Sykavy,

I have had a chance to reread the Davis patent since I made the comments above and I have a few more things to add.

First of all, I would like to thank you for bringing this patent to the attention of the forum. There are actually a number of important issues the inventor is grappling with that are relevant to our discussion. There are also a number of important historic precedents established here.

The first thing I would like to say is that the inventor is still a little bit confused by the action of his machine. He refers to it as a "motor/generator" when in fact, it should be more properly referred to as a "motor/transformer". This is relevant to our discussion, because we are trying to build a system that behaves as a "motor/forward converter".

This patent clearly shows a simple schematic where energy from a collapsing coil is recovered to a second battery through a single diode. This predates John Bedini's monopole motor patent by 24 years, as well as all of the published circuits of the SSG project. So, the legal status of the "single diode recovery" configuration is clearly in the public domain. Bedini's SG can routinely recover 90% or more of the energy in the coil collapse, whereas Davis is hoping for 33% recovery. So obviously, the simple diode configuration is only part of the "secret" to efficient energy recovery, and Bedini's arrangement works considerably better than Davis.

Davis does show that by manipulating the coil design with various coils in parallel and series, that advantageous combinations can be found. This will always be true. There is plenty to be taken advantage of by the engineer who is advanced in his understanding of these issues.

On the mechanical energy producing side, Davis is very far behind Teal. He is essentially moving his iron plunger in an "air-core" coil situation, with no iron stator to channel the return magnetic flux. This will greatly reduce the amount of mechanical energy the machine can produce, as I demonstrate in my DVD. Plus, his commutator is ON all of the time, sending continuous power to one input coil or the other. So, Davis has not figured out how to maximize torque while minimizing electrical input.

On the electrical energy recovery side of the circuit, he shows one "run" battery, but THREE separate recovery batteries, each one for various parts of his complex coil system. By dividing the recovered energy into three parts, no single part could seem very substantial. He is also running the system like a transformer, where part of the input energy is directly "transformed" to electrical output in his tertiary coils. This directly loads the input power with back EMF to produce an output pulse. This process is totally absent in what we are trying to do here. It is also properly absent in Bedini's systems.

Historically, it is important to see that inventors have been grappling with all of these ideas for decades, and that the motor designs in this forum can be seen to have addressed most of these design issues.

There are lots of other little issues brought up in this patent, but that is enough for now. I believe that advanced students will find it very interesting to study this patent.

Thanks again, Sykavy!

[One final comment. When you look up this patent in the Google Patent system, you find that the schematic drawing is INTENTIONALLY corrupted to obscure the circuit. All of the circuit components are whited out to leave a meaningless FIG 5. You have to wonder who is responsible for this kind of scientific censorship? FreePatentsOnline has the full patent, including all the diagrams, and FIG 5.]

Peter