Motor (no work required to move magnet pole)

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, I've decided to start this thread because after much thought and experiments i feel this principle has not had its due attention. The Kawai motor, Bill Mullers odd-even motor uses the same principle, albeit using different methods, to enable a magnet rotor to move from pole to pole, or core to core without requiring any additional input work to do so, therefore when an electromagnet is energized we take full advantage of the benefit of using ferromagnetic cores and should have a net gain in horsepower by eliminating the work required to remove a magnet from a core.
Here is a cad pic of what i am speaking of as far as the odd-even design. I will be building this design soon. Any thoughts on this principle are welcome.
peace love light

[elias]

Maybe if this configuration is used in mylow's motor it would increase the torque output substantially.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi elias thanks for reply. That could help improve it yes however since that device needs much development work to get to a practical level what im speaking about has more immediate practical use. From what I understand standard electric motors have losses, the biggest losses are the counter emf as Peter Lind. attraction motor addresses and then theres the natural ferromagnetic drag or attraction back to a core, which in standard motors, brute force is used to overcome thereby ensuring the c.o.p. is below 1.0, here are some numbers,not mine, from tests on a Kawai motor. "Pure steel was used as a magnetic material. The magnetic material was 30 mm in thickness and formed to have magnetic teeth of 218 mm diameter and notches of 158 mm diameter. A ferritic magnet was used as a permanent magnet. The magnetic force of the magnet was 1,000 gauss. Electric power of 19.55 watts was applied to the electromagnets at 17 volts and 1.15 amperes. Under the above condition, a rotational number of 100 rpm, a torque of 60.52 Kg-cm and an output of 62,16 watt were obtained." and here is a quote from Bill Muller, "However, if no work is done in moving a magnetic pole around a closed path in a magnetic field,
such as a rotor inside of a stator, the net effect would be that work could be extracted by the movement around the complete path without any other change in the system, giving the possibility of a perpetual motion machine that is seemingly contrary to the laws of mechanics.", "That means, efficiency greater than 100%,
an actual amplification of the available energy as opposed to a net consumption of the energy."
The design i posted seems the most simple as far as switching goes and I could use attraction or repulsion.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, over a hundred views and nobody has any thoughts on whether or not this principle will work or not, it seems the late Bill Muller thought it provided a net gain of power as well as the inventor of the Kawai motor and there test results show the same thing. Also it seems the Bedini and adams repulsion motors also use similar principles although they ideally use more of a passive nature relying on the natural attraction to ferromagnetic core to provide the torque. It does seem to me that the basic principle, which is that of not having to input any energy to overcome back attraction, that the Kawai motor and the Muller motor and possibly other devices use is a simple way to attain a net gain in energy. If anyone sees any flaws in this thinking, please let me hear your thoughts. Can it be this simple folks.
peace love light

[SkyWatcher]

drive circuit

Hi folks, heres the 4 phase drive circuit i will be using if anyone is interested.
1) hall effect-a1101
2) pnp 2n3906
3) npn tip120
4) npn nte392

peace love light

[Matthew Jones]

Matt

dont click this

[SkyWatcher]

Hi Matthew, Nice setup you have there, based on what i can see from pics and graphic pic you are using the odd-even principle by cancelling attraction, so if repulsing when one magnet is repulsed departing another magnet is approaching a coil so no input is needed to remove magnet from core. like the design im building now although it seems youve taken an even simpler route as far as switching goes it seems. So you had 1hp from 250 watts, is it the motor in the pics with the grinding wheel rotors that achieved those results and if so did you use the same fish scale prony method to measure it.
here is a pic of another motor ive built, it is an air-core Garry Stanley type design and will look almost the same as the current motor im building with flat core coils surrounded by dual rotors as your is to make use of both coil ends.

[Matthew Jones]

just cleaning this up, was wrong anyway.

Matt

[Jbignes5]

Hmm...

you might want to check out Apex Electric motors. I believe they already beat you to the punch on this one. At least it looks very simular to their production model.

Link to a press release:
After Gutenberg » Apex Electric Motors

[Matthew Jones]

I'll bet ya a doller it as pretty as they are they still use energy. They don't have any recollection or regeneration.

I'd like to get my hands on one and rewire it.

Matt

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi Jbigness, the motor link you posted with the 12 stator-24 stator total, 16 magnet rotor pole-32 magnet rotor total does appear to use the same principle of cancelling attraction and they are using the coils more efficiently although not as effectively as a dual rotor would by having magnets direct at coil faces, also the switching looks like it may be complex. But if it exceeds cop>1.0 thats all that matters and that it gets to the people. I'm in process of building my motor right now. Also Matthew thanks for the info. but could you also tell me in regards to the 1hp from 240watts test what rpm, ft.lbs, voltage, current and how the power was measured and how did you measure rpm. I'm only curious because i'll be having to do the same measurements. Thanks
peace love light

[Matthew Jones]

This was all wrong anyway so I'm taking it down.

[Matthew Jones]

wrong info

Matt

[SkyWatcher]

Hi Matthew, thank you for the additional information, so i take it you put the leather strap directly over one of the grinding wheels and as you said were having some difficulty getting a solid reading. So at .6 HP which is about 448 watts thats about 1.87 c.o.p. or 187%. I wonder if you added the other coils you were speaking of the efficiency might have gone up, either way those results are good considering the improvements that could be made to your setup. Working on the rotors for my motor right now since it will have dual rotors, i'm not sure the rotors rotation will be stable though. Anyway thanks for the info. at keep up the good work.
peace love light

[SkyWatcher]

one more thing, if you did use one of the 7" grinding wheels for use with the leather strap the circumference woulde be 22 inches, so what wheel did you use and what was its size that you used with leather strap. thanks