My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines

[DadHav]

Do You want me to show SAME TEST with ALKALINE Plain, simple Energizer Bunny Rabbit Batteries?

Then what would be your answer? Trying "not to underestimate" the power of Alkaline's this time?

I did that test with NiMh just because the results with LiPo's were about "not to underestimate the power of LiPo's"...

Your point and position is clear to me John, always has been, no matter how sweet your approach would be...

By "Not Underestimating the power of source" answer types...simply sets my Machine in plain reduced/diminished position...simple right?

I can see what your coming video results would look like, before you even finish winding it...the same exact comparison test with original you did in the beginning and still there, no matter how many discussion we had previously, and how many times I responded, and tried again and again to explain that an original RS Motor has 60 turns each coil X5=300 Turns total of 33-32 gauge wire TURNED ON simultaneously...versus mine of 30 Turns in Pair turned on.

...but, no matter what, you did not care, kept going on and on...just accomplishing one single purpose:

To Minimize/Ridicule my Work...and "SELL" some hundreds thousands views...while doing it...I know you may not need the "nickel and dimes" compared to your Million Views Videos...but hey, I have met so many Multi-Millionaires that will fight to death for a couple of bucks more on their bags.


But just ask me if I care.


Ufopolitics

Wow, you say I'm sweet?. Oh no you were talking about my approach. Well you actually said a lot here that had nothing to do with the issue at hand but I'll take from there. I don't need any kind of help from you, your technology or the video I made about it, to have a popular video channel. I am not here to diminish anything you say or do, and I earn very little from the hard work I put into the channel. I'm here to make sure you represent the truth in what you say and put on videos. Forget about the batteries and that video all together. I'll apologize for even making a comment on it. What you showed was so preliminary that I should never have said anything yet. I was asked here by a few of your own and I told them I shouldn't do what they asked but here I am. In the past almost everything I brought up was accurate. One of your own whose integrity would never be challenged said my video on the RS motor was spot on. The video was objective and no matter what you say about the windings or anything else a very simple test showed the stock RS motor to be able to do more work, and that there was no way to use the generator coil without current draw that would be expected from the load. Ask another professional to give you an opinion. How about the people testing your motors, they'd give you the truth. You can get everyone's dander worked up and turn the troops against me but I'm not doing anything here that, if I'm right, won't save your friends a lot of trouble on wild goose chases.
Did your videos intent to make people think the bulb was lighting from the potential of the motor/generator? this is what's important to everyone here. This makes it look like your motor doesn't loose RPM when it receives a load. Do you still claim this? I know you mentioned about the wire connections, and I say the connection in my diagram is a legitimate test to prove the load runs from the battery and not the motor, I'll propose another test. Remove the magnets from the motor and connect the bulb. Turn the rotor until the brush alignment is right and the bulb lights. If the bulb lights then it will be obvious that I'm doing nothing other than trying to help you and the others here. I haven't tested this myself and give you the opportunity to test and tell me if I'm wrong. You can't go on forever having everyone believe everything you say without proper proof. If everyone here wants to go on that way then:
Just ask me if I care.
John
PS. I hadn't planned on making another video unless I couldn't explain myself. I wanted something positive to show first as well.

[DadHav]

Your questions are very well conceived, John...very smart written, they tend to "simplify" things so others could "understand" your point.

But I will answer that question as simple as I could do.

In a Symmetrical Motor, the 20 coils are divided by four brushes, Two(2) Negative (-) and Two(2) Positive(+), that leaves exactly Five (5) Coils in each Quadrant, so we have:

<(+)>(5Coils N)<(-)>(5Coils S)<(+)>(5Coils N)<(-)>(5Coils S)> back to starting (+)...this closes loop.

You realize that current will tend to cancel to zero between each two reversed coil groups of five(5)...then what is the total resulting I (current)?

That "cancelling" reads out as very "low amp draw" at the end terminals of a Symmetric motor...but see the results when you connect that motor versus time...

Putting it more simple...

How much Energy Difference will take just Two/Four (2/4) Coils versus Twenty(20) Reversing each others at same T?

If You have same Power Source for both types...Which one of the Two do you think will create stronger magnetic fields (EMF) to generate torque?

In the case of the All North Asymmetric Winding is even more efficient...just because Flux travels same path direction at all times within rotor steel core lamination...we do not get North-South Reversals of Flux ...but same direction, therefore, residual flux will just require much less draw from outer source to return to "traveling/operational speed" . This is simply shown in no sparking- at all- in commutator-brush contacts, heating losses reduced to minimal rates....and more, but, again, I do not want to complicate more the answer.


Ufopolitics

Hello UFO, Thanks for the answer. I know there is more complicated things to consider and that there is still a lot to learn about your new ideas. I hope testing will show some good results. I think I mentioned this before but when it comes to things like the motor speeding up, there should be concern for everyone to help figure out why this is happening. I know you handed me the challenge but don't you think when you have a positive effect it needs to be tested and experimented with until it is fully understood why it manifested. Only in that way can you enhance it No?
John

[Ufopolitics]

Two/Four versus Twenty Coils energized.

UFO I always wondered about something. How can you have as much torque from four coils as it would compare to having twenty coils assisting rotation?
John

Your questions are very well conceived, John...very smart written, they tend to "simplify" things so others could "understand" your point.

But I will answer that question as simple as I could do.

In a Symmetrical Motor, the 20 coils are divided by four brushes, Two(2) Negative (-) and Two(2) Positive(+), that leaves exactly Five (5) Coils in each Quadrant, so we have:

<(+)>(5Coils N)<(-)>(5Coils S)<(+)>(5Coils N)<(-)>(5Coils S)> back to starting (+)...this closes loop.

You realize that current will tend to cancel to zero between each two reversed coil groups of five(5)...then what is the total resulting I (current)?

That "cancelling" reads out as very "low amp draw" at the end terminals of a Symmetric motor...but see the results when you connect that motor versus time...

Putting it more simple...

How much Energy Difference will take just Two/Four (2/4) Coils versus Twenty(20) Reversing each others at same T?

If You have same Power Source for both types...Which one of the Two do you think will create stronger magnetic fields (EMF) to generate torque?

In the case of the All North Asymmetric Winding is even more efficient...just because Flux travels same path direction at all times within rotor steel core lamination...we do not get North-South Reversals of Flux ...but same direction, therefore, residual flux will just require much less draw from outer source to return to "traveling/operational speed" . This is simply shown in no sparking- at all- in commutator-brush contacts, heating losses reduced to minimal rates....and more, but, again, I do not want to complicate more the answer.


Ufopolitics

[DadHav]

Now John, I will bring your exact question before (that is why I underlined it previously and chose bold letters):



You wrote clearly "Bottom Wires"...and I don't think you've got wrong concepts about a Motor Front where shaft erects strong and out...and the "bottom" or REAR, where you see no connecting shaft at all?

Still, I will answer, even though that disconnection means absolutely nothing, you are disconnecting a derivation point from both Positive feeds to BOTH Components and leaving just one...it is clear that disconnected component will stop, and still connected will keep working...a very nonsensical disconnection.

But Yes, Bulb will be lit AND will INCREASE Extremely lighting to almost blow out...as Amp Draw also INCREASE to MAX Power Source could afford to give out.

Now answer Why Motor accelerates when Bulb is attached to it?

Simple and brief answer please.


Ufopolitics

Hello UFO, Thank you, despite you trying to humiliate me over a misunderstanding of what is the bottom you did admit the bulb would light. If the bulb lights with the motor not turning how can you still possibly say the bulb lights from the motor? Is there anyone here or in the whole world seeing these posts that can see what I see? And now I guess it's time for the Platoon to come to your rescue, I see the comets starting already. The bulb lights from the battery and your videos are bogus if you are telling people otherwise. SIMPLE SIMPLE. My motor will probably be finished this afternoon and maybe I can offer an explanation of the speed increase based on my mismatch resistance in the coil theory. Tell me though. You didn't answer when I asked if this is where you will be connecting external loads on the motor. Is it? I don't think so, unless you are planning on running them from the battery. If this is not where the load is going then you won't have the extra RPM's right? Also tests will have to show the extra comes without a loss of torque. When you get to the point of refinement I guess we'll find out with proper tests.
John

[Ufopolitics]

Sorry UFO but I have a NOPE for you too. I guess there could be some confusion about what I was calling the bottom. I'm not talking about where you put the switch on the drawing. Check my picture and I'll politely ask aging, because I could be wrong but don't think so. If this first assumption is correct then everything after it is correct also. If so, do you have misleading videos? Let me ask before you even evaluate the drawing: Are you openly claiming in your videos the the bulb load is running from the motor? From potential generated by the device and not the battery?
Now look at my modified drawing. Will the motor stop and the bulb stay lit?

Now John, I will bring your exact question before (that is why I underlined it previously and chose bold letters):

Correct me if I'm wrong again but couldn't you disconnect either side of the bottom wires and the motor would stop and be powerless but the bulb would stay lit.

You wrote clearly "Bottom Wires"...and I don't think you've got wrong concepts about a Motor Front where shaft erects strong and out...and the "bottom" or REAR, where you see no connecting shaft at all?

Still, I will answer, even though that disconnection means absolutely nothing, you are disconnecting a derivation point from both Positive feeds to BOTH Components and leaving just one...it is clear that disconnected component will stop, and still connected will keep working...a very nonsensical disconnection.

But Yes, Bulb will be lit AND will INCREASE Extremely lighting to almost blow out...as Amp Draw also INCREASE to MAX Power Source could afford to give out.

Now answer Why Motor accelerates when Bulb is attached to it?

Simple and brief answer please.


Ufopolitics

[DadHav]

UFO, I never said I don't like your motor video. I was only saying it seems you might be underestimating the capability of small size batteries. NiCd and NiMh have been used for years in high current drain applications, probably some drawing more current than what you expect. Look at electric drills for that matter. I said I was anxious to see future videos. My comment about my motor was meant to say, when you can make your own motors, you can design them to run on very low current. I understand about mechanical shortcomings of the motor you demonstrate. I really don't think there's anything to argue about on this. We'll see how things look when you compare the modification to the specifications and tests you made on the original motor before you modified it. Or do you have an identical motor on the shelf? Really, good luck.
John

Why?...You know better than most here how a Symmetric, short circuit, closed loop Brush Motor works John.
You know it MUST ENERGIZE ALL COILS in the Rotor at the same time to achieve rotation, on this case it will divide the 360º Quadrant in Four, Two North, Two South against all four NSNS stators...then all energy would be set against each others in a complete short, lost energy versus EMF won´t be enough to even move that shaft with those tiny batteries, period.

I only turn Two Coils at a time, and at Max, Four coils when dual Comm Elements made contact with Brushes, and that is Four from a Total of Twenty (20) Coils...then they disconnect and NEXT comes in, sequence...simple.

UFO I always wondered about something. How can you have as much torque from four coils as it would compare to having twenty coils assisting rotation?
John

[DadHav]

John,

Of course I will correct you if you are wrong.

And yes, you are wrong.

What kind of motors all those R/C Models use?...anyone like the one I am showing on video?!...am so sure none have that type, nor even close...or they will sink down on their nose...or drawn on the lake...

The point on video is so simple.

Get the Original 750 Watts SYMMETRIC MOTOR and then try doing exactly same test...and observe its shaft won't even turn one millimeter...and batteries die in seconds.

Why?...You know better than most here how a Symmetric, short circuit, closed loop Brush Motor works John.
You know it MUST ENERGIZE ALL COILS in the Rotor at the same time to achieve rotation, on this case it will divide the 360º Quadrant in Four, Two North, Two South against all four NSNS stators...then all energy would be set against each others in a complete short, lost energy versus EMF won´t be enough to even move that shaft with those tiny batteries, period.

I only turn Two Coils at a time, and at Max, Four coils when dual Comm Elements made contact with Brushes, and that is Four from a Total of Twenty (20) Coils...then they disconnect and NEXT comes in, sequence...simple.

Again, it is not about the battery ratings, they do exactly like they have it written on label.

I know exactly what Amps/Hour means John, batteries do exactly that rating, motor draws like between 3.5 to 4.0 Amps, which approx double the 2.2 amps/h...so they do rotate shaft for close to half hour, discounting nickel and dimes...and that is correct time.

Have in mind that is a massive rotor of 4.5 Lbs, plus magnetic drag from FOUR Heavy Duty Magnets, plus mechanical friction from EIGHT Brushes, plus bearings, etc...for me is even hard to turn that rotor by hand...and this two batteries turn it for 25 minutes at 360 RPM's....that is the point.

You have said it all...in your R/C Models you would only fly/operate/navigate for 15-20 minutes max with a MUCH SMALLER MOTOR!!...and what are you using? LiPo's right?...well, this are Nickel Metal Hydride Sir...you know pretty well the difference....wanna watch what it does at 11.2 Volts and Lipo's?...using exactly same amperage draw as those two little AA?

Got the point?...or still don't?

Related to your 2 pound rotor running for months...is that an "OFF THE SHELF" Motor We all could buy with a part number and a brand name?

Related to the "Technology"...it is exactly the same, and everyone here is familiar with that type of winding...it has been exposed in full colors for a long while back.


Take care John


Ufopolitics

UFO, I never said I don't like your motor video. I was only saying it seems you might be underestimating the capability of small size batteries. NiCd and NiMh have been used for years in high current drain applications, probably some drawing more current than what you expect. Look at electric drills for that matter. I said I was anxious to see future videos. My comment about my motor was meant to say, when you can make your own motors, you can design them to run on very low current. I understand about mechanical shortcomings of the motor you demonstrate. I really don't think there's anything to argue about on this. We'll see how things look when you compare the modification to the specifications and tests you made on the original motor before you modified it. Or do you have an identical motor on the shelf? Really, good luck.
John

[DadHav]

Ok, John...let's see if You understand this well...



Nope, Bulb will STOP lighting John, if you disconnect any of the rear terminals...BOTH Components of the circuit (Motor and Bulb) will STOP when disconnecting rear jumper.





Look at this Simplified Circuit of the same exact motor circuit John:

[IMG][/IMG]

If Switch S1 is Open (Rear Jumper Off) Bulb will NOT light up...can you see it now?



John, it is a Rule of Thumb...if your first "guess" or assumption is wrong...then all others based on first one will also be wrong...simple.


Regards


Ufopolitics

Sorry UFO but I have a NOPE for you too. I guess there could be some confusion about what I was calling the bottom. I'm not talking about where you put the switch on the drawing. Check my picture and I'll politely ask aging, because I could be wrong but don't think so. If this first assumption is correct then everything after it is correct also. If so, do you have misleading videos? Let me ask before you even evaluate the drawing: Are you openly claiming in your videos the the bulb load is running from the motor? From potential generated by the device and not the battery?
Now look at my modified drawing. Will the motor stop and the bulb stay lit?

[Ufopolitics]

Hello UFO, As you might have figured, I see something to question. Thanks for reminding me, but I'm fully aware of the brushes being there. Where I have a problem is most people looking at these recent videos really think it is a load on the motor that you are demonstrating.

Ok, John...let's see if You understand this well...

If I see it right the bulb is a load on the battery not the motor. Here is what I see and please correct me if I'm wrong.
Current will flow from the battery through the brush, across the coil, out through the other brush and back to the battery. This is a closed series circuit that doesn't have anything to do with generated potential from the motor. Correct me if I'm wrong again but couldn't you disconnect either side of the bottom wires and the motor would stop and be powerless but the bulb would stay lit.

Nope, Bulb will STOP lighting John, if you disconnect any of the rear terminals...BOTH Components of the circuit (Motor and Bulb) will STOP when disconnecting rear jumper.

Of course you need to leave the wires attached to each other but not the motor and the commutator would have to be in the right possition. Is this where you plan to attach a load to the motor. How can you do that and call it a load if it's running from the battery.

Look at this Simplified Circuit of the same exact motor circuit John:

[IMG][/IMG]

If Switch S1 is Open (Rear Jumper Off) Bulb will NOT light up...can you see it now?

How many people here thought the bulb was lighting from the generator of the motor? Put up your hands. Now on the regenerative speed increase. I could really be wrong about this guess but you have the bulb in series with one of the motor coils and parallel with the other. Is it possible that a mismatch of resistance in the coils sends s little more potential down the path of least resistance and with one coil having more potential than it had previously it might speed up slightly? That's just a guess and I'll take it on the nose for it but it's just a thought. The clamp meter will always throw you a curve ball especially when it comes to skeptics. I saw the meter showing 100 to 150 ma when the bulb was disconnected a few times. Just an idea, did you ever think of using a precision resistor as a shunt or for that matter a shunt with a multimeter on it or just get an amp meter or another multi meter? If I'm correct about what I said then I think your videos are going to raise a lot of false hopes. If I'm not wrong, this leaves me with only a few basic tests and comparisons to the original motor with the exception of a load on the generator side. Unless I'm wrong again a load on the generator side is not demonstrated very often right? The same goes for a load across the generator coil attached in series to the motor coil. If you could do this without heavy current draw and RPM reduction then you really have something.
John

John, it is a Rule of Thumb...if your first "guess" or assumption is wrong...then all others based on first one will also be wrong...simple.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[wantomake]

Wow

To Ufopolitics,
If that YouTube video doesn't convince them , then they will never want to see the truth. Thanks for a good example.

I can't wait to get started with these builds. I saw the RS motor Saturday and think it would be a great presentation for those that support me and this work. They want physical evidence not talk. That's what you show with this video. So your hard work is shown here. But I will stop being a fan and become a player in this arena.

Thanks for coaching me,
wantomake

[Ufopolitics]

Correct me if I am wrong...

I'm saying this constantly but "Correct me if I'm wrong" People fly R/C every day including myself and you too right? use batteries to their max. I fly precision pattern ships and my favorite is the Aspera. I use a 2600 mah battery and fly for 8 to 10 minutes. In that time I'm using somewhere around 20 to 20 amps from the battery. 2600 ma or 2.6 ah means the battery should have that much potential or be capable of supplying 2.6 amps for ONE HOUR before the battery pack reaches its safe depletion level. The same thing goes for an AA battery at 2200 milliamp hour capacity. HOUR being the key word. If the cells weren't so small they, in theory, should be able to supply over 8 amps for 15 minutes or so. I doubt if they can but a video without more information leaves this as a possible thing to believe. I run a 2 pound rotor for several months on a single AA. I'm anxious to see the fine details and tests in the future videos. I really hope you have something there. I hope also it isn't another generation of technology but is parallel to what everyone is already working on.
John

John,

Of course I will correct you if you are wrong.

And yes, you are wrong.

What kind of motors all those R/C Models use?...anyone like the one I am showing on video?!...am so sure none have that type, nor even close...or they will sink down on their nose...or drawn on the lake...

The point on video is so simple.

Get the Original 750 Watts SYMMETRIC MOTOR and then try doing exactly same test...and observe its shaft won't even turn one millimeter...and batteries die in seconds.

Why?...You know better than most here how a Symmetric, short circuit, closed loop Brush Motor works John.
You know it MUST ENERGIZE ALL COILS in the Rotor at the same time to achieve rotation, on this case it will divide the 360º Quadrant in Four, Two North, Two South against all four NSNS stators...then all energy would be set against each others in a complete short, All that LOST energy versus RESIDUAL EMF won´t be enough to even move that shaft with those tiny batteries, period.

I only turn Two Coils at a time, and at Max, Four coils when dual Comm Elements made contact with Brushes, and that is Four from a Total of Twenty (20) Coils...then they disconnect and NEXT comes in, sequence...simple.

Again, it is not about the battery ratings, they do exactly like they have it written on label.

I know exactly what Amps/Hour means John, batteries do exactly that rating, motor draws like between 3.5 to 4.0 Amps, which approx double the 2.2 amps/h...so they do rotate shaft for close to half hour, discounting nickel and dimes...and that is correct time.

Have in mind that is a massive rotor of 4.5 Lbs, plus magnetic drag from FOUR Heavy Duty Magnets, plus mechanical friction from EIGHT Brushes, plus bearings, etc...for me is even hard to turn that rotor by hand...and this two batteries turn it for 25 minutes at 360 RPM's....that is the point.

You have said it all...in your R/C Models you would only fly/operate/navigate for 15-20 minutes max with a MUCH SMALLER MOTOR!!...and what are you using? LiPo's right?...well, this are Nickel Metal Hydride Sir...you know pretty well the difference....wanna watch what it does at 11.2 Volts and Lipo's?...using exactly same amperage draw as those two little AA?

Got the point?...or still don't?

Related to your 2 pound rotor running for months...is that an "OFF THE SHELF" Motor We all could buy with a part number and a brand name?

Related to the "Technology"...it is exactly the same, and everyone here is familiar with that type of winding...it has been exposed in full colors for a long while back.


Take care John


Ufopolitics

[Midaztouch]

@UFO

20 pole, 4 stator, 8 brushes
1 input.... Ok

3 outputs, Charging ultra-caps.... What's going on with the charging!?
.....................................

@All

TheOldScientist

Sorry Ufo.it is not. I have just released a video on my website of Ohm's law and Kirchhoff's second law of voltage. I recommend you watch it.
I have a simple task for if you want to know the truth. Measure the resistance of shelf 750 Watt motor. Take the resistance and divide it by your supply voltage. That gives you your current. Multiply that with your voltage. That gives you your power or wattage. Do the same for your asynchronous motor. Consider the initial load at startup and the load under full RPM. Apply ampere's law here to calculate the B field. Your design is more efficient but it does not break the rules I am afraid.

Can someone explain what "rules" The Old Scientist is referring to? From my understanding, I couldn't find any laws/rules broken. The laws seem to be all there and they are working in harmony together... Further more, I can't remember UFO or any other team member saying that we are trying to break any rules. The only rule that seems to be different is that, it's an asymmetric motor.

Keep it Clean and Green
Midaz


Gas 2 | Bridging the gap between green heads and gear heads. Edison Electrical Institute(EEI) will have a fit soon!

[DadHav]

Hello to All,

Below is the Video I just finished uploading to YT:

750W MACHINE RAN BY 2AA BATTERIES

And here is my Video Description in YT:

The Video above is a simple proof of wrong concepts We all have learned in our Electric Engineer Universities, or even in lower level technical Schools...if We are based on that "rigid", locked in time Model, adopted and considered "the one and only" for over One Hundred and Thirty Years by our Dogmatic Sciences, bought out/Financed, by Families which Institutions are based mainly, on Oil Investments Capitals...Cartels.

Then, the Model above brakes all rules established by those twisted and closed systems concepts acquired for too long by now...

Based on those old, dark, locked concepts, this Video then tends to become "unbelievable"...or merely be classified within the "Impossible to be"...A rated Category within the "Science Fiction" ...or could even be accused of being a Hoax, a Fraud...made under some special effect software, or some kind of tricks.

But it is not any of the above...it is completely real.

The Machine was modified, re-wounded and constructed based on a "Disregarded", by actual Science, Method of "Open, Asymmetrical Systems" conceived all the way back in the 1800's...and fully developed by Nikola Tesla.

Therefore, it is impossible, based on a Closed System, that activates simultaneously, all the looped, closed coils within its rotor/armature, to believe those two tiny batteries could even move that 4.39 lbs Machine rotor/shaft, plus all magnetic drag generated between Rotor Core and Stators, adding all mechanical friction involved (Bearings,Brushes, etc)...Then it will be much less conceivable to run it for over Twenty Five (exactly 25:27) Minutes at steady over 350 Revolutions Per Minute (RPM) without suffering any decay through whole track, just because it is an achievement, an operation, those two little batteries could never fulfill based on that system.

Those Two -small capacity- AA Batteries are "Engineered"-according to our "Dogmatic Science chosen Model"- to run, a much, but much smaller little motor...and only for "around" Fifteen (15) Minutes Maximum.

However, If I would be to engineer an Open System, where Only the actuating/interacting Coils that create motoring propulsion, would be turned on, one at a time, and just for a few nano seconds, and so on, a succession of other independent coils in a sequence, everyone at specific timings...each with low resistance values...then it would be possible within the same exact machine to obtain the results seen on this video.

It is not Science Fiction, it is not a hoax...We all have been blinded following one single possibility for too many years, and from generation to generation.

It is about time to become Divergent from those obsolete Models, and open our eyes and minds to develop this other hidden side of knowledge.



Ufopolitics

I'm saying this constantly but "Correct me if I'm wrong" People fly R/C every day including myself and you too right? use batteries to their max. I fly precision pattern ships and my favorite is the Aspera. I use a 2600 mah battery and fly for 8 to 10 minutes. In that time I'm using somewhere around 20 to 20 amps from the battery. 2600 ma or 2.6 ah means the battery should have that much potential or be capable of supplying 2.6 amps for ONE HOUR before the battery pack reaches its safe depletion level. The same thing goes for an AA battery at 2200 milliamp hour capacity. HOUR being the key word. If the cells weren't so small they, in theory, should be able to supply over 8 amps for 15 minutes or so. I doubt if they can but a video without more information leaves this as a possible thing to believe. I run a 2 pound rotor for several months on a single AA. I'm anxious to see the fine details and tests in the future videos. I really hope you have something there. I hope also it isn't another generation of technology but is parallel to what everyone is already working on.
John

[DadHav]

Hello John,

Yes, that is the correct connection.

However, one important part to understand/realize, is that the Red crossed line-arrow does NOT means/represent a steady connection, but constantly pulsing/swapping all different Inductor/Coils within Machine Rotor.

Another Picture I drew for a Member from France (Lerameur) with the same connection except adding a controller:

[IMG][/IMG]

However, here we can picture better the Coils since there is no "crossing" lines.


Take care


Ufopolitics

Hello UFO, As you might have figured, I see something to question. Thanks for reminding me, but I'm fully aware of the brushes being there. Where I have a problem is most people looking at these recent videos really think it is a load on the motor that you are demonstrating. If I see it right the bulb is a load on the battery not the motor. Here is what I see and please correct me if I'm wrong.
Current will flow from the battery through the brush, across the coil, out through the other brush and back to the battery. This is a closed series circuit that doesn't have anything to do with generated potential from the motor. Correct me if I'm wrong again but couldn't you disconnect either side of the bottom wires and the motor would stop and be powerless but the bulb would stay lit. Of course you need to leave the wires attached to each other but not the motor and the commutator would have to be in the right possition. Is this where you plan to attach a load to the motor. How can you do that and call it a load if it's running from the battery. How many people here thought the bulb was lighting from the generator of the motor? Put up your hands. Now on the regenerative speed increase. I could really be wrong about this guess but you have the bulb in series with one of the motor coils and parallel with the other. Is it possible that a mismatch of resistance in the coils sends s little more potential down the path of least resistance and with one coil having more potential than it had previously it might speed up slightly? That's just a guess and I'll take it on the nose for it but it's just a thought. The clamp meter will always throw you a curve ball especially when it comes to skeptics. I saw the meter showing 100 to 150 ma when the bulb was disconnected a few times. Just an idea, did you ever think of using a precision resistor as a shunt or for that matter a shunt with a multimeter on it or just get an amp meter or another multi meter? If I'm correct about what I said then I think your videos are going to raise a lot of false hopes. If I'm not wrong, this leaves me with only a few basic tests and comparisons to the original motor with the exception of a load on the generator side. Unless I'm wrong again a load on the generator side is not demonstrated very often right? The same goes for a load across the generator coil attached in series to the motor coil. If you could do this without heavy current draw and RPM reduction then you really have something.
John

[esesenergy]

can you put a load on it like another OTS generator ,what happens or happened