Heres my concept....
Oopps! Sorry it tripples my image... How can I delete the first two? By the way as you can see I add one magnet in the stator to double the magnetic field. I think this is much more efficient than Lindemann design...
Hi,
Interesting setup and you combine the flux of the permanent magnet with that of the electromagnet. Can you test it ?
I would like to show you the motionless version of your setup, patented by Asaoka from Japan in 1999, see this link:
http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=5926083A&KC=A&FT=D&date=19990720&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP
You will find how much times less power input was needed to get the same flux with the permanent magnet present, see column 5, from line 51 to line 64 in Page 10.
rgds, Gyula
Wow your right it very similar except theirs is a coil in the static rotor.
Hi folks, how very interesting. In the patent posted, paramagnetic material is different from ferromagnetic in the fact that it is more like a 1 to 1 ratio in its ability to hold flux, therefore when the middle coil is de-energized the flux from the permanent magnet will prefer the other path of higher permeability, awesome. This paramagnetic material might be good to use for the rotor in your proposed design Neo-X. Hope that helps.
peace love light
Tyson
Quote from: Neo-X on June 11, 2010, 09:02:00 PM
Wow your right it very similar except theirs is a coil in the static rotor.
@Neo-X
Yes, the difference is in the lack of a moving rotor and your design has a mechanical torque output and the Asaoka design has electric power output.
Unfortunately Asaoka did not mention the effect of Lenz law when a decent load is connected to his output coil. Nevertheless, he deals with the possibility of getting more output wrt the input. What he found with the 40 times less input power need for getting the same flux densitiy sounds very good indeed but in itself it does not guarantie a COP>1, does it.
In your design I think the size of the air gap between the stator and rotor is also very important just like in Lindemann's setup and he recommended less than 0.1mm gap, this calls for high precision machining and very good ball bearing for sure. Lenz law can also manifest in your design when you load the shaft but I guess it is surely less than in a normal electric motor.
@Skywatcher123
Well if you study the permeability values of the paramagnetic materials mentioned in the patent, then you would find a value of 0.9999... so just under the value of 1, i.e. that of the air. This means that the air gap in itself could serve too, no need for any paramagnetic material BUT probably there is another point of view: paramagnetic metals may have a certain role in small eddy current induction hence small counter flux production in the gap, this may be beneficial if not excessive? Tests can tell the answer.
rgds, Gyula
@gyulasun
I think the patent is wrong, the input must a pulse not an ac to achieve overunity like in the smarkpak pod, meg, adams motor and others that use magnet in their device.. Thats why I use pulse in my concept design. The ac only applicable to a overunity device that do not use magnet like rotoverter, transverter by hector, tesla coil, don smith device..
Hi Neo-X,
Maybe you are right, I wish you were...
I am not fully convinced that using pulses in setups like you refer to (smartpack, pod, MEG) involves overunity. Lenz law does not differentiate between pulses and sinewaves unfortunately. Somehow the setup itself should be designed to trick Lenz law. I have not seen such setup in practice, only in paper. Have you?
rgds, Gyula
Im not sure but thats what I observed.. Im going to build a solidstate overunity generator similar to the patent you post but have a pulse voltage source. I will test if my theory is correct and I hope that it will work..
Very good you attempt testings!
You think of NE555 based pulse generator and a MOSFET switch? If you need help in such circuit, ask.
rgds, Gyula
Hi,,,
I have a question about your device. What if you put a device that uses its centripetal force on it to mess around with the Mass and Speed to see if that will maintain free energy. A device model like what a skater does when they pull their arms and they go faster. Another one could be several device with springs that slides out weights hopefully it would increase the mass for the work put in and hopefully it will maintain Mass (a flywheel) at the same speed swiching between them. I wish I could be more helpful but frankly I don't know much about Physics or what has been tried in the past by free energy inventors.
@gyulasun
Thanks for help... I dont know how to use an IC and I have no money to buy.. Im thinking to use a two transistor to make flipflop circuit and my other problem is the magnet. I have no rectangular magnet...
@frii143
All I know is theirs no energy you can get in a centripetal force. Centripetal force can only transform and store the energy.. For example in a skater, if you use your feet to rotate your body while your arms are extending outward, the energy is stored in the mass of your arms and when drop down your arms an energy is released increasing your rotation and then stopped by friction.. Similar to a flywheel when a force is applied to rotate it, the energy is stored in its mass and when the applied force is stopped it continue to rotate because of its stored energy until it stopped by friction.. This means the greater the mass, the greater the energy can be stored.. A planet doesnt stop because theirs no friction.. If you are wondering why other device gets overunity thats because they know how to extract power in magnetism and gravity.. Energy can be extracted in magnetism and gravity thats why almost all overunity devices uses magnet and gravity. But it doesnt mean that magnet create energy, you cant create energy from nothing thats the laws of physics. Their is enormous wave energy in around us even in empty space. It is the ether wave that can pass through in any material except for magnet. The magnet acts only like a diode or a valve rectifying the wave energy in space in only one direction. Thats why a magnets have a repelling and attraction forces similar to an electric fan facing together...
Quote from: Neo-X on June 13, 2010, 12:38:11 AM
...
I dont know how to use an IC and I have no money to buy.. Im thinking to use a two transistor to make flipflop circuit and my other problem is the magnet. I have no rectangular magnet...
...
@Neo-X
Well, I thought of direct you to proven and working circuits in case you are less familiar with electronic circuits but I cannot build and send you a ready made setup or even a kit, sorry. Here is a schematic and printed circuit board plan for a 555 timer IC based pulse generator with variable duty cycle and variable frequency:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8411.msg243175#msg243175
Maybe some members here could help you in obtaining such components, you may also check locally what you can obtain (potmeters, diodes, resistors are not that expensive... and if you search for magnetic door locks or latches they have one or two block magnets, magnetized through their thickness, see this link for illustration, you may have access to such things at your local hardware stores for cheap:
http://www.thehardwarehut.com/catalog-product.php?p_ref=259864
rgds, Gyula
@ gyulasun
Okay thanks I will try to study that circuit it is slight complicated...
Well, you can read some explanation on the 555 at several places:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/555_timer_IC
http://www.doctronics.co.uk/555.htm
and an animation on the basic operation is here:
http://www.williamson-labs.com/480_555.htm
Basically you can consider it as "programmable" astabil multivibrator and with the two diodes added to it like I showed you earlier the duty cycle can be varied independently from the frequency.
Its Pin 3 output or its Pin 7 Discharge output can directly drive a MOSFET, and you can connect your coil to be pulsed in series with the drain electrode of the MOSFET. The other end of the coil is connected to the battery positive.
Good studying :)
Gyula
Is this what you had in mind?
Hi Steven,
Fantastic build, long time no hearing of you. Any good news on this setup? What is the air gap size you managed to attain here?
I am sure Neo-X will be amazed by the pictures. ;)
Thanks, Gyula
Wow Im shocked... I dont know that theirs already build this and with a great 3d drawings.. Did you get an overunity? In my opinion theirs no need to use two magnet and two coils because using one big magnet and one big coil have similar effect. In other words my design is much simpler than yours but have the same effect..
I have not seen overunity with this principle. These designs do seem simple and straight forward but in reality it is far from simple. The main reason why I gave the magnet on the outside is so I can add or remove them when the motor is running, so I can get a good idea if the magnets actually add to the overall efficiency. And believe it or not but in most cases the adding of the magnets does nothing at all, meaning the fields of the magnets do not move. Only with very excessive input currents you see an rpm (thus torque) gain when the magnets are added. But at the same point the motor also starts to draw more amps. In my opinion it is still debatable if this approach has efficiency advantages. You might want to look into the works of Jack Hildenbrand. A few years ago he was very active on this forum with his motors - which were based on the same principle and were the best quality builds you will find around here. There was never any real conclusive results from his motors. He died about one or two years ago. The images below were some of his builds.
Here are some links. To bad Jack removed most of his posts:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2386.0 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2386.0)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2222.0 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2222.0)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=833.0 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=833.0)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7591.0 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7591.0)
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Director:Hilden-Brand_Electromagnet_Motor (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Director:Hilden-Brand_Electromagnet_Motor)
His patent: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Director:Hilden-Brand_Electromagnet_Motor (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Director:Hilden-Brand_Electromagnet_Motor)
Great job on the motors! I wish I were half the machinist you are.
You mentioned that you saw no difference in the performance between having the magnets attached and taking them off. This is normal for this type of motor. The magnets won't kick in until there is a fairly heavy load on the rotor. This is when there is an increased "pull" between the rotor and stator poles. In regular motors there is an increase in current draw which compensates for this. The increase current produces a stronger B field in the gap, which provides more torque.
When the motor is up to full speed, current draw is at a minimum. The little current that the coil produces is adequate for the job. That's why you can remove the magnets and nothing happens. Unloaded speed is not an indicator of motor performance in general.
What you'll find is that as you load the rotor, and the speed is reduced, your efficiency will start to increase. The more you load it, the more work the PMs will do.
Below (hopefully) is graph of a test I did with roughly the same type of motor you have. The input power remained constant throughout the test.
Otherwise you can find info on my motor here: http://hereticalbuilders.com/showthread.php?t=194&page=4