Magnetic Overunity Motor Design

[travin69]

Thanks Qwert.  I have known of him for some a few years.  He was a fraud looking to extort.  I am trying to make something that can do some good in the world.

Yes, my motor design is a piston type motor.  I built a rotary type as well for my proof of concept and it worked well enough for me that I felt comfortable spending a few more dollars to build a bigger unit.

I have a few design changes on my piston motor.  I don't use a crankshaft to convert the linear motion to rotary motion.  This is due to the fact that torque is based on crank angle which is not optimal until several degrees after the piston has reached and passed TDC.  As the piston moves further away from the main coil after top dead center, the magnetic repulsion has decreased exponentially, thus, you get lower power and lost potential.  I am using a swash-plate type piston engine.  This eliminates all crank angles and maintains the optimal torque arm for max torque throughout each stroke.  It also allows the motor to be built with cheaper materials as the only forces on the pistons are compression, which most metals have an extremely high tolerance for compression stress.

I also capture the flyback voltage via my personally designed RC snubber circuit and use it to further increase the output power of the motor.  Based on some tests that I and other's helping with this build have done, I feel that this is the best use of the power.  Many people try to put it back into the battery, which I don't agree with as it is too hard to measure that "power" other than with calculations.  I as well can't measure that power directly, but I can measure it indirectly via the change in output power using the snubber circuit as compared to a snubber diode or an RCD snubber circuit.

[gotoluc]

Gotoluc:

I have watched your video's with much joy.  I am still a little out on the coil powering the motor though, as that would defeat the overunity design, but again I haven't built one so I can't really tell one way or the other.  It should at least be more powerful as it is both attraction and repulsion at the same time.

My motor is different because I use permanent magnets on both the armature and stator.  My coils just shift the magnetic flux around to get past the sticky spots.  I let the magnets do all the work.  Gotoluc, I know you are familiar with Art Porter's design.  I took his design and enhanced it as well as combining some of RomeroUK's info as well into the mix.  All and all, it should be as efficient as I can reasonable achieve.  I have gone out of my way to maximize every possible piece of the motor for maximum output.  As stated before, I evaluate my success based on USABLE electrical output and gross electrical input.  Only when the first is greater than the latter is REAL overunity achieved (IMHO that is).

I have also recently discovered a Toshiba patent that uses permanent magnets to concentrate the magnetic force of other permanent magnets.  According to the patent, it allows smaller magnets to be used and perform as a larger magnet.  It is a very simple design and might work nicely on motor designs.

Hi Daniel,

thanks for the reply and extra details of your motor design and yes, I am familiar with Art Porter's design http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqzGnuuQ8lY&list=UUxgVPQxTkyUoxulCzSFPf2w&index=1&feature=plcp

As you may have observed in my video demo, I am using both poles of the electromagnet coil. When I say both poles, I'm not talking about the poles on each ends of the coil, what I'm talking about is I have found through my experiments that there's also 2 poles created between the inner and outer sides of an electromagnet coil.
This explains why Art Porter has found and doesn't understand that by using a smaller diameter magnet his motor work better than using a larger diameter magnet. If the magnet is larger than the half way point of the coil it's now fighting the opposite pole that starts at the half way point of a coil.
I believe Art's design could be improved by using both SIDE poles of the electromagnet coil. The permanent magnet could be embedded in a metal cup which would redirect its opposite pole forward all around the half way point of the perimeter of the coil.  Maybe the results could double as the coils external side field could be used.

Test it for yourself, use a coil with a center core and add core material all around the outside of the coil. Energize the coil and check the poles between the center core and outside core and you'll find they are opposite.
With this you should know what to do.

Let me know if you understand.

Looking forward in your test results

Thanks for sharing

Luc

[travin69]

The thing about adding metal around a coil or magnet is that it decreases the lines of flux which extend outwards from the poles.  This is because the metal, assuming it is magnetic, has a lower reluctance than air, so it "conducts" the magnetic lines closer to the outer surface of the coil/magnet.  This in turn shortens the distance from the pole at which the magnetic lines can interact with other magnets, metal, ect...

Your example, if I am not mistaken, is already used in electromagnets that have the poles on the same side.  The center pole is N and the outsides are S poles.  This is why 5 watts of energy can lift 22 pounds or more.  I considered this design already as a way to use both poles of a permanent magnet and a corresponding electromagnet.  I build a few demo's and found that they were in fact very strong, BUT, the distance over which they were able to act was almost nil.  This design works great for lifting, just not over a long distance.

What I do find important in the operation is making sure power is applied less than 50% of each rotation, and obviously as little as possible.  I have it down around 35-45% of the time so far with varing results.  Also, the coil diameters need to be much larger than the coil length.  Basically, you want a coil that is as close to a pancake look as possible but still work.  This allows the piston magnets to come closer to the power magnets, which results in higher power density for a given set of magnets and electrical power input.  I am still experimenting with different core designs as well and the ratios between core diameters, pole diameters, and magnet diameters.  I found out the hard way that coils wound bifilar DO NOT work like I was told or led to believe, but i have already covered this discussion.

Art's design works awesome.  I don't agree with some of his measurements of power.  He measures power that is not usable power.  To me, that should never be included in the final calculations.  He also measures input power from his coils, vice his power source.  Gross input power is the power one would use to calculate efficiency of a motor.  Art has been a tremendous help to me over the last year and I can't thank him enough for his support and input. 

I believe without a doubt, that his designs are the key to overunity motor design, which is why I am pursuing it.  This is also the reason I believe that permanent magnets are a power source of sorts and by using these techniques, the motor would not actually break the laws of physics, as the power to create the magnets, mine the ore, ect... are never figured into the Ein of the efficiency equation (as if they were, you would never be over 100% efficient).  At our level of physical interactions, the laws of thermo are unbeatable.  The saving grace of a permanent magnet motor is the energy to create the magnet only has to be input once, and they can last for many years.

[e2matrix]

e2matrix:

Thanks for the info on this motor.  I really don't understand his video.  If he is an eng, he sucks at explanations, which leads me to believe that he isn't.  Also, he talks about back emf when a coil is de-energized.  That is NOT back emf.  It is flyback voltage.  From my experience, they are two different things, though that term is used "loosely" for flyback voltage.  I do appreciate the referral though and I will look at it tomorrow when I am fresh again to see if I can grasp what he is trying to do with his winding.

Yeah he is Italian/Spanish and speaks 4 languages but English is definitely not his main language .... although I think he gets his point across usually.  I've gotten used to reading many other foreign people writing in English and eventually I can understand it almost as well as regular English.   I don't think his vid's are always the best although his 3D cad stuff is nice but that message thread at EF has a lot of good info in it.  Good luck with your work.

[TinselKoala]

@travin69: When you say that bifilar coils didn't work as you were led to believe.... what kind of bifilar winding did you use? I have learned that many people call a "hairpin" winding bifilar, but this is very different from the way Tesla used the term in his invention.

In other words, a hairpin bifilar is like this: take a long piece of wire, and fold it in half. Now you have your "hairpin." Wind this on a form.  Or equivalently, take two strands of wire and wind them both simultaneously, then connect the far ends together and use the near ends for your input.

However, Tesla's true bifilars are different. Take the two strands of wire and wind them both simultaneously and evenly, no overlapping, then take the _far end_ of one and hook it to the _near end_ of the other. Use the remaining ends for your input. Or, for a pancake coil, the center of one winding connects to the edge of the other.

The latter is the true Tesla bifilar winding and will store more energy in interturn capacitance, and will also have other effects that may be useful.

Which type of bifilar winding did you test? Elegant work, by the way, especially the use of the swashplate instead of the crank.