Okay, I'm trying to get my knowledge all caught up with so much to learn and so many directions to look. I'm missing something with the whole lindemann attraction motor concept I guess. Here is one of the video's I'm mainly referring to...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvNIXyUXXqg&feature=related

Here's my main question. I know he is not stating over-unity here, just greatly improved efficiency with no back EMF. I get that, entirely. I also get why it actually draws less current input when it is loaded. But what I do not get, is why he is not hooking an alternator up to that motor as a load? It sure seems the output from the alternator, although obviously a seperate circuit, combined with the output collected on the return, would surely add up to over-unity!?!?! Wouldn't it?  Couldn't you feed the alternator output into the collected output of the bedini circuit into a switching circuit of some kind to kill the original input when the new input power is sufficient to run self sustained? (I hope I explained that well enough, I'm a novice, I'm doing my best.)

I'm sure it wont, it's just to damn simple and with Peter's vast knowledge, I guarantee he has not overlooked it. But what I'm not sure of is why it wouldn't push it over-unity?  Can anyone please try and clarify for me the principles as to why that wouldn't work? I'm obviously missing something here...

Hi,

What you are missing is some fine details... 

The simple answer for your question on why Peter L. did not show an alternator tied to the DEMO motor in his video is that it would have shown sure underunity,  just because the DEMO motor was missing those fine details. But the purpose of the DEMO was to show the principle of his attraction motor, that is all (as you also mentioned).

You can read from Peter L. what those fine details actually are in the energeticforum.com but I do not know if non-members can see posts there so I qoute Peter:
John's methods of electrical energy recovery are ONE HALF of this method. They are a very important half, but they are only half. The other half is the optimization of motor torque in the rotor-stator interaction. The amount of torque possible here is based on the magnetic field strength, the minimization of the air gap in the magnetic circuit, the geometry of the pole face interaction between the rotor and stator, and the timing. The METHOD I am proposing brings these two halves together to produce a motor that takes best advantage of both.
Currently, there are NO switched reluctance motors that I am aware of that run on these principles.

Peter says also the need for a very small sized air gap between the rotor and stator and that it can only be achieved in a good mechanical shop by specifically machining the rotor-stator facing areas (needed air gap is in the order of  0.1mm or even less to get high torque from the attraction).
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/271-electric-motor-secrets-3.html#post1411
And this is a link to Peter L.'s circuit on his website: http://www.free-energy.ws/electric-motor-secrets/attraction-motor.html

Maybe these infos answer your question?

rgds,  Gyula

Quote from: captainpecan on August 16, 2008, 04:04:33 AM
Okay, I'm trying to get my knowledge all caught up with so much to learn and so many directions to look. I'm missing something with the whole lindemann attraction motor concept I guess. Here is one of the video's I'm mainly referring to...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvNIXyUXXqg&feature=related

Here's my main question. I know he is not stating over-unity here, just greatly improved efficiency with no back EMF. I get that, entirely. I also get why it actually draws less current input when it is loaded. But what I do not get, is why he is not hooking an alternator up to that motor as a load? It sure seems the output from the alternator, although obviously a separate circuit, combined with the output collected on the return, would surely add up to over-unity!?!?! Wouldn't it?  Couldn't you feed the alternator output into the collected output of the bedini circuit into a switching circuit of some kind to kill the original input when the new input power is sufficient to run self sustained? (I hope I explained that well enough, I'm a novice, I'm doing my best.)

I'm sure it wont, it's just to damn simple and with Peter's vast knowledge, I guarantee he has not overlooked it. But what I'm not sure of is why it wouldn't push it over-unity?  Can anyone please try and clarify for me the principles as to why that wouldn't work? I'm obviously missing something here...

Thank you for posting the link to this video. While this motor is running he hasn't made any reference to its mechanical power
relative to the mechanical power of the frame when it was a new whole motor. I can say that this motor he is demonstrating is
significantly less powerful mechanically then it was. The reason is that the rotor was designed to create a reverse magnetic field.,
and the motor ran with a rotor that was presenting that field 360 degrees around so that the rotor would have been powered at
all times. In this motor the rotor is simply a piece of ferrous metal attracted to the magnetic poles of the field coil. So it's
being attracted for only part of the entire cycle. Actually the reed relay is limiting the speed of the motor. The transistor is there
simply to keep motor magnetic field current all from having to go through the relay contacts. The current gain of the bipolar transistor
is probably about 100:1 so the relay contact sees only 1% of what it would have seen if the relay activated the field coils directly.

So he can not really talk about this motor replacing a new motor in the original configuration without talking about mechanical
power. The original motor has another very positive feature, it was a variable size machine. If the process the motor is running
hits a difficult spot, require more HP horse power that motor responds by slowing down slightly but draws more current *and
also  becomes more powerful*. This pulse motor will draw less current and would eventually stall, this is why it's rpm tend s
to drift around so much. In general bemf is from the inductive coil and this inductive coil is creating bemf - so his statement
of No Back emf is misleading. In the original bemf from the coil was used to buck the powersupply current when the motor
is unloaded giving the low power when it is unloaded, but the Bemf is defeated as the load increases making the motor
conduct more and become more powerful as needed by the load. Isn't that a good way of using b-emf from the coil for a
motor having to deal with a real-world load?

Now lets talk about the motors relative power and power recycling through the battery. First, most likely this motor as it
is being demonstrated  - is overunity when the acid/lead battery is in the circuit. Why?, because he is using the Bedini
method of using b-emf from a pulsed coil to charge an acid/lead storage battery. CF cold fusion in the Battery's chemistry
causes overunity power production when being charged by back emf from a pulse motor. The problem is that he doesn't
demonstrate that because it would take a long time to demonstrate it if the battery was really discharging or not with a
motor that is efficient as his is.

So this is the same old setup. Demonstrate a new unusual configuration for the prime mover and claim that 's it's efficient,
which it is, and then say it should be replacing existing stuff without demonstrating it produces significantly less power
than existing motors for the same hardware. Then back pulse a battery using the Bedini method, And claim implicitly
that the unusual configuration motor is responsible for the overunity without demonstrating it! Nobody ever gets to see
the Bedini cycle producing excess energy! Everybody including engineers are dummies and science is all wrong - BS.
I say; "Science is just some wrong and the Bedini cycle does produce excess energy". He should please stop confusing
people with his unusual prime movers they may be more efficient but don't solve all real world problems. Please do prove
overunity of the Bedini method so people can place what ever prime movers in front they want to produce Bedini overunity.

So to answer your question - Yes, you could run a small alternator from the motor he describes and it's power could be
added to the already overunity of the Bedini cycle in my opinion too, produce a self running machine. Nobody seems
to measure the power of their machines, or how much energy it take to breach the magnetic walls, or how much energy
can be produced by a small DC motors used as a generator. So it's hard to say as there are not that many references.

This problem is reduced to; that one needs a microcontrol computer to swap source and charging batteries in
Bedini systems by determining their voltage state of charge on those batteries over time. This controller could also
track if the configuration seemed to be producing overunity energy over time and light an "overunity led". The same
controller could be used for from 12V acid/lead gel cell batteries through deep cycle lift truck batteries. Would that be
enough proof for you?

:S:MarkSCoffman

Thanks for the replies, that's exactly the kind of replies I was hoping for! To be honest, I figured I would get some half witted skeptic just spitting off crap about the laws of thermodynamics or something simply because they couldn't answer my questions... lol...

I agree also, I could clearly see the torque was much less. If he tried to stop the motor with his finger in the original configuration, it would have ripped his finger apart, lol... Just a bit of learned knowledge I tried to learn the hard way as a kid...  Although I do really like where he was heading with this concept, and the bedini circuit, and the concepts of circuits based off of it, are very intrigueing to me. But I'm like you, I would be more interested in seeing a similar circuit, fed back to run it. I'm working on trying to figure out a circuit that can do that, unfortunately it may be a while, as I'm still learning alot as I go here. I would be happy if I could duplicate at least partially some of these results, and be able to feed the current right back, and in the long run end up with  a motor that starts from a battery... switches to it's own power... then slows to an eventual stop do to under-unity...

Does anyone have any info on a good way to build the switching part of this circuit? As with all the other experiments I've been working with, I know this would be a usefull circuit to have.

Oh, and thanks for your replies. It's nice to get replies and constuctive criticism from those who are several steps ahead of me in the learning curve instead of those who are just skeptical and out to bring everyone down to their own miserable level by spouting off junk they have absolutely no clue about in reality. lol...

mscoffman:

QuoteNow lets talk about the motors relative power and power recycling through the battery. First, most likely this motor as it
is being demonstrated  - is overunity when the acid/lead battery is in the circuit. Why?, because he is using the Bedini
method of using b-emf from a pulsed coil to charge an acid/lead storage battery. CF cold fusion in the Battery's chemistry
causes overunity power production when being charged by back emf from a pulse motor. The problem is that he doesn't
demonstrate that because it would take a long time to demonstrate it if the battery was really discharging or not with a
motor that is efficient as his is.

So, if we will buy a cheap lead acid battery, we have exellent overunity battery with cold fusion properties! Very impressive!