Perm-Mag motor, which can be found at vimeo as part of Witts video discussions, and also at YouTube with Ron's presentation and only a few minutes of extra talk:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCf0jsaq874m-byUpNTRZcTg

With that being said, Brandt had two signature technologies.  The first being his Perm-mag motor, a brushless BLDC motor which capitalizes on the out runner construction, a design which is commonly referred to as hub motor.  He states that he used the external rotor format for two specific reasons.  The first being in this style of rotor, centrifugal force keeps the magnets in the rotor, and second, leverage. The out runner example you site is weak.  Out runner or "hub motors" are being built with any number of magnets in the rotor. 

On the page describing the release of Ron's plans, it says, after referring to Joseph Newmann's motor:

Ron Brandt then went the next step further using electronic switching and because the magnets flew off the rotor at higher speeds and when the motor got hot, designed the motor with the magnets rotating on the inside of a tube with the windings being on the inside. There was several hundred thousand dollars spent. [...] Back in 1998 a Chinese company was given the information on his basic motor which started the manufacturing of his motor design around the world but not including the overunity controller as far as I am aware.

Ron originally came up the design of the magnets on the inside of a rotating tube after magnets would fly off of a central rotor at higher speeds due to centrifugal forces plus when they over heated weakening the glue. Ron Brandt met with some Chinese in 1998 and gave them the details on the motor. That I believe was the start of those BLDC motors spreading out to the world today. I don't think they got the controller details plus the controller has been upgraded with several hundred thousand dollars over 4 generations since 1998 to 2007. Now it has been upgraded to digitalized gerber files.

Ron was kind and generous in order to receive a very reasonable amount June 17, 2010 allowing me to photostat the machine drawings for the 10 hp (at 13,000 rpm yields 60 hp on a prony brake due to hp going up 4x for the rpm doubling approximately and 120 hp if the mirror is joined) & 40 hp (yielded 500 p on a prony braked at 8,000 rpm with the mirror joined) motors plus the latest 4rth generation of controller in order to be open sourced.

Ron says similar things in his presentation.

Cifta posted the following on the EF thread:

You have posted some interesting reading. I do have one correction to make if you don't mind. Almost all BLDC motors have the same number of magnets as the number of poles. The floppy drive motor "magnet" is actually a ceramic material that has been magnetized with alternating N and S poles.

So, the first question is: Is Cifta correct that there is a 1:1 match between the number of magnets in a BLDC rotor and the number of poles in the stator?

Because if that is true, then there is a significant difference with Ron's original design, which, if I counted correctly, has 3 stator poles for every magnet in the rotor.

So, you are correct in pointing to industry BLDC motors being very similar to Ron's Perm-Mag motor, but if there is a difference between the number of stator poles versus the number of magnets, that could very well be the essential difference between what Ron did and what's current practice in the industry, because if there's three stator poles for every magnet, the magnetic flux will naturally form a "strong" pole connection over the pole which is fully covered by the magnet, while the ones on the edges will form "weak" poles, because of the vortex nature of the magnetic field of a permanent magnet.

In other words: it seems to me that the 1:3 proportion of magnets to the number of stator poles is an *essential* element of Ron's design.

So, it would be nice if we could confirm Cifta's statement to be true, which would give at least another possible explanation for the performance of Ron's design which could then be experimentally investigated further.

Refer to Brandt's stator in his Perm-mag motor.

http://www.tuks.nl/img/Brandt_Stator_photo_600px.jpg

Now look at a present day hub motor stator.   Even the stator laminates are similar in cross section to those which Brandt used in his Perm-mag.  Scroll through the images in the provided link and see the rotor, appreciate the number of magnets versus stator poles, recognize the odd even ratio.  Recognize that what he did back then, is now the standard.   He even informs us that his motors were three phase, again, today's standard.  I use the following link because of the individual's attention to detail, it's refreshing to see this do it yourselfer work towards the "desired"  practical application, showing two of these motors back to back serving as the drive train.

http://s37.photobucket.com/user/ripperton_2008/slideshow/Mira

Very nice photo's, indeed. I noted a picture of a single hall sensor, while on Ron's Perm-Mag motor there were three hall sensors. However, I couldn't find any detail regarding the number of magnet poles in the rotor.

I did find this document, though:
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/BLDC/brushlessdcmotorphasepoleslotconfigurations.pdf

From what I see there, it definitely does not appear to be common to have 3 stator poles for every magnet pole, which I believe would be required for for effective flux switching the way Ron did.

That which differentiates present day BLDC motors from Brandt technology is how the motors are controlled!  What he recuperated, we throw away.  How he recuperated is not made clear, what we do know is that his recuperation method strengthened his motors, and dramatically reduced unnecessary stress.

The schematic for the controller can be found at rexresearch:

http://www.rexresearch.com/brandt/

I will print it out and study, but let's consider the idea that there are (about) three stator poles for every magnet pole in the rotor.

First of all, as I said, a magnetic field should be considered to be a vortex. Consider this video to get an idea of how a magnetic field actually looks like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAl1LVPbYhY

Don't mind what the guy says, just consider what you see here.

Ok, so suppose every magnet pole to have such a vortex going right trough the middle of the magnet, and that there is one stator pole which becomes the "strong" pole, while the other two are "weak". In this situation, you can switch the "strong" flux from the central stator pole to the next at the moment the magnet approaches, while you can harnass BEMF the center pole, while it becomes a "weak" pole, which causes the stator pole leaving the magnet to be already "weak" and thus not slows down the rotor.

Further, when you look at figure 1-D in the slotconfigurations pdf linked above, it seems that there are two closed magnetic paths for every magnet, because each has two neighbors. So, in the flux switching process, you not only have to consider which poles are "weak" or "strong", but also which "strong" stator pole connects to which "strong" stator pole on the neighboring magnet pole and how this is switched smoothly from one stator pole to the next. It feels natural to me that that a third pole in the middle can make the switching process much more gentle and controlled, but I may just as well be totally wrong here.

The PDF suggests that the energy to required to operate the machine didn't come from the supply, well....the demo illustrates otherwise.  Not only are you provided with specific numbers as they relate to the consumption of the motor, the cross section of the wires feeding the motor shatter any doubt regarding input.  His motors were superior to what we have today, not because of the design, it's clear that industry walks side by side with him as far as topology goes. 

Regarding the topology we clearly agree. However, I'm still questioning the number of magnetic poles vs. the number of stator poles. From what I saw in the pdf document linked above, it is not common to use three stator poles for every magnet pole, while my gut feeling tells me that is an important difference for establishing efficient flux switching.

His control method was superior to anything that is being suggested today. You suggest that there is a connection to the MEG, no such connection can be made to the Perm-mag, but can be made to his Variable reluctance generator.

The wonderful thing is we have the Perm-mag hardware exactly as he demonstrated, industry has perfected manufacture to a high degree. So high in fact that it is now possible for the do it yourselfer to fabricate such a motor from the comfort of home, ask anyone into RC motor construction.  We are oblivious (some more than others) to how his controller functioned.  There was a lot more going on than just supplying coils with pulses of current.  Find his controller, build it and marry it to the BLDC motors of today. 

His variation on the Ecklin machine is a completely different tech, and a completely different story.  A story which seamlessly marries flux switching and resonance.

His variation on the Ecklin machine WAS the machine which suffered from magnets flying off the rotor!  This machine is essentially the proof-of-concept version of the Perm-Mag motor and Ron says he could only do about 105%.efficiency with that exact same machine as has been demonstrated by Witts.

As said above, the schematics of the controller have been released recently, including PCB designs, etc.

Regards and thank you for the discussion,

Arend.

[Busterzxcv]

http://www.bestenergy.ws/FreeRonBrandtPlans.html  This has machine drawings updated to autocad and stp. Also the 4rth generation controller updated to gerber files with today's electronic parts including diodes that need to be less than 10 nanosecond response time.


The controller is critical for timing.


it is possible that today's bldc motors such as drone will work with the controller but needs to be verified.

[Dog-One]

Regarding the topology we clearly agree. However, I'm still questioning the number of magnetic poles vs. the number of stator poles. From what I saw in the pdf document linked above, it is not common to use three stator poles for every magnet pole, while my gut feeling tells me that is an important difference for establishing efficient flux switching.

I would disagree.  Attached is an animated GIF.  Download it and view it in your browser.

These "outrunner" 3-phase brushless DC motors are commonly used in many of the lightweight model RC drones you see the kids playing with.  They are extremely powerful for their weight and are very conservative on energy usage.  Are they over-efficient?  I don't know.  Their design is much like Mr. Brandt was heading towards.  What I will say is by their very nature they have eliminated as much iron as possible, leaving just enough to produce the required amount of torque.

The preferred coil winding pattern is known as the dLRK-Evolution scheme, also attached.  If you want to get your hands dirty with these motors, go down to your local hobby shop and purchase a 12 stator, 14 pole outrunner and suitable controller.  You can rewind these motors during a lunch break and try as many scenarios as you want.  It's well worth your time.  Once you get into the swing of things, then add some hall sensors and begin looking at a customized controller where you can manipulate the bEMF any way you like.

I personally was not able to get such a motor into resonance as Mr. Brandt suggested.  At 20,000 RPM I'm still out of the ballpark.  I'm guessing the 40k to 60k RPM is the region where you would detect the onset of resonance.  This is probably a factor of the type of laminations used in the stator.  As Ron stated, the metal matters--what type and how much.

[stargate22]

 

[odumy]

what about this