Bedini and Bearden are the closest so far as far as I can find but then again, they most not have understood the forces at play because if they did, their motors would have been over 200% efficient.
It is a mater of understanding the forces as well as understanding how to manipulate them properly. All the above were trying to produce more work with two forces without properly utilizing either force. The only true over unity device ever built is the magnet and nature has even produced them but yet we have not properly utilized them. Bedini and Bearden were the closest thus far and they both left out three very important things.
I shouldn't post this but what the heck.
One very important thing they are not utilizing is both poles of the coils. While they are using one, the other is being wasted. Both can be utilized. Once both are utilized, the motor becomes 100% more efficient.
The other is the proper utilization of the magnets. They are only utilizing one half of the face polarity when they could be utilizing 100% of both face polarity's. This can be done if you truly understand how they work. This adds another 100% efficiency to their designs. It only adds 100% because you have to use both poles of the coils to properly utilize them.
To do this, you need to place one magnet next to another but with opposite polarity's facing up. This has to be done in two different arrangements but they must me arranged in the opposite, meaning, if you have one with the north first, the other has to have the south first.
Another thing that has to be done is the switching of polarity?s the coils put out. This has to be done between each pulse that the coils are supplied with.
Once this is all done, you will have what you all call over unity. There is your true free energy. Good luck and please don't be greedy.
Thomas N. Brown
36 Hodgson st.
Battle Creek, Michigan 49014
269-964-6972
Hi Thomas,
I have been thinking also along the same lines. I've also been wondering why we don't use both sides of coils and magnets ???. I have not wet built it though. Have you built a working unit that demonstrated advantages? I would be interested in your findings.
Thanks
Luc
gotoluc, I am not done building the motor but I have tested the coils and the magnets and they do work as I stated.
Nightlife, can you please elaborate a little?
At first I thought you were talking about using one electromagnet coil
to drive two motor/generator wheels at the same time, thus using
both poles...
But you brought up using two magnets next to eachother, opposing poles
on either side...
I can't really fit that into the 'standard' Bedini motor setup...
I'm sure you have a very clear mental picture of that, but I don't see it yet. ;)
Koen1, here is a rough sketch.
Oooo did you mean it like that ;)
I thought you wanted to use two coils next to eachother,
but you're talking about bending a coil so the two coil
poles are next to eachother, in combination with an
interesting magnet arrangement on the wheel...
Yes, that does appear to be a more effective application of a coil
than only using one pole.
A couple of years ago I was much more into magnet motors than
I am now, and I made a few sketches of ideas back then of which
a couple were along the same lines... But in the designs I recall
I used either one coil to drive two wheels at the same time,
or I used two coils wrapped around a U-shaped core to get something
quite similar to your "bent coil" idea.
But I didn't use the magnet arrangement on the wheel like you
show them...
Question: do you think there is really much difference between
a) using 100% of a coils flux but only at one pole, and
b) using 50% of a coils flux at one pole and 50% at the other
after all, the total magnetic field the coil prodcues does not
change, nor does the total flux. It is now used equally in two
places instead of in one...
But does that really add anything?
Koen1, You cant have a magnetic flux without having both poles. So, if you have one flux strength on one pole, the opposite has to have the same strength used or unused. With that being said, if one pole can pick up 5#, then the other side should be able to at the same time using the same amount of power. How can you have flux one pole with out having flux at the opposite pole? Maybe I have a misunderstanding on how electromagnetic poles react. I assumed they act the same a a magnet and you cant have one pole of a magnet have stronger flux then the other and you cant have no flux on one pole with out having flux on the other.
I guess I need to do some testing on this. I thought it was simple science but then again, what do I know about science. I ditched that class.
The magnet arrangement allows us to use the full strength of both poles combined. It adds 100% torque plus it also gives us a longer throw. This I did test.
Quote from: nightlife on May 14, 2008, 07:56:30 AM
Koen1, You cant have a magnetic flux without having both poles. So, if you have one flux strength on one pole, the opposite has to have the same strength used or unused.
Yes yes, no no, ;) that's not what I meant. Of course there need to be two poles and of course the total flux applies to the whole of the electromagnet coil.
And obviously that flux must flow equally through both poles at all times. I guess I should have formulated that more clearly. Sorry for the confusion.
What I meant was not actually the magnetic field of the electromagnet, as we can agree that needs to be homogenous and dipolar.
What I meant to say was:
Is there really much effective difference
in the interaction with the rotor magnets between the use of
a) only one pole of the electromagnet to "push" or "pull" the rotor, so all the effective force exerted on the wheel
comes from a "monopolar" push or pull with all the energy cotained in the coil flux used at that single pole "push"/"pull", and
b) both poles of the electromagnet "pushing" and "pulling" the rotor at the same time, like your U-coil idea, where the
total coil flux is not only used to exert force on one 'pole' of the coil, but now the flux of the coil is used
in both poles to produce effective "push" and "pull" at the same time.
I ask because it seems to me that, although use of two poles appears to double the applied force on the rotor, the
total flux and energy in the coil does not, so the total force that can be exerted by the coil should remain equal
to that which can be exerted in a setup where only one coil pole is used to apply force to the rotor...
And if that is so, then the total amount of energy received by the coil and force applied to the rotor
should not really be different... should it?
QuoteWith that being said, if one pole can pick up 5#, then the other side should be able to at the same time using the same amount of power. How can you have flux one pole with out having flux at the opposite pole?
Not zero flux at the pole, I meant zero effective use of the flux in driving the wheel.
seems to me that, if we input X energy into the coil, the flux must equal that, and if we now use X energy in magnetic attraction or repulsion on one
pole of the coil, we should not be able to use that same amount of X energy at the other pole as well... We should be able to use 50% of X at
either pole, effectively, or otherwise we'd be using 2X output energy in the form of flux while we only put in 1X of energy... Does not compute...
;) Or have I gone completely looney now? ;) :D
QuoteMaybe I have a misunderstanding on how electromagnetic poles react. I assumed they act the same a a magnet and you cant have one pole of a magnet have stronger flux then the other and you cant have no flux on one pole with out having flux on the other.
No, that was clearly a matter of me being extremely vague in my formulation. Sorry again. ;)
QuoteThe magnet arrangement allows us to use the full strength of both poles combined. It adds 100% torque plus it also gives us a longer throw. This I did test.
Ah, now this is sort of where I was heading.
So you say that with X energy input to the coil, you get Y torque on the wheel when you use only single pole attraction/repulsion between stator coil and rotor,
but when you bend the coil into a U shape and use both poles for attraction/repulsion between stator coil and rotor, and you input X energy, you get 2Y torque out?
Really?
Cool! :D
Koen1, "I ask because it seems to me that, although use of two poles appears to double the applied force on the rotor, the
total flux and energy in the coil does not, so the total force that can be exerted by the coil should remain equal
to that which can be exerted in a setup where only one coil pole is used to apply force to the rotor...
And if that is so, then the total amount of energy received by the coil and force applied to the rotor
should not really be different... should it?"
I may be wrong with my assumption but I was thinking that electromagnets were the same as regular magnets and I also assumed that if a regular disc magnet was placed with the polarity's facing east and west, the east could be used to attract x amount of weight and even if x amount was the most it could attract, then the west could then attract the same at the same time.
This may be a wrong assumption for me and I guess I should have tested that before posting what I have.
"So you say that with X energy input to the coil, you get Y torque on the wheel when you use only single pole attraction/repulsion between stator coil and rotor,
but when you bend the coil into a U shape and use both poles for attraction/repulsion between stator coil and rotor, and you input X energy, you get 2Y torque out?"
This was based on my assumption of equal polarity strengths. meaning that if one polarity is loaded with the max it can handle, the other should be capable of being loaded with the same even after the one is already loaded with it's max.
Again I must state that my assumption may not be correct and I should have tested it before posting just to be sure. I will test it later as well as I will test the U shaped coil with the same test.
What you have said maybe the reason why others have not used the U shaped electromagnets and my assumption of how they act may be wrong. It looks like I have some more testing to do.
Thank you for the concerns, they are valid and I can now understand where they may be an issue.
Nightlife
It looks like a great idea to me
I assume that you plan to drive your coils with AC
As I see it you should have nearly double the energy availablle .
the only down side I can see if IF you have a place where your magnets " catch " the problem area will have twice the energy to stop the rotor .
In real life probably the worst part about the idea is it will make winding the coils harder .....
gary
Question:
Does anyone know if a horseshoe or U shaped magnet can lift more weight using both ends together than a similar bar magnet using only one end?
I don't have any horseshoe or U shaped magnets to test with, only bar and cylinder so I cannot test this concept.
Regards,
jeffc
Seems to me that two bar or cylindrical magnets connected via
a piece of ferromagnetic material such as 'soft' iron should result
in a sort of U-shaped magnet with two poles on one side,
and you should be able to test if that 2-pole end can lift more
weight than the 1-pole end of the same two cylinder or bar magnets
connected to form one double length bar or cylinder...
I just finished my testing on both, permanent magnets as well as a electromagnet. Both results confirmed my assumption to be true.
Both poles from both the electromagnet and the permanent magnet attracted and repelled equally regardless if one pole was loaded or not.
Are there any other concerns I should check in to before going any further?
I don't see any at the moment...
So it's true then?
If you only use one pole of an electromagnet to push or pull the rotor,
you're actually wasting 50% of the energy?
That's quite funky...
And neither Bearden or Bedini noticed this?
It almost sounds impossible eh... But hey, that's what they said about
heavier than air flight too, and two funny bicycle builders made that work...
So that shouldn't stop you from trying your 2-pole setup! ;D
Koen1,
QuoteSo it's true then?
Based on my testing it's true. When I used a permanent magnet, I placed a iron object to the point of attractions start and then I placed a identical iron object on the opposite side at the point of its attractions start and then I confirmed that the other was still at the attraction start and then I measured the distance between the two and I found them to be exact. I then did the test using the repelling effect and ended up with the same results.
I then Tested a electromagnet the same way and I ended up with the same results.
QuoteAnd neither Bearden or Bedini noticed this?
I can't say they did or didn't but I have yet to see a motor built and or designed using this design.
QuoteIt almost sounds impossible
That is true and that is why I tested what was questioned just to make sure. There may be a design out there like this and it is just being hid from us. Heck, you never know these days and I can't believe that my self being a POS 9th grade drop out could figure this out and no else has. Some one else must have figured this out other then me.
resonanceman,
QuoteI assume that you plan to drive your coils with AC
I actually plan on using a D/C source. 12 volt car battery's.
Quotethe only down side I can see if IF you have a place where your magnets " catch " the problem area will have twice the energy to stop the rotor.
That is true but all catches can be utilized to produce power.
QuoteIn real life probably the worst part about the idea is it will make winding the coils harder .....
That is where I may have a problem. I have been studying ways of making coils but I have not done so yet. The same goes for the circuitry and collecting coils. I am planning on using a odd collection coil design. It is half moon shaped and there will be several placed on each side of the wheel operating off magnets that will be placed on the sides of the wheel.
Thanks for your support and please post any other concerns you may find and or still have. I would prefer to get all the bugs worked out before I get this built.
hi NightLife, ....would this same idea work if a normal coil was used and a wheel was placed at each end ?(rather than bending a coil into a U shape).
b0rg13,
Quotewould this same idea work if a normal coil was used and a wheel was placed at each end ?(rather than bending a coil into a U shape).
Yes, it should. That was my first design but I figured my new design would be more efficient.
Hi NightLife,
Amazing and creative idea, IMHO.
Could it be, as stated by B0rg13, something like that?
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffreenrg.info%2FPic%2FDouble_SSG.GIF&hash=3eef0d59d163e0172000ec70fd0a133dffb8d1c1)
Best
Modif : Too late, sorry.... :-\
NerzhDishual, yes it can but let me alter your picture and show you how to double the power as well as your pulse length capability.
The other thing is that you may have to connect the two wheels together by using gears on the axes. This way you can be assured your timing will stay the same for both wheels. The problem with that is that you lose efficiency by way of resistance gears add.
Let me explain the advantages of my magnet arangement.
1. It doubles the power out put.
2. It gives you the option of having a longer power throw.
3. It can be kept to only move in one direction.
The ideal set up be to have one coil for every two sets of magnets. Damn, I just had another brain storm. You will love this next one. LOL
In this design, the coil is placed between to wheels that are attached to the same axel. Each wheel has magnets around them as pictured. This could be easily multiplied as shown in the second picture. Multiple coils can and should be used between each of two wheels. The end outside surfaces of the wheels can be utilized by installing magnets for charging coils. This design may be the best yet and I am thinking of other ways to utilize it?s design. I should get a job doing this type of work. LOL
Quote from Nightlife: "I shouldn't post this but what the heck."
My sentiments exactly, at this point. I believe too many people have been concentrating too much on designing a CAPTURE device for the forces of magnetism, instead of concentrating on the forces themselves. In almost every case, the opposite polarity somehow cancels out the force of the other. Also, in almost every case, a rotor and stationary stators are used. Why?
In the case of other "forces" we have successfully captured, i.e., water power, wind power, and steam power, we have utilized a blade, or turbine system, to capture the energy. Why not magnetism? Since joining this forum a year ago, I have recalled a demonstration that my seventh grade science teacher showed us. She had constructed a pinwheel shaped "fan" of flat magnets, and introduced a fairly large rod magnet in front of the pinwheel, The magnet pinwheel spun like crazy. However, before she could explain the design and science behind it, a teacher ran in from next door, and screamed at my teacher to turn on our small b & w TV to CBS, and Walter Cronkite. The time was a little after !:00 PM, on November 22nd, 1963. I never saw that device again, but I DID see it, for a short time.
IMHO, I don't see why this would not work. Only one polarity would be "active", from both the pinwheel and the cylindrical manger, and if both were the same, the repulsion would seem to be uniform across the surfaces of the "fan magnets", and if properly angled, would cause the rotor to turn.
I have tried to model this in WM2D, but the closest I could get was to produce the fans from curved polygons angles to produce an offset center of mass, and to introduce an electrostatic force from above. I have attached the model for anyone to modify and experiment with. SOMETHING is definitely causing this model to spin at increasing velocities!
Nightlife, the reason I barged in on your discussion was because you wanted to utilize both polarities instead of just one. Well, if a pinwheel motor was possible, it would use only one polarity as viewed head on, however, there is still the "other side". And besides, you encouraged me to take the chance and post. I'm not getting any younger or healthier! Thank you!
Dact
P.S. Nightlife, if you feel that my post should be separate, don't hesitate to say so.
@Nightlife,
Below is the image of what I have been thinkind building of for a while. It uses both sides of the Magnets and both sides of the Coils. I would have 8 Coils around the Stator and 7 Magnets around the Rotor, like a Bill Muller Generator, that way it gets rid of sticky spots.
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on May 15, 2008, 02:17:01 AM
@Nightlife,
Below is the image of what I have been thinkind building of for a while. It uses both sides of the Magnets and both sides of the Coils. I would have 8 Coils around the Stator and 7 Magnets around the Rotor, like a Bill Muller Generator, that way it gets rid of sticky spots.
Luc
Hi Luc,
I assume you will drive the rotor with something (preferably with a low power motor) and utilize the induced power in the stators' coils, right?
Would like to ask how you think the effect of Lenz law will manifest in the input power consumption of the driving motor?
I assume the load current in the output coils will always create repel poles at the endings of the stators with respect to the just approaching and then leaving rotor magnet poles. It is ok that you can cleverly manipulate the number of coils with the number of rotor magnets to minimize cogging but once the load appears so does the repel poles at the prongs so cogging may reappear, with increasing input power demand due to Lenz law, this is how I think now.
Have you considered these things already?
Thanks, Gyula
Dact, I am glad I was able to help you with your decision for posting your thoughts. I do hope that you post more if you should have and or even think of any new ones.
I could not down load your attachments and I am having a hard time picturing what you were talking about. If you could post a picture using a different program, I would like to see it so I can give you my opinion of it.
Please note that I am not a very book smart guy but I will give you my honest opinion.
gotoluc, our concepts are very similar and I believe yours will work just as well except, you seem to only use one magnet and when doing so, you can only utilize half of the facing polarity?s. Do to you using both sides of the magnets, that alone adds 100% more torque. I would think of adding a magnet to each of the others you are using so that you can get another 100%.
All in all, you have a good idea and I would like to see what you get out of the end results.
Good luck and thank you.
Tom
@ Dact
I always wondered if we couldn't reclaim electricity by attaching magnets and coils to an already existing AC driven fan.
What are you're thoughts on this?
Regards,
Paul
Quote from: nightlife on May 15, 2008, 09:10:51 PM
Dact, I am glad I was able to help you with your decision for posting your thoughts. I do hope that you post more if you should have and or even think of any new ones.
I could not down load your attachments and I am having a hard time picturing what you were talking about. If you could post a picture using a different program, I would like to see it so I can give you my opinion of it.
Please note that I am not a very book smart guy but I will give you my honest opinion.
Good luck and thank you.
Tom
Thank you, Nightlife. I think I will start a new thread, and try to post some jpeg's to further explain my ideas. I will look forward to your input! Also, i am trying to duplicate your idea in wM2d. Will report back here.
Thanks!
Dact
Hey Guys;
If you look through the private notes of Paul Brown ( available on line in several locations) you will find his design and experiments where he does indeed use both poles of magnets rotating between C shaped cores and and windings. If you read through the notes you will see where he allegedly achieved fantastic results with his experiments!
Vince
Quote from: vince on May 15, 2008, 10:16:17 PM
Hey Guys;
If you look through the private notes of Paul Brown ( available on line in several locations) you will find his design and experiments where he does indeed use both poles of magnets rotating between C shaped cores and and windings. If you read through the notes you will see where he allegedly achieved fantastic results with his experiments!
Vince
could you possibly post a link or two ?, thank you.
Try ;
http://www.americanantigravity.com/paul-brown-seg.shtml
Go to the second page where his notes and plans are.
Vince
Quote from: nightlife on May 15, 2008, 09:10:51 PM
Dact, I am glad I was able to help you with your decision for posting your thoughts. I do hope that you post more if you should have and or even think of any new ones.
I could not down load your attachments and I am having a hard time picturing what you were talking about. If you could post a picture using a different program, I would like to see it so I can give you my opinion of it.
Please note that I am not a very book smart guy but I will give you my honest opinion.
Good luck and thank you.
Tom
I am trying to produce a JPEG from Working Model 2D That meets the size limitations. I did post a new topic, named "Repelling 'Fan' motor".
In your original post, are the coils charged exactly as shown? And if so, for how long?
Dact
Quote from: gyulasun on May 15, 2008, 05:27:07 PM
Hi Luc,
I assume you will drive the rotor with something (preferably with a low power motor) and utilize the induced power in the stators' coils, right?
Would like to ask how you think the effect of Lenz law will manifest in the input power consumption of the driving motor?
I assume the load current in the output coils will always create repel poles at the endings of the stators with respect to the just approaching and then leaving rotor magnet poles. It is ok that you can cleverly manipulate the number of coils with the number of rotor magnets to minimize cogging but once the load appears so does the repel poles at the prongs so cogging may reappear, with increasing input power demand due to Lenz law, this is how I think now.
Have you considered these things already?
Thanks, Gyula
Hi Gyula,
yes, I would use a motor to turn the rotor (at first). Lenz's Law can be eliminated if one uses the correct coil design. From the tests I did with Thane Heins at the Ottawa University, Topic: Thane Heins Perepiteia, we have been able to eliminate the effect of Lenz's Law with high voltage coils. Here is a youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7PBavkMGwI that demonstrates this. At this time the effect is not science, however I know it is possible since I have seen it and can replicate it. I am still testing and trying to find the ideal configuration. So what I am thinking to build (at this time) maybe not be the best. I was just sharing my design thoughts with nightlife.
Luc
Hey...I made a motor like the drawings here way back in 2005...hehehe
Here you can see it going...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj6gaf4chzM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj6gaf4chzM)
Now about the amount of energy in one end of a coil core.....IT IS ONLY 25% OR LESS OF THE INPUT POWER.
Maybe you are suprised by that, but it is true......one pole of the coil core shows only 25% or less of the energy that went in the coil from the battery.
Most coils are wasting the other 75%.... ;D
Here is another motor i made that drives my Wimhurst machine...It works a similar way, but uses repulsion at first.....then the flux from the drive magnets goes into attraction by itself, and then just short of alignment the electromagnet changes its flux to again repel the incoming drive magnet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqXtWeAQx60&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqXtWeAQx60&feature=related)
To see Lenz's law acting on the coil watch part 2....
scotty
Dact, you are more then welcome to call me at the phone number I have listed in my first post here so I can explain how to do this. It is hard for me to explain things in writing although I will try. Please bear with me here.
The pulse length is really undicided at this time but the following picture will show what there is to work with.
vince, the design you are talking about is like John has in this next video. The C shaped coils that are shown are actually the charging coils and I was going to use them to charge off magnets that would be placed on the outer side of the wheels. Here is a video link to johns design. Thank you for your reply as well as for the links you provided us with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8qvSNkiB9M
scotty1, that was the first video I have ever seen that utilized both poles of the electromagnet. Your video is the best one for me to use to help explain what I have been saying.
Now just add magnets with reverse polarity?s to the ones you have and reposition your reed switch to fire between them. You will find that you will achieve 100% more torque.
Then put magnets around the outside of the wheels and build some C shaped coils and use them to create energy from the outside magnets. Once you have done those things, you have built what I have been talking about.
Thank you for posting your video link.
Quote from: nightlife on May 16, 2008, 07:31:58 AM
scotty1, that was the first video I have ever seen that utilized both poles of the electromagnet. Your video is the best one for me to use to help explain what I have been saying.
Now just add magnets with reverse polarity?s to the ones you have and reposition your reed switch to fire between them. You will find that you will achieve 100% more torque.
Then put magnets around the outside of the wheels and build some C shaped coils and use them to create energy from the outside magnets. Once you have done those things, you have built what I have been talking about.
Thank you for posting your video link.
yup i agree thats one of the best mag motors ive seen as well(because it looks simple), Nightlife maybe you can build one based on this and show us some results..
Here is a test for those who are curious.
Place a 1/8" dia and 18" long bare copper wire in an E/W direction.
Place a car battery South of the wire...pos terminal East, neg terminal West.
Use a lead to connect the pos to the East end of the wire...
Connect another lead to the West end of the copper wire...leave the neg terminal open for now.
Place a 1" long very thin needle on top and accross the copper wire so it points N/S.
Place another identical needle under the copper wire also in a N/S direction.
Hold both needles on the copper wire with your fingers.
Connect the lead to the neg terminal for a short time until the copper wire warms up.
Keep the needles the way they are facing and first hang the top needle by its center in the Earth's field and you will see that it stays the way it is....
Now take the needle from under the copper wire and hang it by its middle in the Earth's field.
THIS TIME THE NEEDLE WILL TURN AROUND 180 DEGREES.
Scotty.
Thanks to a private message I received from rukiddingme, I realized that we do not even need power to create power.
One of my first designs was a magnet motor that was to use three to pass one. I had no luck doing so and I abandon that design. I have recently came up with the understanding that the air gap between to polarity's are strong enough to pull a magnet through one polarity. Therefore we can use two to one and create what most call over unity. This can be done.
WE NOW HAVE A POWER SOURCE WITHOUT THE USE OF POWER AND IT WILL LAST AS LONG AS THE MAGNETS LAST.
Quote from: scotty1 on May 16, 2008, 08:42:01 AM
Here is a test for those who are curious.
Place a 1/8" dia and 18" long bare copper wire in an E/W direction.
Place a car battery South of the wire...pos terminal East, neg terminal West.
Use a lead to connect the pos to the East end of the wire...
Connect another lead to the West end of the copper wire...leave the neg terminal open for now.
Place a 1" long very thin needle on top and accross the copper wire so it points N/S.
Place another identical needle under the copper wire also in a N/S direction.
Hold both needles on the copper wire with your fingers.
Connect the lead to the neg terminal for a short time until the copper wire warms up.
Keep the needles the way they are facing and first hang the top needle by its center in the Earth's field and you will see that it stays the way it is....
Now take the needle from under the copper wire and hang it by its middle in the Earth's field.
THIS TIME THE NEEDLE WILL TURN AROUND 180 DEGREES.
Scotty.
Hi Scotty,
great work you have done ;D thanks for sharing and mostly with all your great videos. I would like to do your experiment above but could you do a video of it? it is kind of difficult to follow written :-[ I'm more of a visual guy.
Thanks
Luc
Quote from: nightlife on May 16, 2008, 10:08:01 AM
Thanks to a private message I received from rukiddingme, I realized that we do not even need power to create power.
One of my first designs was a magnet motor that was to use three to pass one. I had no luck doing so and I abandon that design. I have recently came up with the understanding that the air gap between to polarity's are strong enough to pull a magnet through one polarity. Therefore we can use two to one and create what most call over unity. This can be done.
WE NOW HAVE A POWER SOURCE WITHOUT THE USE OF POWER AND IT WILL LAST AS LONG AS THE MAGNETS LAST.
Hi Tom, I think I now understand your design ideal. Also it seems you have received a confirmation that it is the correct approach. Please keep us informed.
Thanks
Luc
Quote from: nightlife on May 16, 2008, 10:08:01 AM
WE NOW HAVE A POWER SOURCE WITHOUT THE USE OF POWER AND IT WILL LAST AS LONG AS THE MAGNETS LAST.
Hi Thomas,
Sorry but you lost me... I would like to understand, can I?
Thanks, Gyula
gyulasun,
QuoteSorry but you lost me... I would like to understand, can I?
I am sorry but I have yet to post that design but I should be done building the proto type for it tonight. I have always had the design and I was just missing one key feature that I have just figured out after I stated this thread.
I will be posting more later.
Quote from: scotty1 on May 16, 2008, 05:37:11 AM
Hey...I made a motor like the drawings here way back in 2005...hehehe
Here you can see it going...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj6gaf4chzM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj6gaf4chzM)
Now about the amount of energy in one end of a coil core.....IT IS ONLY 25% OR LESS OF THE INPUT POWER.
Maybe you are suprised by that, but it is true......one pole of the coil core shows only 25% or less of the energy that went in the coil from the battery.
Most coils are wasting the other 75%.... ;D
Here is another motor i made that drives my Wimhurst machine...It works a similar way, but uses repulsion at first.....then the flux from the drive magnets goes into attraction by itself, and then just short of alignment the electromagnet changes its flux to again repel the incoming drive magnet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqXtWeAQx60&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqXtWeAQx60&feature=related)
To see Lenz's law acting on the coil watch part 2....
YouTube claims these are no longer available. True?
scotty
Quote from: nightlife on May 16, 2008, 09:33:21 PM
I have always had the design and I was just missing one key feature that I have just figured out after I stated this thread.
I will be posting more later.
Hi Tom,
I hope the design is not to different since I spent all day building a new motor to try out your dual magnet ideal, see pictures below. The magnets have not been inserted in the rotor yet but it is about ready to go. I also posted a C core motor that I made using a Shaded Pole Motor and cutting and modifying the rotor to Z shape and cutting the core to a C shape. See picture and this video of it working with only half the pulse with a quick make shift contact I made to test it. Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKzZCa0JQGg
Luc
gotoluc, good work. It looks like you understand the concept. You are doing just fine and please do not let my last post discourage you. Your motor should prove my findings to be correct and I personally can't wait to see your final results.
I was unable to finish my new design last night because the wife said I was making to much noise. I will be finishing today though. If my new design works out as planned, you will still be able to use parts of yours to duplicate it if you should choose to do so. I can not post my new design until I get my letter back.
Every time I come up with a idea, I write it down and mail it to myself and I do not open it. This is so I can keep others from stealing it to make a profit from it. If anyone should ever try to patent any of my designs, I will sue them. These designs are posted for everyone to use at no cost. They are all open source and I will do everything in my power to make sure they stay that way. Energy is free and no one should ever have to pay for it.
Quote from: nightlife on May 17, 2008, 10:15:31 AM
gotoluc, good work. It looks like you understand the concept. You are doing just fine and please do not let my last post discourage you. Your motor should prove my findings to be correct and I personally can't wait to see your final results.
I was unable to finish my new design last night because the wife said I was making to much noise. I will be finishing today though. If my new design works out as planned, you will still be able to use parts of yours to duplicate it if you should choose to do so. I can not post my new design until I get my letter back.
Every time I come up with a idea, I write it down and mail it to myself and I do not open it. This is so I can keep others from stealing it to make a profit from it. If anyone should ever try to patent any of my designs, I will sue them. These designs are posted for everyone to use at no cost. They are all open source and I will do everything in my power to make sure they stay that way. Energy is free and no one should ever have to pay for it.
Thanks for your words of encouragements Tom. We have the same outlook about free energy. I would do the same to keep it out of the hands of the greedy ones. If I had a free energy device I would want to help 3rd world contries first. I feel prosperity should be equally distributed, that is what Mother Nature does and we should follow by example.
I'll keep you posted on the development.
Luc
Quote from: Dact on May 17, 2008, 01:16:35 AM
YouTube claims these are no longer available. True?
Hi Dact,
Both links seem to be working. Must have been occasional problem you just found.
Gyula
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj6gaf4chzM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqXtWeAQx60&feature=related
I was unable to get my new design to work as planned. I think I have the timing off. My brain is tired. Maybe it is my brain that is off. LOL
I am not giving up yet, although I may be giving for the night.
Hi All,
here is an updated Video of my 2 Pole Single Coil Pulse Motor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7BJQebSgYc
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on May 18, 2008, 10:49:12 AM
Hi All,
here is an updated Video of my 2 Pole Single Coil Pulse Motor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7BJQebSgYc
Luc
great video, im hoping to try and make something soon to charge 4 batteries i have laying around,...it great to see these motor concepts coming out of the woodwork.
Quote from: nightlife on May 17, 2008, 08:39:47 PM
I was unable to get my new design to work as planned. I think I have the timing off. My brain is tired. Maybe it is my brain that is off. LOL
I am not giving up yet, although I may be giving for the night.
Hi nightlife,
Earlier you were looking for bemf and polarity switching circuits and you found as you wrote.
Here is a link to an interesting circuit on regaining the collapsing field's energy and feeding it back to the source battery by using a bifilar (i.e. a double coil) instead of one single coil:
http://www.emuprim.lv/bildez/images/viskautkas_labs/visadi_strunti_1/shema10%20(1).GIF This link comes from this forum here: http://www.energeticforum.com/18733-post778.html By using the second coil you can make the flyback pulse totally isolated from the rest of circuit (ground and source battery pole independent).
And for your polarity reversal circuit, I assume you found the known H-bridge circuit used for controlling DC motors for forward and reverse direction and here is a link for useful infos on it:
http://www.modularcircuits.com/h-bridge_secrets1.htm
http://www.modularcircuits.com/h-bridge_secrets2.htm
http://www.modularcircuits.com/h-bridge_secrets3.htm
another simple circuit: http://www.cadvision.com/blanchas/hexfet/np-s.htm
and here is a practical circuit with bipolar switching transistors: http://www.ikalogic.com/H_bridge_1.php
Of course your coil(s) to be switched replace the DC motor in the circuits.
rgds, Gyula
gyulasun, thank you for those links but they did not show what I was looking for. I was looking for a circuit that would utilize the collapsing fields in both directions from shutting off the coils in between the polarity switching.
When the coil is powered N<-------->P, the collapsing field is P<------->N but when you switch the power to P<------->N the collapsing field switches to N<------->P.
I was looking for a circuit that could utilize both directions of the collapsing fields.
Did This make sense?
gotoluc, thanks for the video link. Is there any way you can test the amps of the collasping field you are collecting and post the results for us?
Quote from: nightlife on May 19, 2008, 12:07:07 AM
gotoluc, thanks for the video link. Is there any way you can test the amps of the collasping field you are collecting and post the results for us?
I could do that but I don't have the final commutator for the pulse system of the motor built or decided wet, so the efficiency is not good at this time. Last time I checked it was about 22 milliamp collected of the 120 milliamp supplied. However I feel that it could get better once I make my own coil to reasonate at the same frequency as the pulse of the motor (once I find out what speed it will want to turn at). I think with all these things in balance one could collect about 50% or more (I hope) of the energy from the collapsing field.
Luc
Quote from: nightlife on May 18, 2008, 09:21:04 PM
gyulasun, thank you for those links but they did not show what I was looking for. I was looking for a circuit that would utilize the collapsing fields in both directions from shutting off the coils in between the polarity switching.
When the coil is powered N<-------->P, the collapsing field is P<------->N but when you switch the power to P<------->N the collapsing field switches to N<------->P.
I was looking for a circuit that could utilize both directions of the collapsing fields.
Did This make sense?
Hi nightlife,
Yes, it did. I have attached a drawing how I think this could be done first.
When both switches are in position A and you control them to switch to position B, the flyback pulse in L can enter C1 via diode D1. D2 blocks this flyback pulse from C2.
And when both switches are in position B and you control them again to switch back to position A, the flyback pulse in L can enter C2 via D2. D1 blocks this flyback pulse from C1.
So both C1 and C2 are able to store flyback energy in both polarity change periode until you utilize them by further circuits.
Basically you can use a H-bridge for the two switches.
Is this what you thought of?
rgds, Gyula
gyulasun, thank you for that drawing and that was about the same thing as I was thinking of using. I can't beleave that I actaully made any sense. LOL
Thanks again.
gjhkifghlkk
Just an idea in the above drawing,uses both sides of coil and mags.
your comments gentelmen,(and ladies) any good?
happy hunting.
peter
Quote from: petersone on May 19, 2008, 04:42:55 PM
Just an idea in the above drawing,uses both sides of coil and mags.
your comments gentelmen,(and ladies) any good?
happy hunting.
peter
Hi Peter,
Case 1: no ring magnets on your rotor
This setup in principle is similar to Peter Lindemann's rotary attraction motor and he says it can be made with a COP of higher than one (by making the air gap extremely small between the rotor and stator in a machine shop and also capturing the flyback pulse from the electromagnet), see this link:
http://www.free-energy.ws/electric-motor-secrets/attraction-motor.html
Case 2: ring magnets in your rotor
I cannot read your text in the lower right corner of your drawing, after 'USE AS PULSE MOTOR.....
So what I can see in this setup is that the iron arms will attract to the stator cores and I assume you will give a repel pulse to electromagnet for kicking the iron arms further on to the next attraction etc.
This may also be a COP>1 but you have to build it to make sure :)
Maybe you wish to write some more thoughts of this setup how you think, maybe I am missing something?
Gyula
Hi Gyula
I think you understand it ok,it was just a simple way to use all poles,and also open and close the flux path.
Right corner is,use as pulse motor or E-Brown gen or both,or without mags attraction motor.I have not seen a setup where the mags are on the shaft,but I may be wrong!!
I have a simple one working that I am "playing" with.
I'm working with a basic trigger,reed switch,transistor and so on,but the transistor is about 3ohms when open,and ths coil is also 3ohms so I'm losing half my amps across the transistor,my question is,is that normal?
thanks for your interest.
happy hunting.
peter
Hi Gyula,again,forgot to say,when using it as a gen. when I short out the coil the revs go up and it daws less current,maybe just reducing the "bump"
happy hunting
peter
Quote from: petersone on May 20, 2008, 11:03:37 AM
I'm working with a basic trigger,reed switch,transistor and so on,but the transistor is about 3ohms when open,and ths coil is also 3ohms so I'm losing half my amps across the transistor,my question is,is that normal?
Hi Peter,
Well, it obeys Ohm's Law :) Question is what type of transistor you use? Is it bipolar or power MOSFET?
Among the MOSFETs you can find types of well under 1 Ohm drain-source channel resistance, in the some tens milliOhm order.
Bipolar transistors has higher than this saturation resistances unless you use special switching types, but even then they may not beat MOSFETs in this respect.
Do you recover flyback pulse energy in your simple working 'prototype'? If you do, then you may use MOSFETs with 80-100V drain voltage ratings (I suppose you use 12V battery or such supply) and such cheaper types as IRF520 IRF530 would be nice with their 0.27 or 0.16 Ohm channel-on resistance ( http://www.futurlec.com/TransMosIRF.shtml )
If you do nor recover flyback pulse you have to use higher than 100V switching devices, not to ruin them (flyback pulse may go up above 200V or higher). Of course there are much better types than those older and cheaper ones.
rgds, Gyula
Quote from: petersone on May 20, 2008, 11:13:32 AM
Hi Gyula,again,forgot to say,when using it as a gen. when I short out the coil the revs go up and it daws less current,maybe just reducing the "bump"
happy hunting
peter
Well, I can only guess this: when you short out the coil the induced voltage hence current helps coil core get out from magnetic saturation or eddy current effects the ring magnets make in it so the drag effect may get eased? I am not sure >:(
see this on topic http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4047.msg97828.html#msg97828 I tend to agree with Nali2001 but Thane strongly disagrees Nali2001....
What do you think? Maybe you could bypass a little your ring magnets 'from top to toe' by some parallel iron wires to reduce flux density towards the arms and see what happens?
rgds, Gyula
Addition to previous sketch
Hi Gyula
thanks again
I going to try the ramp idea,my problem is with the trigger,it seems to be very expencive to use as much for the trigger as running the motor!!,I don't see how it can stand a chance of OU.
I think I need the most inexpencive trigger I can find,any ideas?of course I'm using a diode to protect the tansistor but not harnessing the fly back yet.
thanks again.
happy hunting
peter
Yes I also think this addition is an improvement in getting some more torque for 'free'.
Quote from: petersone on May 21, 2008, 06:36:43 AM
Hi Gyula
thanks again
I going to try the ramp idea,my problem is with the trigger,it seems to be very expencive to use as much for the trigger as running the motor!!,I don't see how it can stand a chance of OU.
I think I need the most inexpencive trigger I can find,any ideas?of course I'm using a diode to protect the tansistor but not harnessing the fly back yet.
thanks again.
happy hunting
peter
You are on the right track when realising your present switch has high Ohmic losses. I hinted at some MOSFET types yesterday, question is where are you located and what active device choices you could select from?
If you name any component supplier near to you with their website perhaps I could suggest a bareable pick for you?
Gyula
Hi Gyula
I think you understand, I mean inexpensive in energy terms,at the moment I'm using mjl21194,the same one that peter l.uses on his attraction motor on youtube,I thought he must know what he is doing,I'm am in UK,but I get stuff from USA somtimes.I'm not too bad on the machanical side,but need complete layout for electronics,I have an hnc in electronics,but that was 30yrs ago!!
thanks Gyula.
happy hunting.
peter
Quote from: petersone on May 21, 2008, 10:24:28 AM
Hi Gyula
I think you understand, I mean inexpensive in energy terms,at the moment I'm using mjl21194,the same one that peter l.uses on his attraction motor on youtube,I thought he must know what he is doing,I'm am in UK,but I get stuff from USA somtimes.I'm not too bad on the machanical side,but need complete layout for electronics,I have an hnc in electronics,but that was 30yrs ago!!
thanks Gyula.
happy hunting.
peter
Hi Peter,
Peter L. made that video for pure demonstration purposes, he claims no any extra output from that off the shelf motor he changed to suit for the this purpose. As he wrote on energeticforum.com a COP of >1 in a real attraction motor needs a precisely machined airgap of well under 0.1mm between the rotor and stator and using very fast recovery diode to catch the full flyback pulse and of course the switching transistor also needs to be chosen for the lowest loss.
Maybe you could order from Farnell UK a MOSFET? I thought of this: http://uk.farnell.com/8648751/discretes/product.us0?sku=international-rectifier-irfb31n20dpbf
and this is a fast diode (D1 in series with the MOSFET drain to defeat the built-in body diode of the MOSFET and D2 for the flyback pulse recovery):
http://uk.farnell.com/1307881/discretes/product.us0?sku=vishay-general-semiconductor-mur440-e3
Of course you can obtain the same or similar devices from elsewhere as you wish.
I have attached a schematics for the MOSFET version to switch the coil. Of course you may use Lindemann schematic of modified Series 1 motor with also a MOSFET switch too here:
http://www.esmhome.org/library/bob-teal/index.html
rgds, Gyula
PS: I hope nightlife does not find this fully off-topic from his original aim in this thread.
gyulasun,
QuoteI hope nightlife does not find this fully off-topic from his original aim in this thread.
I feel this forum was designed for us all to get together and exchange idea's on how to create energy. I welcome all to post anything they want on any thread I start as long as it is not something disrespectful torwards another member.
Hi Gyula
Thanks for that,I was thinking maybe simple points of some sort would be less expensive energy wise,what do you think?
happy hunting
peter
it's been said here that Bedini never utilized both poles
doesn't this patent look like both poles are being used?
poynt99, actually it doesn't.
It has two coils and only use's one pole from each coil.
Quote from: petersone on May 21, 2008, 08:10:46 PM
Hi Gyula
Thanks for that,I was thinking maybe simple points of some sort would be less expensive energy wise,what do you think?
happy hunting
peter
Peter, I am puzzled by what you mean above, I have included everything in my previous few posts I could to make it for you less expensive energy wise. Ask definite questions if you have any.
Gyula
Quote from: nightlife on May 22, 2008, 02:03:14 AM
poynt99, actually it doesn't.
It has two coils and only use's one pole from each coil.
Hi nightlife,
Respectfully I disagree. Both poles get utilized from each coil: when they are energized the left side of coil 22a helps block flux from North pole of the stator magnet and the right side of coil 22a repels out the South pole of the rotor magnet . Coil 22b does the same task but with reversed polarity wrt coil 22a.
Here is some text from his patent the Figure above referred to belongs to:
What distinguishes this motor generator from all others in the art is the presence
of a permanent magnet connecting the two conducting bars which transfer magnetic energy through the pole pieces to the rotor, thereby attracting the rotor between the pole pieces. With the rotor attracted in between the two pole pieces, the coils switch the polarity of the magnetic field of the pole pieces so that the rotor is repelled out.
Therefore there is no current and voltage being used to attract the rotor. The only current being used is the repulsion of the rotor between the two conductive bar pole pieces thereby requiring only a small amount of current to repel the rotor. This is known as a regauging system and allows the capturing of available back EMF energy for use.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 21, 2008, 11:36:08 PM
it's been said here that Bedini never utilized both poles
doesn't this patent look like both poles are being used?
Poynt99, Bedini did not utilize both poles in case of the school girl (SG) and simplified school girl (SSG) motors, and the patent you showed he did. This is what I think.
Regards,
Gyula
Quote from: nightlife on May 22, 2008, 02:03:14 AM
poynt99, actually it doesn't.
It has two coils and only use's one pole from each coil.
the coils, magnet and pole pieces constitute one continuous magnet, just like a horseshoe magnet, and both poles of it are being used. The coils allow for switching.
@gotoluc,
Before Thane's thread, I was developing an easy build version of Jack Hilden-Brandt magnet switching motor. My versions used the same shaded pole motor, cut up similar to what you did, except it would have required 3 shaded pole motors to get it fully working. Your Z rotor design is better. But the magnet switching setup that I used can easily be added to your unit and would increase the power by 3 to 4 times, and also the coil kickback.
The motor with magnets picture, has completely lifted the weight hooked to the fan and the rotor is completely in the air gap.
The motor without magnets picture, shows it cannot lift the weight at all.
On the motor closeup, you can see that I have an iron washer between the stator lamination and the 1" X 1/4" neo. This is to cut down the over saturation. The rest of the steel is just to complete the flux path, it doesn't have to be pretty or lamination, just a path to stop flux jumping to the stator.
The magnet are stuck N on one side of the stator and S on the other. When the coil is not energized all the flux goes thru the stator under the coil. When the coil is energized in the same N S as the stator, both the coil flux and the magnet flux is forced thru the rotor, and both kickback when released. The force formula is Flux squared. So double the flux and you get 4 times the force.
I hope you can set this up, as it would be very interesting to see the results on your electronics.
Anyone wanting to review some well done charts and statistics on a magnet switching device can check out patent 6369479. The motor is currently being built in Japan for motorcycles.
Regards,
Larry
Hi Gyula
Sorry if you were confused,I will be trying your ideas for the switch,thanks for that,VERY usefull, but was interested in your views on mechanical switches,zero resistance,maybe,but some drag on the motor.
Ihave it running at the moment on carbon brushes and an old comutater,but it's using over 50% of my energy,ok for playing with.
thanks again.
happy hunting.
peter
Quote from: LarryC on May 23, 2008, 05:04:18 PM
@gotoluc,
Before Thane's thread, I was developing an easy build version of Jack Hilden-Brandt magnet switching motor. My versions used the same shaded pole motor, cut up similar to what you did, except it would have required 3 shaded pole motors to get it fully working. Your Z rotor design is better. But the magnet switching setup that I used can easily be added to your unit and would increase the power by 3 to 4 times, and also the coil kickback.
The motor with magnets picture, has completely lifted the weight hooked to the fan and the rotor is completely in the air gap.
The motor without magnets picture, shows it cannot lift the weight at all.
On the motor closeup, you can see that I have an iron washer between the stator lamination and the 1" X 1/4" neo. This is to cut down the over saturation. The rest of the steel is just to complete the flux path, it doesn't have to be pretty or lamination, just a path to stop flux jumping to the stator.
The magnet are stuck N on one side of the stator and S on the other. When the coil is not energized all the flux goes thru the stator under the coil. When the coil is energized in the same N S as the stator, both the coil flux and the magnet flux is forced thru the rotor, and both kickback when released. The force formula is Flux squared. So double the flux and you get 4 times the force.
I hope you can set this up, as it would be very interesting to see the results on your electronics.
Anyone wanting to review some well done charts and statistics on a magnet switching device can check out patent 6369479. The motor is currently being built in Japan for motorcycles.
Regards,
Larry
Hi Larry,
thanks for sharing your project. That is so cool that you have done something so similar as I have. I will look into your design and see how well it would work in my design. Do you have Skype in case I have questions. If so you can pm me your username.
Thanks
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on May 24, 2008, 02:25:56 PM
Hi Larry,
thanks for sharing your project. That is so cool that you have done something so similar as I have. I will look into your design and see how well it would work in my design. Do you have Skype in case I have questions. If so you can pm me your username.
Thanks
Luc
Hi Luc,
Sorry, no Skype, but I do have free long distance from the US to Canada. So you can pm me with your phone number if you want me to call.
The main problems with all these magnet switching devices is keeping the saturation problem down, by adjusting the magnet flux and the power to the best level.
If you look at the graph,
FIG. 26 on the patent (6369479), it shows the SEPARATING FORCE at different CURRENT level for the electormagnet along and 5 different magnet thicknesses plus the EM. The cross section of the devices lamination is 10MM X 15MM.
Some results are very interesting. At the .4 amp level the EM's force along is 10KG and with the 5MM thick neo it is almost 40KG (4X). And as the amps go up the force curve starts to level out. Also, the smallest and the largest neos have the least benefit.
My design is a different from the patent or JackH's, but all of the magnet switching device are just getting that smart magnet to change to another path of least resistance and getting your EM flux to go along for the ride. So if you can't put a magnet in the middle, put it on the outside, small neos are cheap.
Regards,
Larry
PS: I use www.google.com/patents for US patents.
Hi All,
Please find an updated video of my Dual Pole Single Coil motor test 3, which now has a new commutator. In this test I am also collecting the Back EMF and showing it has usable power.
See it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_uP2DDTLFQ
Stay tuned for more.
Luc
Hi All,
THIS IS A MUST SEE
Here is a Youtube link of a guy that just got in touch with me since I posted test 3 of my motor.
He is getting an interesting effect using a loose magnet inside a plastic container that he inserts in a air coil.
However I don't understand his language? Stefan can you please look at this and see if you know his language.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUBf-zoV9Tg
and here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOrx_yGKIQ8&feature=related
Luc
Hi Gyula
could you sugest a value of cap.C1,I'm building the the trigger you kindly suggested.Thank again.
happy hunting
peter
Quote from: petersone on May 30, 2008, 06:59:33 AM
Hi Gyula
could you sugest a value of cap.C1,I'm building the the trigger you kindly suggested.Thank again.
happy hunting
peter
Hi Peter,
Yes, the value for C1 can be any value from 4.7 or 10uF and higher up to even ten times as many. Think of it as a normal puffer capacitor in a power supply, it all depends on how heavy load you connect across it. The heavier the load, the higher value capacitor would be needed, up to the recharging capabilities of the flyback pulse as the source of energy.
However the voltage rating of the capacitor is important: heavily depends on the how heavy the load is. Say you connect a 10uF cap for C1 without any load across it, then you need at least a 350V working voltage rated capacitor! And when you connect a 1000uF cap for C1, at least a 160-200V working voltage is needed, when this cap is unloaded.
In case you connect a 12V battery for charging it from the flyback pulse, C1 is not needed at all.
Notice: Try to avoid operation without a load because in an unloaded case the flyback pulse can easily exceed the breakdown voltage of your switching MOSFET and it may fry. The expected amplitude of the pulse depends linearly on your coils inductance and on the amount of the current-change and inversely on the switching speed, the known formula is L*(di/dt). And when you wish to disconnect the load (be it a charged battery or a lamp etc) it is a good habit to switch off your circuit first. Unless you are using a switching MOSFET with 600-800V drain source voltage ratings... I recommended at least a 200V MOSFET in my earlier post, a good compromise between low switch-on drain source resistance (0.082 Ohm) and price. A 600V device with under a half Ohm ON resistance costs 3-4 times as much at least...
rgds, Gyula
Hi Gyula
Thank you very much for your VERY comprehensive reply,I ordered a few fets today,I hope I get it going before I blow up the last one,I'm trying to understand the point of all these pulse motors,it seems just to harvest as much flyback as possible,would it not be just as easy to pulse a coil,and not have all these bit of iron flying round!! there not a lot a toque it seems,I must be missing something.
Thanks again.
happy hunting
peter
Quote from: petersone on May 30, 2008, 02:51:41 PM
Hi Gyula
Thank you very much for your VERY comprehensive reply,I ordered a few fets today,I hope I get it going before I blow up the last one,I'm trying to understand the point of all these pulse motors,it seems just to harvest as much flyback as possible,would it not be just as easy to pulse a coil,and not have all these bit of iron flying round!! there not a lot a toque it seems,I must be missing something.
Thanks again.
happy hunting
peter
Hi Peter,
My understanding on such pulse motors is that torque fully depends on the strength of the electromagnets (and if a design has it then on that of the permanent magnets). And do not forget that the facing surface areas on the rotor and stator are also important, it matters how much surface areas are involved during attraction or repulsion.
Have a look at Lindemann attraction motor description here http://www.free-energy.ws/electric-motor-secrets/attraction-motor.html and see his text:
The stator pole faces describe 30 degrees of arc. Each rotor cross bar face also describes 30 degrees of arc. (His example rotor consists of two cast iron cross bars.)
And the rotor - stator air gap involved is also important, he recommends less than 0.1mm gap for possible overunity...
So you see, capturing the flyback pulse is only one aspect of the game...
rgds, Gyula
Hi Gyula
I take your point,I think I'm trying to avoid having to machine to the accuracy of a Nat's kneecap!!
happy hunting.
peter
Something of interest from Montana state uny
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVOdX8ZzYuU&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVOdX8ZzYuU&feature=related)
Cart on an air track using just magnets and a MATLAB program
pc
Hi Gyula
I would be very grateful if you could comment on the enclosed sketch,I built one today and it seems to work,I think I need to use a coil with thinner wire as I am only just turning the diode on,is generating usually done with high volts?
If you think it's a non-runner just say so!!!
happy hunting
peter
Quote from: petersone on May 31, 2008, 06:24:45 PM
Hi Gyula
I would be very grateful if you could comment on the enclosed sketch,I built one today and it seems to work,I think I need to use a coil with thinner wire as I am only just turning the diode on,is generating usually done with high volts?
If you think it's a non-runner just say so!!!
happy hunting
peter
Hi Peter,
If I understand your drawing, basically you wish to make a generator driven by a motor, right?
Well, to answer you question a diode like 1N4007 or 1N4148 and the like needs higher than 0.7V peak voltage to be able to conduct current, below that it behaves as an open circuit, and of course its anode should be 0.7V more positive with respect to its cathode to conduct. In the drawing the diode should be reversed to get the positive half waves you indicated there with respect to the other wire end.
Yes, if you make a coil with thinner wire, you will have more room for more turns if you mean that and more turns will induce higher output voltage for sure.
You have at least two coils at the moment built-in, facing both the iron pieces and the magnets?
I also ask you really have not got any iron core in the coil? This also explains the lower induced voltage, increase of the number of turns helps on this. The pitfall may be with the thinner wire and more turns is that the inner resistance of the generator coil increases hence the copper loss also increases when you try loading the output.
If you would explain in a bit more detail the text in the lower right column, It is not a 100% clear for me ? I figure you hope in a no Lenz generator but I am afraid as long as your output is low the output current for your whatever load is also low hence the Lenz effect is also low... :( At the moment this all I can comment on this.
rgds, Gyula
Hi Gyula
Thanks for your fast return!!
I understand small watts out,small lenz effect,but what I found strange was the diode one way,I can "see" the lenz effect,but the other way no lenz effect.because,I hope,when it's the "wrong"way,it is generating on leaving the coil,and that's no good,but the right way I can't "see"any lenz.
what I said on the sketch was,
when the magnet approaches the coil,normal lenz effect on the magnet end,but the iron is being pulled to the coil at the other end so cancels lenz out,a diode to switch off the coil when the magnet and iron leave the coil.
Hi Gyula,again
Forgot to say,just the one coil at the moment,but could add more,with no core,just air!!
happy hunting
peter
Hi Gyula,again,again.
Forgot to ask,do you know of any diodes that switch at a lower voltage?
happy hunting.
peter
Hi Peter,
Well, germanium diodes have got the smallest forward voltage drop (0.1-0.3V) but they are very rare and expensive nowadays if medium or higher power versions are needed. (see some info here on small power types: http://www.banzaieffects.com/Germanium-c-364.html )
You could use Schottky type diodes instead, their forward voltage drop is around 0.3-0.4V for the low barrier types, see some info on them here: http://www.banzaieffects.com/Schottky-c-367.html and type 1N5817 (max 1A) or BAT48 (max 350mA) would be a good start instead of any Silicon type you may have got now with their 0.6-0.7V and higher forward voltage drops.
Let's try discussing the Lenz effect. When your air core coil approaches the magnet (and you have a load on the coil through a diode of conducting polarity to the induced voltage/current) it is sure Lenz law will work against this approaching movement. If your diode's polarity were just the opposite, then no current could flow, hence no Lenz.
But your iron piece also get magnetized when it approaches (together with the coil) towards the magnet and it makes an opposing (but maybe weaker than the magnet) pole, a South pole (if we consider your drawing) at the other end of the coil too. So this opposing pole I think works also FOR Lenz in this approaching phase, don't you think? Maybe I am wrong here, please explain.
When the magnet and the pole piece moves further and starts leaving the center line of the coil, normally the current changes direction if your load is still present through the diode but now the diode closes down any current due to getting reverse biased.
If you were connecting the diode in reverse direction in the approaching phase, then no current could flow till reaching the center line, hence no Lenz on approach, then on leaving the center line the diode would open and let the current flow in the load, hence Lenz effect would manifest. Agree with this? Maybe I am wrong.
Cheers, Gyula
Hi Gyula
I'm working on the assumption that,as the north pole of the mag. approaches the coil it will induce a north pole,hence lenz,at the other end of the coil will be a south pole,which will induce a north pole in the iron.
Maybe my assumption is wrong?I'm hoping you can tell me.
happy hunting.
peter.
Hi Peter,
The question is which of the two fluxes is stronger: the other end of the coil (South) or the iron's flux ( made also South by the permanent magnet) ? If the iron gets very weakly magnetized from the perm. magnet (because of the distance and / or the given strength of the perm. magnet) and the coil's south pole is stronger there, then the iron will be (at least weakly or a bit stronger) polarized a north pole.
So in case the perm. magnet induced south pole due to Lenz is strong enough at the other coil end, then the iron will work against Lenz in this approaching phase because the coil end is able to attract to the iron.
Maybe you could help to totally defeat the effect of the perm. magnet on the iron piece by placing a small perm magnet of the correct pole behind and to the outside of the iron piece ;) ? Or what if you leave out the iron piece and make do with another perm. magnet of the correct pole instead ?
So you are right! Thanks,
Gyula
Hi Gyula
I don't known if I am right or not,I will simply try it.
I always try to work out why it won't work and not bother why it will.
The reason I feel it won't work is have the same poles approaching the coil at the same time,one perm.and one induced.
I'm winding another coil with thinner wire and a "box" section as I believe that is the best,hope to get a higher voltageto better swich the diode.of course the odds are well against me,nobody has betten lenz yet,as far as I know.
Thanks for your help.
happy hunting.
peter
@gotoluc
I don't know what an IronHead cell is, but maybe you could answer a couple of questions about it?
1) Is it capable of being sealed so you can measure gas/time?
2) Are you interested enough in what the SEC Exciter is doing, to do a comparison with straight DC against the SEC (subjective only)?
Of course I am set up to measure gas volume, but do not have a cell (IronHead) type so what I am doing may or may not be as good as or better than what you have found. Maybe some simple marks on the side and guess at how many mL/time and we can factor in 20% loss for evaporation. You did say once it did not get hot, then you said it did?
That in itself would be worth looking at, how much water is in the tank and how much does the temp rise in Xtime, again assume a 20% bleed to environment. That could be compared to input power and at least show what is coming off in heat?
Thanks...
Sorry I will not be commenting on your thread on the negative electricity project, just starting out you have a group of the typical talking heads and I do not want to evoke the games. We could talk by direct email to my drs address.
Good work...
** removed - double post **
Quote from: petersone on June 01, 2008, 03:08:44 PM
Hi Gyula
I don't known if I am right or not,I will simply try it.
I always try to work out why it won't work and not bother why it will.
The reason I feel it won't work is have the same poles approaching the coil at the same time,one perm.and one induced.
I'm winding another coil with thinner wire and a "box" section as I believe that is the best,hope to get a higher voltageto better swich the diode.of course the odds are well against me,nobody has betten lenz yet,as far as I know.
Thanks for your help.
happy hunting.
peter
Hi Peter,
I think the only sure answer is to test the theory in practice, no arguing can substitute experimenting so I am pleased you continue tinkering with this question. I goofed in my last suggestion with replacing the iron piece with a permanent magnet: it would not insure any Lenz reducing effect. But I still maintain all my other reasonings written before that, including a tiny magnet behind the iron piece for cancelling any magnetization from the main perm. magnet.
rgds, Gyula
Hi Gyula
Thanks for your comments,I've wound another coil and will do some tinkering today,let you know the out come.
happy hunting
peter
Quote from: nightlife on May 13, 2008, 11:27:44 AM
Bedini and Bearden are the closest so far as far as I can find but then again, they most not have understood the forces at play because if they did, their motors would have been over 200% efficient.
It is a mater of understanding the forces as well as understanding how to manipulate them properly. All the above were trying to produce more work with two forces without properly utilizing either force. The only true over unity device ever built is the magnet and nature has even produced them but yet we have not properly utilized them. Bedini and Bearden were the closest thus far and they both left out three very important things.
I shouldn't post this but what the heck.
One very important thing they are not utilizing is both poles of the coils. While they are using one, the other is being wasted. Both can be utilized. Once both are utilized, the motor becomes 100% more efficient.
The other is the proper utilization of the magnets. They are only utilizing one half of the face polarity when they could be utilizing 100% of both face polarity's. This can be done if you truly understand how they work. This adds another 100% efficiency to their designs. It only adds 100% because you have to use both poles of the coils to properly utilize them.
To do this, you need to place one magnet next to another but with opposite polarity's facing up. This has to be done in two different arrangements but they must me arranged in the opposite, meaning, if you have one with the north first, the other has to have the south first.
Another thing that has to be done is the switching of polarity?s the coils put out. This has to be done between each pulse that the coils are supplied with.
Once this is all done, you will have what you all call over unity. There is your true free energy. Good luck and please don't be greedy.
Thomas N. Brown
36 Hodgson st.
Battle Creek, Michigan 49014
269-964
HI NIGHTLIFE, EDDY HERE, PLEASE EXCUSE MY IGNORANCE, THE MAGNETIC MOTOR SEEMS TO ME TO BE A VERY SIMPLE DEVICE TO MAKE AND POWER AN ALTERNATOR. THE POWER OUTPUT OF THE MAGNETIC MOTOR WILL SURELY DEPEND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE MAGNETS USED IN THE STATOR AND THE OFF-SET ANGLE OF THE MAGNETS ON THE ROTOR WHICH GIVE DIRECTION OF ROTATION. THIS IDEA IS NEW TO ME, SO SIMPLE I DON'T KNOW WHY I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT IT BEFORE! THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT BOTHER ME AND THAT IS THE POSSIBLE HEAT CREATED BY THE MAGNETIC FORCES AND THE MOST EFFECIENT ANGLE OF THE MAGNETS ON THE ROTOR FOR OPTIMUM PERFORMENCE. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO POST YET AS I'VE ONLY BEEN REGISTERED FOR ABOUT AN HOUR AND I'M STILL TRYING TO FIGURE IT ALL OUT. YOU CAN 'E' MAIL ME A REPLY I GUESS AS I HAVE AN INBOX. MAYBE I'LL BE LUCKY AND FIND THIS AREA OF THE SITE AGAIN TO CHECK YOUR ANSWER, HE HE! ANYWAY A REALLY INTERESTING SITE. KIND REGARDS EDDY
Hi Gyula
Everything working 100%,unfortunately I'm referring to lenz's law!!
Another stupid idea over with,however,there is lots of take about pulse motors,but I haven't seen anything about pulse generators!!! how about switching it off at the top and bottom of a ac wave form?
"Pay" for the rise in voltage,and collect the "free" flyback,haven't thought it through yet,but what are your comments in principle?
happy hunting.
peter
Quote from: petersone on June 04, 2008, 09:40:10 AM
Hi Gyula
Everything working 100%,unfortunately I'm referring to lenz's law!!
Another stupid idea over with,however,there is lots of take about pulse motors,but I haven't seen anything about pulse generators!!! how about switching it off at the top and bottom of a ac wave form?
"Pay" for the rise in voltage,and collect the "free" flyback,haven't thought it through yet,but what are your comments in principle?
happy hunting.
peter
Hi Peter,
Well, would you mind describing a little more how you think a pulse generator principle? Why would it be good to switch it off at the peak voltage values if you mean that ? At the moment all I can say is a flyback pulse (and its energy content) is created fully from the input power you feed in and energy wise you normally do not gain extra power just from the flyback pulse.
If you peep into Jack Hildebrand thread here, you can find motor setup that strongly smells overunity ;)
See this video first, then go through most of the letters following it: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2386.msg100361.html#msg100361
The motor setup dicussed there gives a mechanical extra output for an certain electric input and this could be used as an advantage to drive conventional generator(s) to get more electric output than is needed for the motor.
I can show you a link where there is proposed a setup to reduce the effect of Lenz law in generators, have a look at it:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/slavek.krepelka/ttf2/fields8.htm
http://www3.sympatico.ca/slavek.krepelka/ttf2/fields9.htm
Whether his proposal really works as he imagines, only practical tests can tell.
rgds, Gyula
Hi Gyula
I have "seen" the info. before,but not studied it,that's where I'm going wrong!!!
I like the idea of turning the pm on and off, with little energy.I tried it with a simple setup,and it works.
It seems like a case going down the ou motor route,or the ou gen.route,of course both would be nice!!
My idea was to use the ac.output as normal,but switch off at the top and bottom peaks,probably to simplistic to work.
Many thanks for your reply.
happy hunting.
peter
Hi Gyula
I've been looking at the pages you kindly suggested,particularly the one by I think jack.h.and I can't help thinking why can't the iron rotor be replaced with a fixed coil and pulse the input,a sort of over unity transformer.
Also,it seems an old idea,like the magnetic boots that you must have seen.
It seems,to me, strange to do a lot of work to make a motor,all be it ou,we hope,only to put a gen.on the shaft to make juice that we had in the first place.
Were have I gone wrong? I look forward to your advice as always.
happy hunting
peter
Quote from: petersone on June 08, 2008, 07:12:59 PM
...I can't help thinking why can't the iron rotor be replaced with a fixed coil and pulse the input,a sort of over unity transformer.
Also,it seems an old idea,like the magnetic boots that you must have seen.
It seems,to me, strange to do a lot of work to make a motor,all be it ou,we hope,only to put a gen.on the shaft to make juice that we had in the first place.
...Were have I gone wrong? ...
Hi Peter,
Well, my present understanding says if you try to utilize the summed flux of permanent and electromagnets in a fixed coil instead of the iron rotor, then Lenz law surely strikes in for the increased flux the moment you load the coil as usual in case of transformers! Because then eventually you still have a transformer in which although the input makes more flux change than in a normal transformer but the output current created by this increased flux will reflect back more heavily too, unfortunately.
In case of the iron rotor there is no output coil and the action-reaction though surely occurs in the same way like in case of a normal motor but here the input creates "more bang for the bucks" so there can be more that remains in mechanical torque format in the end of the process. This is how I see this at present.
One notice to the above "ou" transformer : if you somehow could store the energy coming out from the output coil in a 'suitable device' and utilize it during the time periode your input pulse is off, then the direct/conventional transformer effect could be reduced and maybe the gain due to flux summation could be maintained... This method was suggested for the case of the MEG (motionless electromagnetic gen of Bearden et al, Naudin) to make it really an ou transformer but I have never come across with any reported results of such output switching solution.
And the solution seems relatively simple: you rectify the output power from the coil and store it in a capacitor and your useful load is connected via a switch to this capacitor in time periodes under which your input pulse is just off: this needs correctly syncronized pulses to control the input and the (electrically otherwise independent) output switch. This is how to do in in theory at least... Maybe the switch should be placed just to the output of one coil end and not after the puffer capacitor, this needs experimenting too.
By the way, speaking of MEG, have you heard of the Bulgarian MEG? I do think it is a definite improvement to the Bearden et al MEG in avoiding the normal transformer operation/drawbacks, see its setup here, it is worth studying!
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4300.0.html You can start brainstorming... ;) 8)
rgds, Gyula
QuoteHI NIGHTLIFE, EDDY HERE, PLEASE EXCUSE MY IGNORANCE, THE MAGNETIC MOTOR SEEMS TO ME TO BE A VERY SIMPLE DEVICE TO MAKE AND POWER AN ALTERNATOR. THE POWER OUTPUT OF THE MAGNETIC MOTOR WILL SURELY DEPEND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE MAGNETS USED IN THE STATOR AND THE OFF-SET ANGLE OF THE MAGNETS ON THE ROTOR WHICH GIVE DIRECTION OF ROTATION. THIS IDEA IS NEW TO ME, SO SIMPLE I DON'T KNOW WHY I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT IT BEFORE! THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT BOTHER ME AND THAT IS THE POSSIBLE HEAT CREATED BY THE MAGNETIC FORCES AND THE MOST EFFECIENT ANGLE OF THE MAGNETS ON THE ROTOR FOR OPTIMUM PERFORMENCE. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO POST YET AS I'VE ONLY BEEN REGISTERED FOR ABOUT AN HOUR AND I'M STILL TRYING TO FIGURE IT ALL OUT. YOU CAN 'E' MAIL ME A REPLY I GUESS AS I HAVE AN INBOX. MAYBE I'LL BE LUCKY AND FIND THIS AREA OF THE SITE AGAIN TO CHECK YOUR ANSWER, HE HE! ANYWAY A REALLY INTERESTING SITE. KIND REGARDS EDDY
Hi eddy, sorry it took so long to get back to you, I just got back home from a long trip.
As for the heat that would be created, I am not really sure but I would think it wouldn't be all that much at least not enough to really hurt the motors performance.
As for your personal messages from users of this site, look at the upper left hand side of this page and you will see something like the following:
Hey, Eddy
PM:
Show unread
Show replies
Show own posts
Total Logged In:
11d 21h 37m
June 09, 2008, 03:51:48 PM
The pm is your personal messages. It will show the number of how many you have. I will also send you a personal message so you can see how it works. You should notice a message at the top center of the page that says you have a new message.
Hi Gyula
I read all you suggested with interest,as I always do,I don't know if the Bulgarian "thing" will work,but I do think it's the way to go if you are going to put a gen.on the output of a motor,going to the trouble making the motor,the energy turning it,then it's got to turn the gen.with no doubt lenz effect,better to cut out the "middle man" and go for a meg type thing,if it can be shown to work.
I'm by no means an expert,as you can see from my stupid suggestions,but I feel I agree with EXNIHILOEST,I can't how the input coils don't interact with the output coil,it seems all it needs is the reluctance to be shifted just slightly one side to the other,preferably keeping the two coil separated,can it be that difficult?
Thanks again.
happy hunting
peter
Hi Gyula,again
Forgot this bit, you say dump the energy into a cap.for use between pulses,dos the coil not see the cap. as a load?
missed out a word in last post,should be can't SEE-----
peter
Quote from: petersone on June 09, 2008, 05:14:54 PM
... if you are going to put a gen.on the output of a motor,going to the trouble making the motor,the energy turning it,then it's got to turn the gen.with no doubt lenz effect,...
Hi Peter,
Yes, I agree, choosing a separate generator for producing electricity is usually not a promising way to go about utilizing an ou motor's torque but there are ready made conventional (three phase) generators with way over 60-70% efficiency and once an ou motor like the Hildebrand one has 3-4 times higher output than a normal motor and drives it, then this can result easily in overunity too. This is all I meant. Obviously the generator will have the normal operation with Lenz, but its specification includes that.
Quote from: petersone on June 09, 2008, 05:14:54 PM
...I can't see how the input coils don't interact with the output coil,it seems all it needs is the reluctance to be shifted just slightly one side to the other,preferably keeping the two coil separated,can it be that difficult?
Well, if you can correctly time the control of the input and output switches, then the input coil(s) first are on and the output coils are off so that the load cannot reflect back to the input. Then in the next sequence the input coils are off and the output coi(s) are on thus can see the load.
Yes the output coil also sees the capacitor as a load but it is an exponentially diminishing load, not a continuous one like a bulb for instance and this is a big difference. By the way, to avoid even this smaller than a real load cap charge load during the input coil on time, I wrote in my previous letter to make the output switch act at the coil' wire end and not after the puffer cap if you read it over again.
rgds, Gyula
Hi Gyula
I'm not sure I understand all you are saying,I will make a sketch and perhaps you can kindly tell me if I've got it right,I doubt it!!
How I think you see it is,in it's very basic form,use 2 "ou" transformers,one for each side of the ac 50hz,when one is on,the other is taking juice from the cap.with of course switching at the right time and place.
Am I right so far?
happy hunting.
peter
Hi Peter,
I did not mean two "ou" transformers but one. So please do make a rough sketch how you mean, ok?
As I found years ago on the net with connection to the MEG, the principle is this:
The input coil(s) is pulsed normally by either opto trigger or Hall effect switch or by reed switch (if current allowes it).
Whenever the input coil is ON by the input switch, the output switch in series with the output coil is OFF. Then the switching sequence turns over: the input coil is OFF and during this OFF time the switch at the output is ON and connects either an AC load to the output coil or in case of a DC load it connects the diodes and the puffer cap to the output coil. Is this clear now?
I do not claim any ou with this switching principle, this is good for preventing a load to reflect back to the input, ok?
So if there is circuit or whatever setup which is supposed to produce ou but has no correct input - output separation, then this principle can help.
rgds, Gyula
Hi Gyula
I don't think I'm understanding even the very basics of this,shame on me!!
How, if the output coil is not connected to the input coil when pulsed,how can anything be taken from the output coil?
That aside,going back to the motor,with an "ou"pulse,how about if instead of a rotor,there is an iron piece being drawn into towards the magnet,and released,which is inturn connected to a magnet moving in a coil,there is no electrical connection between the two coils.
happy hunting
peter
Hi Peter,
Sorry. All I can suggest first try studying the MEG principle which is basically flux steering in a closed soft iron core from one leg/column to the opposite leg/column. See this link: http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megdsqth.htm but do not be overwhelmed by its ou numbers because NOBODY has showed it in practice yet. Only I mean the principle you can understand.
Now if you got the principle the answer to your first question (How, if the output coil is not connected to the input coil when pulsed,how can anything be taken from the output coil?) is that there is a direct flux connection between the input and output coils, for they are on the SAME core! This is the same flux connection as in a conventional transformer and this is a drawback here and this is where the a correctly timed output switch could separate the EFFECT of the common flux path so that the output load would not reflect back to the input, which otherwise surely does.
you wrote:
That aside,going back to the motor,with an "ou"pulse,how about if instead of a rotor,there is an iron piece being drawn into towards the magnet,and released,which is inturn connected to a magnet moving in a coil,there is no electrical connection between the two coils.
Well I think this sounds a better solution for utilizing the benefit of adding two fluxes together so I suggest going for it, only practical tests can give correct answers.
Just peep into Steven latest answer on Hildebrand thread, very instructive: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2386.msg103954.html#msg103954
rgds, Gyula
HI GYULA AND FOLKS,
FIRSTLY THANKS GYULA FOR THE GUIDANCE RE. MY NEW MEMBERSHIP.
I FIND THE TECHNICAL DETAILS DISCUSSED OUT OF MY DEPTH NOT BEING AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER BUT I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THERE IS FREE INFORMATION AVAILABLE FROM THE THE SURGE.COM GROUP OF HOW TO BUILD A WORKING MAGNETIC MOTOR,THE ONLY PROBLEM I SEE (IF IT WORKS AS SUGGESTED ) IS THE FUNDING AND PRODUCTION DUE TO THE ECONOMIC CLIMATE AND THE VESTED INTERESTS IN THE CONTROLLING BODIES CONCERNED.
I WILL BE EAGER TO HEAR OF ANY REPORTS RE. THE MAGNETIC MOTOR DISPLAYED WITH SURGE.COM . IF IT PROVES TO BE FUNCTIONAL IN PRINCIPLE THEN ALL WE NEED IS TO FIND AN ENGINEERING COMPANY WILLING TO TAKE ON THE CONTRACT.
I HAVE NO INTEREST IN MAKING MONEY FROM THIS TECHNOLOGY, I FEEL THESE FREE ENERGY DEVICES SHOULD BE AVILABLE TO THE WORLD IN GENERAL TO SOLVE AN ENDLESS LIST OF GLOBAL PROBLEMS.
FINALLY HAS ANYBODY GOT ANY LINKS WITH THE DR.GREER'S DISCLOSURE PROJECT AND THE WEALTH OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE THERE.
ALL GOOD WISHES FOR OUR SUCCESS, KIND REGARDS EDDY
Hi Eddy,
It was nightlife who kindy guided you, not me but thanks for the kind words anyway.
I cannot seem to find surge.com could you give a correct link to it?
Thanks, Gyula
HI GYULA,
TROY REED DIED LAST YEAR BUT HIS MAGNETIC MOTOR CAN BE VIEWED ON THE LINK BELOW. DENNIS WEAVER THE ACTOR WAS FUNDING HIS PROJECTS;
Directory:Surge Motor Technology by Troy Reed - PESWiki ;
THERE IS NOW A GROUP ATTACHED TO THIS LINK WHO ARE AVAILABLE TO SUPPLY TECHNICAL INFO. THEY ARE UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY FREE ENERGY DEVICES.
I HOPE Y'ALL FIND THIS INFO. USEFUL.
KIND REGARDS EDDY
Hi Eddy,
The motor you speak of has been known about for years but big money will not allow it to be mass produced. There are many others since that have been designed but again, big money will not allow them to be mass produced.
HI NIGHTLIFE,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR UPDATE REGARDING THE ECONOMIC FORCES. DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO GET AN INDEPENDENT OPINION OF ANY OF THESE DESIGNS BY A QUALIFIED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER AND THEN HAVE A PROTOTYPE BUILT IN INDIA,OR ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD?
ON U TUBE I NOTICED A GUY IN AUSTRALIA WHO'S DEVELOPED A 7KW MAGNETIC MOTOR/GENERATOR (LUTEC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD), I'VE MAILED THE COMPANY AND I'M WAITING FOR A REPLY... MY GOODNESS! IF WE DON'T TRY TO GET THESE NEW ENERGY DEVICES PRODUCED WHAT THE HELL ARE WE WASTING OUR TIME FOR HERE.
MOST RESPECTFULLY, THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE, KIND REGARDS EDDY
Hi Eddy,
I am sorry but big money not only rules our country but it also rules the world. I cant say these motors work as they claim but I can say that if they do, we will never know unless we can build them for ourselves. There is no way we can get these mass produced even if we can build them. Big money will never allow it. We can however, try to design some that are easy for the average to build them selves and if enough can be built, then we may be able to make some much needed changes but until then, we are stuck.
Open source is our only hope and if anyone can build anything that will work, lets just hope they make it open source or else we will never get a chance to see, build and or use it.
THANKS NIGHTLIFE, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, HAVE YOU CHECKED OUT THE MOTOR ON " PESWIKI.COM" IT MAY BE A CONTENDER ! THERE ARE SO MANY, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY QUALIFIED TO CHECK THESE MOTORS OUT?
AS I SAID I'LL BE LOOKING INTO THE MATTER OF PRODUCTION AND I'LL GET BACK TO YOU WITH AN UPDATE. WISH ME LUCK EH? KIND REGARDS EDDY
Has anyone tried measuring the amount of force versus distance of a metal object approaching a magnet, compared to moving away from it? This is to see if there is any difference in the amount of work produced when approaching the magnet to work required to move the metal away.
GetReal,
QuoteHas anyone tried measuring the amount of force versus distance of a metal object approaching a magnet, compared to moving away from it?
The work required is equal.
I see you are a new member and I want to personally welcome you to this forum.
HI GET REAL,
EDDY HERE JUST LOOKING IN TO CHECK MY MAIL; REGARDING YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE FORCES BETWEEN THE SAME POLE MAGNETS AND THE WORKABLE ENERGY AVAILABLE. IT IS MY OPINION THAT IF THE FACE OF THE MAGNET SITED ON THE ROTOR IS POSITIONED AT AN ANGLE " BETWEEN " ZERO DEGREES (WITH THE MAGNET FACE POINTING STRAIGHT UP AND OPPOSING, TOWARDS THE STATOR;ON A LINE GOING TO THE CENTRE POINT OF THE ROTOR) TO 90 DEGEES ( WHICH WOULD MEAN THE MAGNET FACE IS ON ITS SIDE) YOU WILL ACHIEVE ROTATION FROM ALL ANGLES OF APPROACH. HAVING ACHIEVED THIS MOTION AND POWERING A GENERATOR IT WOULD THEN BE POSSIBLE TO ENPOWER FIELD COILS IN THE MOTOR TO ENHANCE THE MAGNETIC FIELD OF THE STATOR AND OR ROTOR TO INCREASE OR DECREASE ROTATION AND SUBSEQUENT POWER OUTPUT.
I HAVE NOT TESTED THIS LOGIC AS I'M NOT CURRENTLY IN A POSITION TO HAVE ACCESS TO A WORKSHOP OR MATERIALS. I HOPE YOU FIND THIS INFO. USEFUL.
KIND REGARDS EDDY
Hi Nightlife, I'm also interested in the concept of using both poles of a magnet in a motor or generator. Did you ever get a device to work? I am at a loss as to materials, parts sources, etc. to build my own design. Do you have any suggestions.
I think this concept(using both poles) is very feasible. If you have already answered these questions in previous posts, I apologize as I don't always read threads word for word. Thanx.
Hi Xaverius, I am sorry but I have not finished my motor yet but my common sense tells me that it has to double the torque. You cant have one pole with out the other and they both have to be equal strengths and when only one is used the other is wasted.
Our city has a major problem that I am devoting my time to right now but as soon as I get a chance, I will get back to my motor.
For all those who have problems with teens in your city, here is something you may want to suggest to your city's commissioners. This is a test site I have set up and I hope to have the program running next month. Teens are bored and that is why they are getting out of hand, at least in our city that is and if yours too, check out this next link to a web site I have thrown together.
www.thebigclubhouse.com
Thanx Nightlife, I know you are very busy in the non-FE world, as most of the rest of us are. Looking forward to reading about any results you may obtain in the future. Like I said, I am in the process right now of my own design, I'm trying to keep it very simple. I agree, if only one pole of a magnet is being used, then the other pole(of equal force/power) is being wasted. I'd really like to see the result of twice the force being used as opposed to a conventional motor that only uses one pole. I'll continue in my research, best of luck with yours.
Hi Everyone,
In regards to the work produced by a metal object approaching a magnet to that required
to move it away, if the amount work is the same then how is it possible that the SMOT is an overunity device.
Hi EDDY,
Your idea sounds alot like something I read about a man called Johann Grander,
who built a magnetic generator using the same principle. It supposedly produced free energy.
There are websites about him and his experimentation.
Kind regards
GetReal
Hi Nightlife,
Thanks for the wellcome.
Some people claim that the SMOT device is overunity. This device uses the principle of attraction of a steel ball up a ramp to a magnet.
I can't see how an overunity motor or generator could result from the use of magnets if the amount of work is the same. So how is the SMOT device producing extra energy?
Hi GetReal, I have not personally seen a smot design that even comes close to what most call over unity. Over unity is producing more work then the initial work provided. Most smot's are seen having a metal ball go up a track and just because the ball starts from no speed and then moves at a accelerated rate, they assume over unity. The truth is that the ball must be placed at the start which requires work and then it has to be picked up at the end and returned to the start which again requires works and based on the amount of work that is provided, the work produced can't even come close to the work provided. Therefore, over unity is not achieved.
Another thing we must understand when claiming over unity is that we must first prove what energy is used and what energy is produced and due to the fact that we don?t even know what energy really even is, it would be impossible to claim true over unity.
We have to answer this next questions first:
What is energy?
Not just what it does and or ways we can produce it but the true definition. Some say it is a frequency, some say it is a movement of electrons and some say magnetic fields. My theory is that it is nothing more then vibrations. No one can be wrong at this point do to it not ever being proven one or another. I could go on for days as I have on other threads but I will leave you with that. Food for thought LOL.
Tom
Xaverius, you are right about most of us being busy with other things and I guess my given excuse was not valid and it helped me get back in to things.
I was working on a magnet motor that requires no outside power source to run and produce excess power. I got stumped and that is why I jumped off and devoted all my attention on other projects. After reading your reply it made me think as well as it made me feel guilty and so I went down to my dungeon and went back thru my notes to see where I made a mistake. My notes were not wrong but I found them to be missing a couple important things. I also found that my proto type had some magnets placed wrong. I must have been tired or just brain dead when I built it. I learned a few things and that made it all worth while. I have some more experimenting to do before I can relay my new found thoughts.
As for your pulse motor, I have posted a few different design concepts as well as a couple of others have. I have not built one yet to say which is best but I feel most of them can and or should work. You were asking about parts and I would have to know what you have in mind for a design first as well as how sophisticated you want your motor to be. If simple, I would suggest the Bedini School Girl parts and adding the utilization of both poles as well as utilizing the increased energy of the gap between two opposite polarities.
Good luck and I will keep you posted on my findings as I hope you do the same with yours.
Tom
Here is a rough draft of the design I am working on.
If any of you have read my other postings, I have stated that it takes at least three to pass one, now keep that in mind when viewing this and remember that the gap between two opposite polarities is much stronger as well it has a much longer maximum strength rating. The strength starts at just past center of one and ends just before center of the next. The distance between the can house three different smaller magnets. The trick is to not have two smaller magnets at the center of the two different poled magnets at the same time.
Hi Nightlife,
I'm glad to see that you have a good understanding of why the SMOT device can't be overunity. Why then do people try to make a perpetual motor using a SMOT?
My concept of energy is that produced during the equalisation of a differential, eg hot and cold, high potential and low potential, high pressure and low pressure etc.
Quote from: GetReal on June 21, 2008, 05:21:41 AM
Hi Nightlife,
I'm glad to see that you have a good understanding of why the SMOT device can't be overunity. Why then do people try to make a perpetual motor using a SMOT?
My concept of energy is that produced during the equalisation of a differential, eg hot and cold, high potential and low potential, high pressure and low pressure etc.
People try to make PM from SMOT because they do not know what they are doing and misunderstand what is taking place. They also typically refuse to include the energy used by their hands in moving the ball to its start position as being part of the whole energy gain/loss cycle. Plus it is an open system which for producing any useful work is pointless. It could be imagined having a SMOT cascade in which the ball drops to another ramp and then that drops to another ramp and so forth. This would be closing the loop and theoretically it would run forever. It doesn't. Something so simple could be made in a short amount of time and end the argument. No one has done it despite SMOT advocates saying that closing the loop is a "simple" engineering problem. It is not (the impossible is always a tad more complicated).
Differences in potential can generate energy as in producing electron flow. The problem ultimately is one of entropy though. As the potentials diminish the energy produced also diminishes to the point where there is no difference at all and no energy is produced. Now if the potential difference are high enough you will be able to generate energy for a long time but the end result will always be the same - complete depletion of the difference and zero energy. To maintain the difference requires input energy defeating the whole concept of producing infinite energy.
We do not know everything about magnetism. But there are many things we do not know everything about, light, electrons, gravity, etc. Yet, we still manage to get utility out of them. Not OU but useful work. We may not know everything about gravity but we do know if you fall off a cliff you will fall to your death. Every time.
It is very possible that the pursuit of free energy is an illusion. Our minds can make elaborate illusions that fool the best of us. Think of the ever spiraling upward ramp of M.C. Escher. It appears to our minds that the ramp goes up forever and yet in fact it is an illusion. I think most free energy seekers only see the illusion without ever seeing the impossibility of what is underlying it.
Quote from: GetReal on June 21, 2008, 05:21:41 AM
Hi Nightlife,
I'm glad to see that you have a good understanding of why the SMOT device can't be overunity.
A ball bearing rushing up a ramp is gaining potential energy. Turning this into a useful device
is quite another matter.
Hi GetReal, I am not sure why people try but I did remember one that did strike my interest but I can not find it now. I will try to find it latter and post a link to it for you to check out.
As for your concept of energy, you have to remember that hot and cold, as well as high and low pressures are all things that are produced by energy. As for a high and low potential as well as the others, energy has to be present first before any of those things can be created.
I think your concept is more about how energy can be used for collection and or for utilization. Energy is all around us and it just a matter of us being able to attract, harness and collect it so that we can utilize it for our own needs. Everything has a vibrancy limit and everything puts out a vibration. Most of which are noticed by smell, touch, sound and sight. There are those that are undetectable by humans and they are things like air and a lot of different microscopic particles. We cants see, smell, feel or hear them because their vibrancy is not vibrant enough. As microscopic particles become compressed in groups, then they become more noticeable by human senses.
There is still so much we have to learn about true energy before we can ever assume what it truly is. We just don?t have the knowledge and or equipment to find out. The closest we came to being able to see a so called Electron is a microscopic trace within a Atom and that to me was just a trace of a vibration that gives the Atom life.
As I said before, I could go on for days with my assumptions but yet they are all worthless without proof so therefore, I am just wasting my time. What?s new though. Life its self is just a waste of time and our greed to live comfortly is what brings us together here looking for ways to produce something we already have.
Now I see why so many scientist have been said to be crazy. LOL
I must be brain dead. I cant believe I thought my last design I posted could work. LOL
For some weird reason, I keep thinking of ways to utilize magnets without using a outside source to produce power. Ever time I think of something, I seem to forget about what I have already learned in past experiments. For that I say, I must be brain dead.
Maybe some day I will give up and realize it cant be done but until then, I will push on.
I will say my best thought thus far is utilizing both poles of a magnetic coil and utilizing the gap between two opposite poled magnets.
I am also interested in the amplifying of electricity using a magnet as someone has mentioned in another thread. I will post a idea as well as a rough draft I have pictured in my head when I get a chance.
So for now, it's back to the drawing board.
Hi,ive been lurking for a while but i would like to share with you what i've been up to.I to have been thinking about utilising both poles of the coil for a while and here's a vid of just that.What's interesting here is there is no increase in current draw for 2 rotors as apposed to 1.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ajtYT-40nZM
Regards JonnyDavro.
jonnydavro, Thank you for confirming my previous assumptions. That proves the work is doubled using both poles without using any more power.
Now I only have to prove how the gap between two opposite poles will again double the work without using any more power.
Not only should it double the work, it should also allow a longer pulse length.
We should also be able to design a generator that can be powered by the pulse motor that will produce a a/c current that we can pull the back EMF from. We should be able to take that back EMF and add it with the pulse motors back EMF and come real close to being 100% if not more efficient and still have the power from the generator to power something else.
The whole set up should show a efficiency of well over 100%.
Thanks again for posting your experiment for us all to see.
Hi all:
Thaelin here. I found a piece of the puzzle here for the grabs so I feel I will
leave a tid bit for all you to see as well. I was playing with recapturing the emf
of a coil as to power its self and had three coils feeding each other and the last
feeding the first. I took a coil normally drawing 800ma and had it down to 14ma
in the end. I will take a stab at getting the circuit drawn up and make a gif of it
to upload here.
I was using regulators on the recapture caps to limit the output to the next
coil so it could stay charged up. You just have to make sure you put diodes on
the battery that keeps the circulating power in the circuit and not trying to reenter
the batt. I think it did very well for powering 3 coils and once up to run, only using
an aditional 14ma of power. Could run a long time that way. Just add tri-filar wound
coils and you could tap off some of the excess as well. Not sure what that would
do to the overall draw on the source battery tho. Using variable regulators would
allow you to adjust the circulating power and overall draw as well.
More later.
th
Don't forget Muller.
--giantkiller.
having read this thread it would be interesting to know how the testing of the principles worked out.I imagine with the shape of the fields eminating from the curved coil would promote rotation given that the supply a/c to the coil being 50-60 hertz.Perhaps though the magnetic field between the poles of the curved coil might interfere with the efficiency. Just guessing,no workshop, I'm probably talking to myself anyway looking at the dates, kind regards eddy