John Bedini gave me this wonderful endorsement for some work I did several years ago, but did not know I never made it public domain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John_Bedini @Armagdn03 I just wanted to say I was reading A post you made on another group about the Peg motor and it is the best Analysis I have ever seen on a motor of that type. Not that I'm into that but I just wanted to complement you on your work. When you right no one can defeat you epically Ted. But I guess they never tried to make it. If I had a way you could use my machines but your far away. The work is excellent and I mean that. John B

*Universe Engine*
A long time back I posted this at the beginning of Dr. Lindemann's thread "electric motor secrets"



This thread will discuss the embodiment I was discussing. Below is Lindemanns response.

Here was Dr. Lindemann's telling response....


How do we accomplish???? Stay tuned! This is fun.

The concept is loosely modeled after my understanding of our solar system.



This is a birds eye view of the rotor (with four poles) and rotor (with four poles).

The poles are simply ferromagnetic cylinders much like you get with ferrite Antenna found in old AM radios. The only job of the rotor is to spin these poles into and out of alignment with the stator poles.

Now imagine that above this setup, (and below) we place a ferromagnetic toroids which covers all the poles simultaneously.

Here the toroid is shown semi transparent so you can view the setup.

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...3/Picture1.jpg

Connecting the top and bottom toroid is an inductor.



Inductor shown in red. As you can see, the pegs of the rotor and stator complete the magnetic path of the inductor.

The same polarity will be induced on both the stator and rotor pegs.

Fact: when two bar magnets are aligned with poles in the same orientation (such as the rotor and stator) they will repel. Hence, when the rotor pegs, and the stator pegs are aligned, they want to move apart. Obviously they will move till the rotor pegs are directly inbetween two stator pegs, and then there will be equal repulsion from both sides. The firing circuit of the solenoid needs to take this into account. This is the mechanism through which rotation is induced..

What is so special about this design? It nearly constant reluctance and inductance. Imagine hooking up an inductance meter to the solenoid. Now spin the rotor, will the inductance change much? Through out the full rotation, there is always the same amount of ferromagnetic material in the magnetic path, hence very little change. Also, rotation will cause NO EMF, you can spin this guy all you want, and you will never get an iota of power out the inductor, like in conventional motor systems.

The constant inductance and reluctance mean up to 95 percent of the input to the inductor can be recovered (unlike peters motor, and conventional motors)

If I were to use a recovery circuit, it would probably look something like this....



Optically switched, this can charge the inductor at the correct moment, causing rotation, then recover the pulse for the next pulse. This solves all the problems Peters motor had. It can act reactively at all speeds.

I put the answer plain as day in the first few pages of that thread, I just left out how to do it. Other ways are possible as well, the key ingredient is

Constant reluctance, constant inductance,

Response from TED

Second Response from TED

double post

Originally Posted by Ted View Post (my response in red)
There will be very little torque developed by this design. An open ring will dissipate at least half of the magnetic field before it even reaches the pegs. The gaps will also provide a high impedance path for the B field, and torque is all about the B field.

I have a problem with this statement. Mainly it is that an "open ring" will not dissipate anything really. What it does is create a large impedance for the pole to pole connection of flux lines. This causes a drop n inductance, which means that Less energy total will be stored within the structure. however this is a trade off, the decreased inductance causes a decrease in time constants, and the inductor can reach its max value faster.

If it were true that the open design dissipates half of the stored energy, then LC circuits made with open inductors would have a coefficient of restitution (bounce back factor or Q) of less than .5, which means that each cycle looses at least 50% energy, and this is not the case.



I don't mean to throw a wet blanket on this concept, because the concept is unique and interesting, but in this form it simply can't develop any serious power.
The only gain this motor has is in the magnetization of the pegs, everything else is a loss. Forget about BEMF and changing inductances, they're irrelevant. To make this OU, the geometry would have to be completely different and it would have to be huge in size.

I have to really disagree here, The gain this motor has is due to the magnetization of the pegs, while through separation of time, returning all energy that was imparted to the pegs. It gains a power stroke, while returning the energy imparted to cause this condition. If you have a tank circuit, and you have 95 percent reactive power, you are loosing 5% to loss, if you get a mechanical movement to boot, and there is no difference in the reactive state, then you are on to something.

I definitely contend that BEMF and changing inductance play a rather large role within a motor designed to run on reactive power. I can back this up with a mathematical analysis if you like.

Making a motor efficient is relatively easy. I can build you a motor that turns on almost nothing. But who cares?
Building a motor with a large COP is what we need. To do that you need a constant source of "free" energy, such as a magnet.
Without a magnet in a motor, you only have the input power to develop torque from, which will always result in a COP<1.

Again, I am sorry I cannot buy this, mainly because I have built several machines without a permanent field source, which output more than in. This is accomplished through a separation in time between action and reaction. This is how Winsonali's solid state generator worked when he was still around, had a few conversations with him on the subject. The last statement there is not technically correct either, the input power develops the torque then is returned virtually unaltered. Therefore you have input power in = 1unit electrical, torque may equal say .5unit mechanical, with a return of .9 units electrical this speaks for itself.

If you were calculating using input 1, output mechanical .5, then you are discounting the reactive component, which is all too relevant.

Peter Lindeman is [wrong] about his theory on motors and BEMF. I will be more than happy to explain exactly what BEMF is and what it does in a motor if anyone is confused about it. BEMF is NOT a problem, in fact it is vitally necessary to the proper and efficient operation of a motor.
Sorry about the rant, but I've been down this road many times and know it quite well.




Ted

Here is a macroscopic analysis using whole numbers for ease of calculation and interpretation.

Imagine the pegs as having a radius of 1. Each radius moving away from this experiances a decrease in field strength intensity of x/r^2, thus an inverse square relationship. (note: traditionally a dipole has an inverse cube relationship as shown here proof, however, since we are dealing with pole to pole calculations in close proximity, the influence of the other poles will be omitted as they serve as a fractional change to the overall results)


The calculations were done with a separation of distance equal to 8 radii between the stator pegs. The rotor peg in question (for whom we are calculating the resultant force) thus moves between these 8 radii distance. At 4, it will be halfway between the right peg, and half way between the left peg and therefore should feel nothing.

For sake of ease, the poles have a field strength of 64units which remains constant, and the equation used for force is the standard newtonian equation of K*(Q*q)/r^2 for force between two field emitting point sources.

The first graph shows what the rotor peg feels as it starts out close to the left peg, then moves towards the right peg.



As you can see, starting at the left, it feels a push from the left peg primarily, as it moves towards the right it enters an area of little push from either side, then as it moves on it sees push from the peg on the right.

This graph is a summation of the two plots, so the negative push of one side added to the positive push of the other at each point along the path of travel for the rotor.



As you can see there, it would be optimal to pulse the coil within the first few raddii from the stator peg we want to push away from, in this example the left stator peg. Then there is a large dead area we can dissengage our application of current to the inductor and recover our pulse. This time allows it to freewheel past the next peg into firing position once again. If timed correctly and this would not be hard, the push from the oncoming peg will play little role,

Know the variables, manage them. Next on the list...increase in surface area of pegs while keeping material quantity constant yields increase in torque.

@ all
I was reading a few of Ted’s posts, and noticed he was a proponent of viewing magnetic flux loops as a magnetic current. I would agree with this analogy, if the concept of electrical current is advanced, so should it be here. To that effect, there is an “ohms law” for magnetism and it most definitely applies.
Quote:
“In electronic circuits, Ohm's law is an empirical relation between the EMF applied across an element and the current I it generates through that element. It is written as:”

Quote:
“where is the magnetomotive force (MMF) across a magnetic element, φ is the magnetic flux through the magnetic element, and is the magnetic reluctance of that element.”
If you consider the magnetic path to be through the loop involving the rotor and stator pegs, one can see that the two gaps above and below each peg represent a large “resistors” which have low permeability, meaning they restrict the magnetic path. This being said, many poles together constitute many resistors in parallel. The more we have the less magnetic resistance there is. Also, when the magnetic energy passes through these high resistance regions, it must spread out and occupy more space, the more are present the more the magnetic field is allowed to “spread its wings” and the more we can take advantage of the force it has to offer. These are two arguments for many pegs.
I was also wanted to clarify a concept which Ted brought up. The fact that there will be magnetic leakage which normally constitutes loss. Normally this would be the case, because any magnetism created by the inductor, which does not reach the rotor, is essentially not causing motion, and so is considered a loss. For example, in a traditional motor, if you input 100units of electrical energy, to create 100units of magnetic potential, and only 50 magnetic units are used in the motive interaction, then you have 50% loss. However, with the topology I propose, even if only 50 percent interacts to cause rotation in the rotor, the other 50% is still present within the magnetic structure and the surrounding space. This 50% normally considered lost, isn’t because it too will be recycled with the proper recovery scheme.

And last but not least, it occurred to me a while back, and I forgot to talk about it, that no matter which pole orientation happens within the pegs, they always want to separate. This means that we could even modulate very high frequency as a drive mechanism. For example instead of having 1 pulse cause peg separation, we could have 100 pulses constitute one “stroke” of the motor. Even though the polarity would be alternating, the repulsion is always present. This way one could simply modulate how long this HF oscillator would be on. This could allow a pure tank circuit to be used.

Here is a photo of a small simulation I made using "VizMag" a Maxwellian magnetic simulation generator.

I find this interesting because it goes to the very heart of a concept I feel is incredibly important.... How does unit "X" of energy manifest itself in "Y" space.

In this example, one can see the high permeability "pegs" supposedly concentrate the flux. However, it is more accurate to state that the peg material represents a large amount of space in a small volume, eg, high flux density. Flux per given area, however we can use our minds eye to realize we are really discussing volume.



Within the magnetic conductor (pegs), we may choose to view the flux as a quantized unit. Many small magnets, over-toning to give us a macroscopic view of magnetism. Each, being aligned with the same orientation as its neighbor. Because of this, all adjacent quantized units of magnetism (domains) spread as far apart as possible, taking up available space.

Within the peg, there is alot of space in a small volume, we have high flux density, and it appears contained to the reference point of the observer in a permeability 1 surrounding. As the flux moves outward from the peg into the gap, it encounters space of a different quality. It is spacious and non-dense. The same unit of energy manifests itself physically in a altered way. Here the energy again tries to find space for itself, and appears to take a great volume (note the blue bulge as the energy occupies a large area around the gap).

In an electrical circuit, we assume current to be constant at all points due to the linearity of the system. We may assume the same of the magnetic circuit. At any given point, we will have the same magnetic current flowing through the circuit, however its density will change. Entering lower permeability, it will consume more space, and realize less density (another inverse relationship). The energy transforms itself into varying degrees of density and volume in an inverse relationship, as one increases the other must decrease.

Here is something interesting to consider. W Russell and the Alchemanual both state that the electric field corresponds to the potential aspect of mind, while "magnetism" corresponds to the kinetic aspect of mind. They are called the radial system or time field, and the spherical system or space field. Magnetism falls off at an inverse cube rate (correlating to volume of a sphere) and electric field falls off at inverse square rate (correlating to area). Is it not interesting that the structures which contain these two aspects of energy are dictated by area (capacitor), and volume/density? (inductor). Notice the equations.

If we imagine point particles (photon) as oscillating between magnetic and electric conditions, it becomes very interesting mid cycle around sin 45 degrees, cosine 45 degres, both electric and magnetic counterparts will be present, at this point there will be a diameter where the inverse cube of the kinetic aspect, and the inverse square of the electric will COINCIDE! (can only occur at radius 1, which happens to be a surface tension) Now, take the intersection of these fields, and call their product power (potential and current) where does the greatest product of fields lie? In two inward cones making an hourglass shape.



For anybody who has been following the work of Frank Znidarsic, paying attention to the distance (radially from center of particle) and speed at which various manifestations of "field" converge is very important, it is not surprising that his work and the work of many intuitive thinkers are converging in common language. This last part was a bit off topic, but interesting none the less.

I am building a 3d Computer model right now for visualization.

Here is the rotor and stator. I will get the rest done tomorrow. but I could have full engineering spec sheets, cut sheets, and BOM if anybody wants to help me model/

Attached Images

Untitled.jpg (79.0 KB, 110 views)

Thanks Armagdn03 for starting the new thread. I skimmed through it but had trouble understanding some of it. The concept does sound very good and I hope to study more to get more of a handle on it. There should be a few on this forum that could build a replication and see the results. Thanks again.

George

Armagden03,
It's not often anymore that I get into motors but after reading Ted and going to check out some of his work I have second thoughts about if he really does understand. I have seen his modification on the monopole motor and I guess it did not switch right as he has looked at it as a motor. The monopole is not a motor and I never claimed it was. I always referred to it as a rotating energizer, more like an oscillator, mechanical. You and I must talk about what can be done with the Peg motor as I have some ideas to make this work. It makes no difference what people think about Tom Bearden or if the information is on his pages. Radus is something to look at with this design The Tom Bearden Website.
I'm thinking more along the lines of the unit that is self powered, that was the information taken from Radus by Westinghouse.

Magnetic fields are not what people think, and nobody can cut the lines of flux you just move them where you want them by switching them. If the flux paths in the motor is incorrect you have a crappy motor. simple experiments can be done to prove the Peg motor and your analyses is correct. I will be back when I have something to show you.
John B

This looks much like a concept that someone has been telling me about, he even demonstrated it to me on webcam. There is something in this for sure.

Why is it that most of the most beautiful concepts/designs I see on the internet some from you sir? I could never work out why more people weren't interested in this concept when you first started talking about it.

I love how you're incorporating Russell and Alchemanual too. I think you're understanding of it is better than mine and it is great to see someone applying it. Like yourself, I'm not much of a motor builder but to me all your theory is quite sound.

John,
I cannot wait to see what you have to contribute to this concept. I also think Radus was onto something by switching that magnetic flux. A while ago I thought of incorporating the Radus effect into a magnetic amplifier, I believe if designed properly this would be overunity.

Raui

Raui,
I will do my best to prove the point that this can be done.
John B

@ Raui

Thanks for the compliment! I think most skim by my concepts because they believe they are hearsay, or just an idea im kicking around. Most of the time, I have done many proof of concept experiments, toyed with many aspects of the idea, and done my due diligence. When I share it is usually a decently well developed concept. I just do not show all my work to how I got to that point. To me it is better to place the idea before people in its simplest embodiment, so that it can be grasped through good explanation, and imagination.

@John

I look forward to seeing what you have in mind. Below I attached a simple rendering of the concept, which could be greatly simplified so that a home shop could build. (the concept I show here has a one piece core which surrounds the pegs, this would be difficult to make)

I will personal message you also.

Attached Images

	Full model.jpg (74.9 KB, 94 views)
	Full model 2.jpg (43.7 KB, 91 views)

Design wise very similar to something I have been working on. But concept wise it's the complete opposite. That is to say that if you replaced those rotor rods with magnets you will generate electricity in the stator coils without any back torque. But the air gap plays a huge role here, the smaller it is the better.

Lafonte based torqueless generator.
Lafonte based generator.

Very interesting Broli, I see you are building this, I would love to see how it comes together.

Whats up man? Been too long...have to catch up with you again...I miss our exchanges...

The motor aspect is solid, how would "you" go about converting this into a generator.

Regards

I froze the project. Discovered many issues with my build mainly material choice. If I was going to build a second one based on what I've learned I would use as much off the shelf parts as possible. For the next build I will probably opt for the pankcake design as you see above for it's exponentially simpler to control the air gap that way. And this time I would use a proper magnetic material like silicon steel or ferrite. Here are the last pictures I have taken of it:

Facebook

I call all these devices and their derivatives lafonte based ideas. I have a playlist here which you can see of a few similar concepts:
lafonte - YouTube

To this day what baffles me the most is how little attention these concepts have gotten in the FE community. So I really hope you'll get to build yours.

Hello! It has been a while. We will have to talk here. If I were to make a generator based on similar line of reasoning, I would create a geometry which could change a parameter (inductance) but had NO possibility of a power stroke, meaning, that it has no "motor function", only changes parameters. This brings to mind, Chris Carson and the rotary electrostatic converter, Jim Murrray - alternator having improved efficiency etc.

One has to manage their actions and reactions. If they occupy the same spacial and time frame, they often "fight" each other. It does not have to be this way, its just how we tend to currently do things.

Interesting design Armegdn03... just an observation that would make manufacturing a little easier.... if you made the top and bottom plates in a triangular form which would house the coils. This would elevate the large cores on top and bottom. The triangular form was simply an example based on your drawing, it could actually be made to house as many coils as needed. I do have a CNC plasma cutter...

Yes I have seen the LaFonte group do some interesting things along these lines. However I also think that this points to a basic understanding of the kinetic aspect of mind (magnetism, spherical system, female aspect). It shows that flux within space, expands to fill the limits. This is the expansive force of magnetism, which is often used only in a "contractive" way. For example, molecules within a magnetic structure may pull north to south, but the extended lines (of flux) parallel to one another always push apart from one another, perpendicular to the pole direction. This is a basic mechanism present in natural systems, and so should be looked at carefully.

Good I Idea, I think I see what you are saying. A CNC plasma cutter? ohhhh now there is a fun toy. Let me mull this over a little bit here, and maybe we can come up with a simple model to start with.

@Armagdn03
I like it

It looks like a solid design however we know mother nature usually has a way of foiling our best laid plans. When I built a similar design the first problem I encountered was that a magnetized iron core is for all intensive purposes a magnet in itself. As such when the moving core moves it induces a current (Eddy Currents) in nearby materials not unlike a Faraday disk. In your design this may be overcome by using laminate low reluctance materials such as silicon steel oriented radially around the point of rotation.

I don't like to use the terms Flux, lines of Flux nor lines of force but prefer a gradient of force or field gradient relating solely to field density. Which raises certain questions in regards to geometry, for instance I had built a similar design using an external moving magnet as a field source and the force on this magnet changed in relation to the motion of the cores as the field density in that space had changed and this change reflected back to the source -- stupid gradients, lol. One option may be to locate your magnetic source at the center of rotation which represents a position of least change then size the cores so that the field density remains equal. That is the core closest to the source is smaller than the core farthest from the source, different volume same field density. This relates to an obscure phenomena whereby parallel fields may represent a force acting outwards however the difference in field density between them acts inward, equal yet opposite.

In any case I like your design as well as the premise behind it and hopefully with a little tweaking everything will work as planned.

Regards
AC

Armagdn03,

Congratulations! Your statement above, which I have highlighted in red, reveals the true nature of magnetic repulsion. This fundamental character of repulsion has not been appreciated by most researchers in this field. It is, however, why your Peg Motor WILL WORK, if the field strength that can be impressed into your rotor and stator rods is of sufficient strength.

The working principle is correct, even if the performance of your currently proposed design (and materials selection) turns out to be disappointing. I encourage you to continue your work along this path of discovery.

Again, excellent work!

Peter

Allcanadian,
I have never had the opportunity to talk to you about anything, but I have read some of your post on other groups, I must say what a fight. From some of the simple experiments I have done with some motors of this type I can see one thing. If you would use two coils instead of one with these pegs the outcome might be a little better. The geometry would be changed a little but the field strength would be much more. I do not like the term flux either as it may never work right out of the box. I would like to show everybody a Radus motor working with two magnetic loops here, but I'm not going to waste my time if no one is interested in how this operates, with shorted loops. Your right, gradients in magnetic force with resistance by the length of the loops. I have never showed this before.
John B

By all means, please elaborate a bit more when you have a chance.

Thank you
Vtech