PDA

View Full Version : Adams motor


theremart
05-15-2008, 11:50 AM
Hi..

I had someone comment on my SSG page that the Adams motor came before the Bedini ...


http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1287/adams/adamsall.htm#Drawings


I was wondering if anyone was familiar with this, it has the same basic design as Peter' X shape it appears..

Peter Lindemann
05-15-2008, 07:09 PM
Hi..

I had someone comment on my SSG page that the Adams motor came before the Bedini ...


http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1287/adams/adamsall.htm#Drawings


I was wondering if anyone was familiar with this, it has the same basic design as Peter' X shape it appears..

Dear Mart,

I was a close friend of Robert Adams. Robert died a few years ago, in his mid-80's. Currently, John Bedini is about 60 and I am 57. Certainly, Robert was working on this type of technology before John, but their respective discoveries are NOT the same, and should NOT be confused with each other.

The secret to Robert's motors is a process of running the circuits in a "parallel resonance" condition. The secret to the Bedini SG is the simple self-triggering circuit, coupled with a coil whose inductance does not change very much during operation, so the amount of energy in the inductive collapse is high with regard to the input, coupled with the benefits of charging batteries with these pulses. No "parallel resonance" present or needed for high efficiency operation.

Since the technologies are significantly different, it doesn't matter "who was first".

Also, Robert's motor designs are not similar to my rotary attraction motors because he uses permanent magnets in his rotor and I use a passive iron rotor.

Every one of these machines behaves differently, in spite of there superficial similarities. Each one requires different specific design details to be highly refined to get it to run in its specific "high efficiency" window.

I hope this helps,

Peter

aladinlamp
05-15-2008, 07:54 PM
Dear Mart,

I was a close friend of Robert Adams. Robert died a few years ago, in his mid-80's. Currently, John Bedini is about 60 and I am 57. Certainly, Robert was working on this type of technology before John, but their respective discoveries are NOT the same, and should NOT be confused with each other.

The secret to Robert's motors is a process of running the circuits in a "parallel resonance" condition. The secret to the Bedini SG is the simple self-triggering circuit, coupled with a coil whose inductance does not change very much during operation, so the amount of energy in the inductive collapse is high with regard to the input, coupled with the benefits of charging batteries with these pulses. No "parallel resonance" present or needed for high efficiency operation.

Since the technologies are significantly different, it doesn't matter "who was first".

Also, Robert's motor designs are not similar to my rotary attraction motors because he uses permanent magnets in his rotor and I use a passive iron rotor.

Every one of these machines behaves differently, in spite of there superficial similarities. Each one requires different specific design details to be highly refined to get it to run in its specific "high efficiency" window.

I hope this helps,

Peter


What in theory might be more efficient, either to use pulses to attract iron rotor in Peter's design, or to use pulses to attract and repel magnet rotor in Adam's design. I am not considering pulse energy recovery and re-use.

Which approach is better ? one has to be...

Thanx

theremart
05-15-2008, 10:31 PM
Dear Mart,

I was a close friend of Robert Adams. Robert died a few years ago, in his mid-80's. Currently, John Bedini is about 60 and I am 57. Certainly, Robert was working on this type of technology before John, but their respective discoveries are NOT the same, and should NOT be confused with each other.

The secret to Robert's motors is a process of running the circuits in a "parallel resonance" condition. The secret to the Bedini SG is the simple self-triggering circuit, coupled with a coil whose inductance does not change very much during operation, so the amount of energy in the inductive collapse is high with regard to the input, coupled with the benefits of charging batteries with these pulses. No "parallel resonance" present or needed for high efficiency operation.

Since the technologies are significantly different, it doesn't matter "who was first".

Also, Robert's motor designs are not similar to my rotary attraction motors because he uses permanent magnets in his rotor and I use a passive iron rotor.

Every one of these machines behaves differently, in spite of there superficial similarities. Each one requires different specific design details to be highly refined to get it to run in its specific "high efficiency" window.

I hope this helps,

Peter

===============
Thanks Peter, my condolences for loosing a friend.

I had no idea about it, just that someone was very impressed with the motor, and posted the info on my page.

Thanks for filling me in..

Mart

Sephiroth
05-16-2008, 06:05 AM
that guy posted the same thing on all my vids... got excited when i saw there were so many new comments :suprise:

thanks for clearing that up peter!

theremart
05-16-2008, 04:39 PM
Then you have seen Devtoobe as well.... that guy writes books on videos... I have 3 friends that are angry about his messages...

Mart

This new guy at least pointed me to a new motor I did not know anything about, and is credible.... That is a plus.

Sephiroth
05-16-2008, 05:21 PM
I know all about drevtoobe....I introduced him to the bedini ssg last year and he thought it was a permanant magnet motor... now he thinks he is an expert even though he has done nothing in the way of experimentation. In fact he has sworn never to build one and yet he still posts "books" about them on any interesting vid. Obviously a skeptic with unclear motives and one to watch out for though best ignored.

I knew of the adams motor though was unsure of the difference in operation to the ssg. From what I understood previously it depended more on the induced current then the flyback voltage for charging. :thinking:

Though there is something I am still curious about.

Why did bedini get a patent but Adams couldn't?

theremart
05-16-2008, 06:46 PM
I know all about drevtoobe....I introduced him to the bedini ssg last year and he thought it was a permanant magnet motor... now he thinks he is an expert even though he has done nothing in the way of experimentation. In fact he has sworn never to build one and yet he still posts "books" about them on any interesting vid. Obviously a skeptic with unclear motives and one to watch out for though best ignored.

I knew of the adams motor though was unsure of the difference in operation to the ssg. From what I understood previously it depended more on the induced current then the flyback voltage for charging. :thinking:

Though there is something I am still curious about.

Why did bedini get a patent but Adams couldn't?

I would say Bedini said, " Battery Charger"

I bet Adams said, " Free energy device or pepetual motion "

all the difference in the world, but Peter may be able to fill in the details better.

Mart

lighty
05-16-2008, 11:00 PM
coupled with a coil whose inductance does not change very much during operation, so the amount of energy in the inductive collapse is high with regard to the input


Hello Peter,

Could you please elaborate some more on this statement? Does that mean that inductance of open core or air coils does change to lesser degree when exposed to external magnetic flux than in the ones with magnetic core (and even more in the close core ones).

If that is so, I don't quite understand how would that affect the IN/OUT energy ratio of inductive collapse? I mean it is much easier to reach saturation of coil when using open core or air core configurations and demagnetization is much faster. Practically that means that magnetic hysteresis curve of such coil is rather narrow. That means that less current is needed to fully saturate coil and the inductive collapse voltage is higher.

However I got a feeling that you meant something more profound than the stuff I just described? :thinking:

Peter Lindemann
05-17-2008, 05:09 AM
Hello Peter,

Could you please elaborate some more on this statement? Does that mean that inductance of open core or air coils does change to lesser degree when exposed to external magnetic flux than in the ones with magnetic core (and even more in the close core ones).

If that is so, I don't quite understand how would that affect the IN/OUT energy ratio of inductive collapse? I mean it is much easier to reach saturation of coil when using open core or air core configurations and demagnetization is much faster. Practically that means that magnetic hysteresis curve of such coil is rather narrow. That means that less current is needed to fully saturate coil and the inductive collapse voltage is higher.

However I got a feeling that you meant something more profound than the stuff I just described? :thinking:

Lighty,

Excellent question. Unfortunately, I am not going to be available to answer this for about two weeks. Sorry for the delay.

Peter

lighty
06-08-2008, 11:15 PM
@Peter

I saw that you're posting again in the Electric Motor thread so I was wondering if you could elaborate some more on this discussion?:thinking:

theremart
06-09-2008, 01:32 AM
Hey Doc Peter :thumbsup:

Good to see that you are back, I hope your travels were productive.

I am happy that I now have the grinder converted over to work with the new rotor design while you were gone.

I am wondering about that Adams motor and its history.

Look forward to your insights...

Mart

ren
06-09-2008, 05:16 AM
I was interested in the Adams motor when I first started out. Here is a patent pic that may explain it a little more. Notice the generator windings share the same rotor as the drive windings.

Peter Lindemann
06-15-2008, 04:07 PM
Hello Peter,

Could you please elaborate some more on this statement? Does that mean that inductance of open core or air coils does change to lesser degree when exposed to external magnetic flux than in the ones with magnetic core (and even more in the close core ones).

If that is so, I don't quite understand how would that affect the IN/OUT energy ratio of inductive collapse? I mean it is much easier to reach saturation of coil when using open core or air core configurations and demagnetization is much faster. Practically that means that magnetic hysteresis curve of such coil is rather narrow. That means that less current is needed to fully saturate coil and the inductive collapse voltage is higher.

However I got a feeling that you meant something more profound than the stuff I just described? :thinking:

Dear Lighty,

Sorry it has taken me a while to get back to this question of yours. First, let's look at the basic physics of the situation, and then let's look at our specific applications.

In our rotary attraction motor, the electrical input pulse is being applied to the stator when the air-gap is large, or when the iron rotor is out of alignment. With a large air-gap in the inductor, the amount of energy it takes to produce the magnetic field in the system is "high". When we turn the coil OFF and attempt to recover the energy of the collapsing inductor, the rotor has moved more into alignment with the stator poles, and now the air-gap in the inductor is much smaller. The total energy represented by a magnetic field in an inductor with a small air-gap is "less" than the original condition. This is WHY if you recover 70% of the electrical energy in one of these motors YOU ARE DOING VERY WELL!

In a Bedini SG motor, the air-gap around the coil does not change appreciably between the input pulse and the recovery pulse. Since the magnet on the wheel is in opposition to the field of the coil produced by the input current, it has very little effect on the total reluctance of the coil. This is why it is possible to recover 85-95% of the electricity from the inductive collapse of an SSG.

So, what are the trade-offs. The SSG motors are very efficient, and let you recover a very high percentage of the electrical input, but they don't produce very high torque. This has been discussed for years, and is not news here. My rotary attraction motors produce more torque (if the air-gap is extremely small between the rotor and stator) but this same condition limits the amount of the electrical recovery, because of the change of reluctance in the inductor in the time between the input and the output pulses. The electrical loss is about 20%, due to the lowered "energy state" of the magnetic field as the air-gap closes. But the benefit is that two to three TIMES more torque can be produced, if the motor is optimized.

So, under the right circumstances, this is a useful trade-off, especially when it is coupled to a "no back EMF" motor configuration.

I hope this little discussion helps.

Peter

elias
06-15-2008, 07:09 PM
I thought that most of the return energy of the Bedini Energizer is Radiant energy and not conventional current, because I have not been able to get more than 40% conventional current back on none of my SSGs.
:)

lighty
06-16-2008, 08:41 PM
@Peter

Thank you for clarifying those issues. However, I was wondering about the SSG aspect you mentioned- the way I understand that part of it's operation is that the repulsion between the magnet on the rotor the field of the coil is producing a kind of "loaded spring" magntic effect to the extent that when the current through the coil is cut off and the inductive collapse occurs the magnetic field of the magnet is suddenly released thus magnifying the inductive collapse energy which is at that point of the same orientation. Am I missing something here?