new magnetic motor goes 2000 rpm without load 1000 rpm with load

[powercat]

This guy is still going unlike his unproven devices

Now he's saying he has developed a new coil 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXG299jSrVw&feature=channel_page
Bang
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9OR_7ufcSE&feature=channel_page

14 videos on his channel page
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Magnacoastermotors&view=videos

     z z z z z
cat

[duff]

Attached is the patent in a html document.

I've embedded the images with the  pertinent text to make it easier to read through.

There appears to be errors in Fig 1 & Fig 6 related to the output bridge. Surely he is not purposely reverse biasing the diodes.

Also I did some initial test of the circuit and have not seen anything interesting so far. Still much to try.

-Duff

[Ted Ewert]

Attached is the patent in a html document.

I've embedded the images with the  pertinent text to make it easier to read through.

There appears to be errors in Fig 1 & Fig 6 related to the output bridge. Surely he is not purposely reverse biasing the diodes.

Also I did some initial test of the circuit and have not seen anything interesting so far. Still much to try.

-Duff

I looked over the schematic and, frankly, don't see anything that looks like it will work. I say this because I've done a fair amount of experimenting with MEG setups.
The problem I found with the MEG is that switched magnetic current (from a permanent magnet) does NOT produce electricity through a coil. I switched magnetic current through the core of a coil in a variety of configurations, but it would never produce any power. I could see the switching pulse quite clearly, but there was no difference in output when the magnet was removed from the circuit. I even switched the magnetic current mechanically, with the same negative result. However, as soon as there is any movement, current is generated.
Based on my experience, I believe that magnetic current from a PM will not produce electricity in a coil without some sort of mechanism to alter the phase of the B and H fields. For the same reason that DC is not created by wrapping a coil of wire around a magnet, the MEG fails to produce power.
The "law" that states that changing magnetic current in a core induces power is not entirely correct. If it were, a square wave would not pass through a transformer, which it will. The "law" would be more precise by stating that current can be induced through a transformer as long as there is a phase differential between voltage and current in the input signal. As soon as this phase differential disappears, as in DC, the transformer ceases to work.
This is the same with any MEG. Unless a mechanism, such as movement, is found that can change the phase of the B and H fields, no extra power can be created.
Perhaps this mechanism has been discovered by Magnacoaster and purposely left out of the patent, I don't know. Nevertheless, I have experimented with an almost identical setup in the past and obtained no results.
This is one of the reasons I question Bearden's apparent success with the MEG. In his incessant ramblings, he fails to mention the simple facts I have presented above. Anyone who has ever tried to build a MEG has run into these issues. The MEG is not a complicated device, yet he makes it sound like some exotic machine. Why doesn't he explain the working of a MEG in simple language? He either figured out a way to shift the phase without movement, or he's full of it (I chose the latter until proven otherwise).
Anyway, that's my two cents.

Cheers,

Ted

[Ergo]

You are totaly correct in your findings, Ted.
If you wonder why a MEG doesn't work then please have a look at the explanation below.

All ferromagnetic materials has a magnetic min/max level and this is called the B/H hysteresis curve.
A magnet inserted into a transformer circuit will shift the B/H curve of the ferromagnetic material.
In dynamic mode (pulsing) you repeatedly have to force the shifted B/H curve back and forth past zero level.
This takes just as much power as you gained by inserting the magnet.
But wait....it gets even worse. When you insert a powerful neodymium into a transformer you
actually force the ferromagnetic core close to saturation in each pulse cycle and this causes a
lot of power loss on every pulse repetition. These losses are a lot higher than a regular transformer
that is working safely away from being saturated.
There you have it. A magnet boosted transformer, aka MEG, will always perform less good than any
regular transformer.

Simply put:
You can't redirect the static flux from an inserted magnet without spending the same amount of
electrical energy in the coils. Gain ZERO

[Ted Ewert]

You are totaly correct in your findings, Ted.
If you wonder why a MEG doesn't work then please have a look at the explanation below.

All ferromagnetic materials has a magnetic min/max level and this is called the B/H hysteresis curve.
A magnet inserted into a transformer circuit will shift the B/H curve of the ferromagnetic material.
In dynamic mode (pulsing) you repeatedly have to force the shifted B/H curve back and forth past zero level.
This takes just as much power as you gained by inserting the magnet.
But wait....it gets even worse. When you insert a powerful neodymium into a transformer you
actually force the ferromagnetic core close to saturation in each pulse cycle and this causes a
lot of power loss on every pulse repetition. These losses are a lot higher than a regular transformer
that is working safely away from being saturated.
There you have it. A magnet boosted transformer, aka MEG, will always perform less good than any
regular transformer.

Simply put:
You can't redirect the static flux from an inserted magnet without spending the same amount of
electrical energy in the coils. Gain ZERO

Hi Ergo,
I'll have to disagree with your hypothesis based on my own experience. While what you say about saturation has some merit, it does NOT take as much energy to switch a magnetic path as is contained in the flow. Joe Flynn has proven this, among others, in his Parallel Path research. Theoretically it's about a 4 to 1 gain in physical force measured as attraction between metal objects due to the electrical control signal alone compared to the switched circuit. Reality is closer to 3 to 1, but this is still a significant gain.
The reason the MEG doesn't work is not due to hysteresis loss or saturation issues (which I am well aware of). In my opinion it rather has everything to do with phase differential of the B and H fields. I have proven this to my own satisfaction through experimental results and encourage others to do likewise.
Joe Flynn and Jack Hilden Brand have both developed this principal into functional motive devices for all to see, yet it is still almost completely ignored in academia. Not that this surprises me, but rather it is but one more reason to look beyond accepted academic dogma in order to discover new technologies.

Cheers,

Ted