F.B.D.I.S.S.M - Flux.Boosted.Dual.Induction.Split.Spiral.Motor.

[Honk]

You cannot refill anything from BEMF because there is always hysteresis, eddy currents and copper loss within a coil.
Every bit of loss is responsible for getting less power back than is put in. Thus no OU by returning BEMF.
I guess the Adams Pulse Motor just run for as long as it took for the battery to get drained.

What I don't really understand is why almost every inventer of free energy believe in BEMF being the key.
Almost none that I have read about actually connected a generator the shaft of their motors and then tried to
make it run in closed loop by rectifying and returning the generator output to the drive circuit.
The Bedini motor is propably the best example of not being tested in a motor to generator closed loop.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg25711.html
In this link they talk about measuring the Bedini motor shaft output. It is the same as using a generator.

I can tell you all that using regular soild iron as a coil core will only release half the input power back in the inductive kickback.
Using more advanced materials like MPP powder cores you will get a lot more back but never more than you put in. Never!!!
So far, the only viable free energy devices possible is the ones that use a magnetic gradient to accomplish torque.
But you have build it correctly and big enough, use good materials, and the real key is the timing of the pulse (when overcoming
the sticky spot) to not loose to much energy by unnecessary long pulses. And don't forget the generator......

This guy is getting close but his main problem is that he doesn't really know much about electronics. But his motor is cool.
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=mcorrade

[Originator]

Out of curiosity, why is it required in the design to  use a pulley driven generator, why not design your own generator to operate off the same shaft?  Are you using a ration with the pulleys?  They cost you a lot of friction.  If you do use pulleys, I suggest a timing pulley with timing belt instead of v belt.  The timing belt can operate with less tension(belt friction).

I suggest that you incorporate a round plate attached to the shaft in the same diameter of the inner section diameter of the 2  rows magnets.  On the plate mount one tiny magnet, then mount 8 hall sensors onto a fixed plate at 45 degrees exactly, whereas the rotating plate causes the tiny magnet to pass by the hall sensors.

The hall sensor outputs a pulse to a microprocessor which then calculates and displays on TV or LCD the average speed, acceleration, any sticky points along the 8 separate measurements it takes.  The processor controls precision timing of the pulses to the electromagnets, with compensation for acceleration and decel. 

With the processor, any control needed for PWM, pulse duration,  phase control of electromagnets, etc is managed easily.

I use the processor called the Propeller by Parallax.  80mhz, 32 i/o, with 8 processors on board, more than enough power and speed to manage the motor with minimal power consumption. An optical encoder on a shaft could make for more even more tighter precision of timing.

If I were developing a motor from scratch,  microprocessor controls and monitoring of feedback would be of utmost importance.

I have also considered whether the 2 magnet rows should not be capable of swivel, if not even motorized swivel for fine tuning and testing.

[Honk]

Out of curiosity, why is it required in the design to use a pulley driven generator, why not design your own generator to operate off the same shaft?

No, it's not required. Where did you get that idea?. You should know that I have more than enough labor in my motor alone.
Designing and building a generator as well will just take even more time. And the genererator is not the important key factor of the motor.
In later versions the incorporated generator is probably a good idea. But there could be other scenarios where a pulley driven generator is better.

[Paul-R]

You cannot refill anything from BEMF because there is always hysteresis, eddy currents and copper loss within a coil.
Every bit of loss is responsible for getting less power back than is put in. Thus no OU by returning BEMF.
I guess the Adams Pulse Motor just run for as long as it took for the battery to get drained.

Adams motors have achieved COP=8, but much depends on understanding that the pulse in the coil
is not to attract or repel, but merely to cancel out the effect of the rod once it has done its work
by attracting the magnet. The current in the coil makes the rod go away, if you follow me. The capture of
BEMF with capacitors and returning, often to a battery is important top teh COP outcome.
Paul.

[Honk]

Hi Paul.

COP8, this seems just to good to be true and yet it's forgotten by the world.
The energy community ought to scream of delightment and start replicating at once.
Do you have a direct link to the performance and accurate output measurements.
Having COP 8 would easily let it run in self runner mode without any doupts about the verification.

In the setups of the Adams motor I've seen there are large areas of just air without having the rods
close enough to be attracted efficiently. Seems like a lot of torque waste.
But perhaps I just saw the bad version!

Adams motors have achieved COP=8, but much depends on understanding that the pulse in the coil
is not to attract or repel, but merely to cancel out the effect of the rod once it has done its work
by attracting the magnet. The current in the coil makes the rod go away, if you follow me. The capture of
BEMF with capacitors and returning, often to a battery is important top teh COP outcome.
Paul.