Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube ONLY 13% OF SEATS AVAILABLE!!!*** 2017 ENERGY CONFERENCE ***


* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 10-10-2017, 09:17 AM
Turion's Avatar
Turion Turion is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,334
One:
If you use the ZFM to get a flywheel turning at high speed, even if that that takes a LONG time because of lack of torque, eventually, because of the high speed of the flywheel, you will have enough torque to engage a lenz free generator.

Two:
Other configurations of the ZFM are capable of MUCH more torque than the ones that have been shown in public. Don't assume that all the work that has been done with this particular motor has already been disclosed, because it hasn't. Build it, see what it will do, and then think about how to make it BETTER so it will have MORE torque. My solutions may not be the BEST ones, and people need to do SOMETHING on their own. But KEEP the air core coils because they are the heart of this machine.

Three:
ANY motor that pulses will have a collapsing coil that acts as a generator. When run on a 3 battery system at the proper frequency it will charge the third battery at a rate GREATER than the discharge of the primary batteries, something few motors will do. Because of the HIGH RPM at which this motor runs, it EASILY achieves the necessary frequency. Build it, run it, put a scope on the charge battery, and THEN tell me it is not worth anything.
__________________
"I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds
"Try Not! Do or do not. There is no 'Try' ". Yoda

Last edited by Turion; 10-10-2017 at 09:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #32  
Old 10-10-2017, 12:22 PM
Allen Burgess Allen Burgess is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,456
Quote from bistander:

Magnetic force is not "Henrys". It is not measured in "Henrys".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP2xEKH4qdc


Here's an example of a bifilar coil in self resonance that is spontaneously building a magnetic field that is measured in "Negative Micro Henrys":
__________________
 

Last edited by Allen Burgess; 10-10-2017 at 12:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-10-2017, 01:17 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 941
Zfm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Do your research so you can see what John's definition is as applied to the motor and not your own.
I have. I cannot find why it is named or called "zero force". It obviously does have force(s) associated with it. Why call call it zero? Can you answer that? Or provide a link which addresses the zero part. I've watched John B explain how it works. He even talks about mechanical load and torque, which indicates non-zero force.

Thanks,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-10-2017, 01:40 PM
citfta citfta is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by seaad View Post
Hi Carrol
First I just wanted to know If it was allowed to dicuss NSNS configuration and cores here. I don't want a "serious builders" situation.

First issue solved. I right now saw Bro M:s reply. Thanks BroMikey!

Second. I'm going to utilize ALL sides of my magnets and coil ends.

Congrats Carrol; to your good circuit. Two Switch transistors and the two Transformer coupled Coils reduces the power consumption to drive the coil ( motor magnetic impulser unit) to about the same low level as I have, with my used principle and my single winding, without distorting the signal. ( Still about square) I took my coil values and used that x2 in your two coils and made a simulation.
BUT, but with your principle you have to have two windings on the same bobbin. To make them fit there we have to reduce the Cu-wire diameter. ( More Ohms in both coils)
That reduces the Amp-turns with reduces the magnetic power as a result.
Compared to a single wire coil principle, here we have to increase the battery voltage.

If your input pulse signals A and B (not the iterrupting F.G. chopping signal. Not simulated yet) is let say: Cycle time=6ms ,OnA=2ms OffA=4ms, OnB=2ms OffB=4ms and signal B is delayed 3ms
THEN the OUTput will be a 3ms+3ms (50%/50%) zero and 180 degr. square signal. (With my coil values) Do you want that??
BUT with a shorter On-time (A and B) than 2ms the output signals will be a mess, corrupt and stocastic.

And you are right about windage losses and such. I know nothing!

I come to think of one important thing: Your coils are NOT TRANSFORMER COUPLED. Air coils. Uhuuuu Now output signals will be a mess, corrupt and stocastic
AGAIN!!



Regards
Arne
Hello again,

Let me say this again. I am NOT trying to make a "Zero Force Motor". I built the motor I built for the purposes of experimentation. I only posted the video of it to this thread to show Bro. Mikey that an air-cored motor will not run away and does in fact have BEMF.

I appreciate your input about my motor but I have already established my goals and procedures for what I want to accomplish.

As far as your comment about the coils not being transformer coupled because they are air cored, that is incorrect. Air cored transformers are regularly used in RF circuits. And they do not induce corruption or make a mess of the signal.

Respectfully,
Carroll
__________________
ADD BROMIKEY TO YOUR IGNORE LIST He is a saboteur bent on the systematic distraction of every good topic on this forum and since he has been here most working threads have shut down. He is the enemy.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-10-2017, 02:47 PM
seaad's Avatar
seaad seaad is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by citfta View Post
,,,,COLOR="Blue"
"I am NOT trying to make a "Zero Force Motor". I built the motor I built for the purposes of experimentation."
I thought so also. Becauce of NSNS. My build inspiration comes now from the "Adams motor".

"I appreciate your input about my motor but I have already established my goals and procedures for what I want to accomplish."
Good!

"As far as your comment about the coils not being transformer coupled because they are air cored, that is incorrect. "
More or less. I assume, at these low motor frequencies just high freq. spikes will "jump" over! ("jump"= incorrect word )

"Air cored transformers are regularly used in RF circuits."
I know I have been working with radio most part of my life. Not electrical motors.

"And they do not induce corruption or make a mess of the signal."
But together with the switching transistors they do so in the simulation with somewhat weak coupling.
Does your signals on the output coils mirror the gates signals, on the bench?

Respectfully
Arne
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-10-2017, 04:07 PM
citfta citfta is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,242
Hi Arne,

In answer to your last question about distortion of the signal applied to the base of the transistors let's look at the schematic. As you see I am using an opto-coupler to apply the signal to the base. I am doing that so that my transistor does not spend much time in between on and off. The opto-coupler gives me very quick on and off times.

If you look at my scope shot you can see the area that looks solid during the on time of the pulse. If you were to expand the scope shot to better see the solid area you would see it is actually made up of a bunch of 2.5 khz pulses. And each pulse is very nearly a perfect square wave at that frequency. If I increase my frequency to about 10 khz or so then I do begin to see some distortion and my output from my generator winding also begins to drop. The signal shown on the scope shot is from the generator winding so it will show if there is any distortion from the air-core coupling.

Thanks for your interest.

Respectfully,
Carroll

One added thought is that maybe the simulation does realistically show the proper coupling of the windings because my coil is actually a trifilar coil and not two separate air coils.
__________________
ADD BROMIKEY TO YOUR IGNORE LIST He is a saboteur bent on the systematic distraction of every good topic on this forum and since he has been here most working threads have shut down. He is the enemy.

Last edited by citfta; 10-10-2017 at 04:13 PM. Reason: Added comment
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-10-2017, 04:47 PM
seaad's Avatar
seaad seaad is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 203
Hi Citfta

Thanks. It's good to have some feedback from reality so I get a feeling of how much I can trust the simulations.

Regards
Arne
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-10-2017, 07:17 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,571
bloch wall

Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
I have. I cannot find why it is named or called "zero force". It obviously does have force(s) associated with it. Why call call it zero? Can you answer that? Or provide a link which addresses the zero part. I've watched John B explain how it works. He even talks about mechanical load and torque, which indicates non-zero force.

Thanks,

bi
It is a zero vector motor - it is a neutral line motor. These are synonymous with zero force motor and are the original terms John used to name it. It is a reference to the magnet's bloch wall.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-10-2017, 08:28 PM
Bodkins's Avatar
Bodkins Bodkins is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
I have. I cannot find why it is named or called "zero force". It obviously does have force(s) associated with it. Why call call it zero? Can you answer that? Or provide a link which addresses the zero part. I've watched John B explain how it works. He even talks about mechanical load and torque, which indicates non-zero force.

Thanks,

bi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtGz4QHJ0e4
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-10-2017, 10:12 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,571
optimum setup

My goal from the beginning of the ZFM project is to run it on the three battery methodology and have it turn the Kromrey generator.

Turion evidently has a similar thought.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 10-10-2017, 11:50 PM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,882
Yes but my problem is that I can't explain the difference between
how a standard pulse motor with iron works vs a zero force one.

These are the characteristics

#1) I know that it runs high RPM's
#2) I know it has no iron
#3) I think the right hand rule does not apply
#4) I know it runs on low amps due to zero iron
#5) I know that by comparison "there is no BEMF associated with it"
#6) Small on torque

These are a few things i have heard but to go to the heart of what
sticks out i am unsure of why this mtr is special. Maybe i forgot something?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #42  
Old 10-11-2017, 01:48 AM
Turion's Avatar
Turion Turion is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron View Post
my goal from the beginning of the zfm project is to run it on the three battery methodology and have it turn the kromrey generator.

Turion evidently has a similar thought.
absolutely!

Bro Mikey. Read post #31 above. We keep saying the same things over and over and NOBODY LISTENS.
__________________
"I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds
"Try Not! Do or do not. There is no 'Try' ". Yoda

Last edited by Turion; 10-11-2017 at 01:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-11-2017, 03:24 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turion View Post
One:
get a flywheel


Two:
Build it, see what it will do

Three:
it will charge the third battery at a rate GREATER than the
discharge of the primary batteries, something few motors will do.
Build it, run it,
Post #31 tells me to build it and see, it also says to get a flywheel.
The other statements relate to high RPM's so I was right i guess.

In other words there are no explanations yet until more builders
come forth. I like the part about this mtr is just as good as the
Matt Mod Mtr where is does the magic on all the batteries. Not
much of a theological expose but is good enough for me.

On the contrary I don't think that basic requirements or assessments
will bore everyone to sleep so they don't come back to this thread, I
think it is the reason why so many threads lay dormant due to the
lack of reaching a common understanding of what is being suggested.

Hardly anyone will build it. How many do you know building the
Matt Mod Mtr? Zhit- ain't nobody gonna build it especially if they
don't know what it is for.

Your delivery is most exciting, your approach is "THIS IS WHAT IT DOES"
"BUILD IT" telling everyone that it is a good one. Coming from you I would
have to say that it is.

Still I have no clue why.

__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-11-2017, 04:57 AM
Turion's Avatar
Turion Turion is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,334
:-)

I told you in that post
1. High speed + flywheel = torque
2. Other configurations with a flywheel HAVE significantly more torque and STILL run on almost NO WATTS
3. High speed means high frequency charging which means ALL WORK DONE BY THIS MOTOR IS DONE FOR FREE

If those aren't enough reasons to build this motor, then DONT. Go find something better. Good luck with THAT.
__________________
"I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds
"Try Not! Do or do not. There is no 'Try' ". Yoda
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-11-2017, 05:28 AM
bistander bistander is online now
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 941
Bloch wall

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
It is a zero vector motor - it is a neutral line motor. These are synonymous with zero force motor and are the original terms John used to name it. It is a reference to the magnet's bloch wall.
Felix Bloch (1905-1983) was Stanford's first Nobel Prize winner, 1952 for work in nuclear magnetic resonance techniques. From: Felix Bloch facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Felix Bloch

Quote:
After spending the academic year 1930–1931 with Heisenberg in Leipzig, Bloch wrote his Leipziger Habilitationsschrift. In this work, he systematically studied exchange-interaction problems and residual magnetization in ferromagnets and, at the same time, developed much of the formalism which has been used ever since in condensed-matter theory and problems of collective phenomena. Beyond its contribution to the theory of domain walls, this work serves as a bridge between the quantum theory of ferromagnetism in the 1930s and present theories of many-particle systems (see Hoddeson et al.). Bloch was also able to work out the thickness and structure of the boundary walls, and the wall structure became known as the Bloch wall.
From the International Electrotechnical Commission:

IEC 60050 - International Electrotechnical Vocabulary - Details for IEV number 121-12-55: "Bloch wall"

Quote:
Bloch wall
domain wall in which the vector component of the magnetic area moment perpendicular to the plane of the wall is substantially constant, within and on either side of the wall
Note – Bloch walls are normally found only in bulk materials and thick films; in thinner films below a critical thickness, the formation of Néel walls is favourable from energy considerations.

[SOURCE: 221-02-45 MOD]
Words have meaning. "Bloch wall" was used, and had and still has a specific meaning which has little or nothing to do with John Bedini's discussion of an air core coil. John should have called it a Bedini wall.

To me it seems like he did the same thing with "force" and "vector", both are words which already had definitions, and are non-zero in his motor. I have nothing against the thing other than the misuse of terminology. I like see to folks experimenting with electric machinery. I've done so myself for decades and picked up a fair amount of knowledge about the machines and related physics. And I'm willing to share.

Regards,

bi
__________________
 

Last edited by bistander; 10-11-2017 at 08:15 PM. Reason: Typo
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 10-11-2017, 06:54 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,571
John Bedini's model

Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Felix Bloch (1905-1983) was Stanford's first Nobel Prize winner, 1952 for work in nuclear magnetic or resonance techniques. From: Felix Bloch facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Felix Bloch



From the International Electrotechnical Commission:

IEC 60050 - International Electrotechnical Vocabulary - Details for IEV number 121-12-55: "Bloch wall"



Words have meaning. "Bloch wall" was used, and had and still has a specific meaning which has little or nothing to do with John Bedini's discussion of an air core coil. John should have called it a Bedini wall.

To me it seems like he did the same thing with "force" and "vector", both are words which already had definitions, and are non-zero in his motor. I have nothing against the thing other than the misuse of terminology. I like see to folks experimenting with electric machinery. I've done so myself for decades and picked up a fair amount of knowledge about the machines and related physics. And I'm willing to share.

Regards,

bi
The Bloch Wall is giving a reference to a specific location on a magnet between the poles - that is what it is called by definition. That definition includes an OPINION of what it is and how it operates - nothing more and nothing less like countless other definitions in physics, astronomy, agriculture, etc... that for the purposes of identification, we know what they are regardless of the fact that many of the definitions to define such things are completely WRONG. It is only called a Bloch Wall because of someone's name and in the mind of the conventional viewpoint, that person must automatically know more about the intrinsic nature of it, which is never the rule - in reality.

Whether it is what the conventional viewpoint is or not is one issue and a completely other issue is how John Bedini sees that Bloch Wall operating. No matter what, we know that we are talking about the place on the magnet between the poles and that is indisputable. What is also indisputable is that John Bedini has his own viewpoints, right or wrong, about what is happening at that Bloch Wall, period.

Based on John's viewpoints of what happens there is at the premise of many of his magnetic models and that is also indisputable. Whether he is right or wrong is one issue and is completely separate and irrelevant from the issue of what his viewpoint is.

Now that we know what his viewpoint is, in whole or in part, the Zero Force Motor is a reference to a motor that has a significant if not the most significant relationship with the Bloch Wall of the coils surrounding the rotor and this is also indisputable.

Yes, words have meaning and for good reason but when a word identifies something that is supposed to have a certain meaning based on how it is perceived to operate and we come to a better understanding, then we clarify that definition by upgrading it which John did quite well in brief in the video that Bodkins posted. Noone is required to agree with that understanding.

The same issue exists with the definition of COP or coefficient of performance. I can't tell you how many engineers have tried to argue over the years that it can only apply to heat pumps even though the fact is that it is a ratio between output work compared to what we provide excluding free environmental input - that does not mean we need to create a completely different word (or phrase) for mechanical systems that create more work than we have to input, it doesn't include electrical systems that create more work than we input, it doesn't include chemical systems that create more work than the sum of the input chemicals on their own, etc. We can still use the term COP because it is a reference to a concept or a thing, etc... and we understand that. Therefore, we can expand the definition to go beyond heat systems and can use COP to explain the performance of all systems that produce more work that we have to input.

This is the same thing as Bloch Wall - we know it is that place where the polarities separate so John uses that definition because it is common sense about what he is talking about is a place on a magnet then he goes on to explain how he thinks it operates - very simple.

It shouldn't be called a Bedini Wall because he didn't discover a new place on a magnet, just a way that an already known place on a magnet may actually operate, which is different than originally thought.

You can't define an elephant by grabbing it's tail or its leg, which is analogous to looking at John call this motor the Zero Force Motor, Zero Vector Motor, etc... you have to look at his work holistically and take the entire thing into account as one whole system. Otherwise, you're defining an elephant by only grabbing its leg.

So again, research it, look at John's whole model and see it from his own perspective instead of your own.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-11-2017, 08:33 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turion View Post
I told you in that post
1. High speed + flywheel = torque
2. Other configurations with a flywheel HAVE significantly more torque and STILL run on almost NO WATTS
3. High speed means high frequency charging which means ALL WORK DONE BY THIS MOTOR IS DONE FOR FREE

If those aren't enough reasons to build this motor, then DONT. Go find something better. Good luck with THAT.
Okay Okay I got it. Not bad, that sums it up nice and
easy for guys like me to understand the "WHY" ya know not just another
mtr but one with those characteristics should be an advancement.

When I run my SUUL coils the motor needs to go fast. Can one of these
run at normal speeds say 3000-6000rpm's? Or does it need to go over
10,000 rpm's or like Yaro said his runs 13,000? Can they be slowed down
some from 13 grand and still get the energy effect?

In other words does each zero motor build have to reach a specific node
(or as it is called Sweet spot) to be effective?

What if I wanted to run half that speed? That would still be double
the r's of what I got now. The thing is I don't know if I can get the
money for all that machine work for high tolerances.
__________________
 

Last edited by BroMikey; 10-11-2017 at 08:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-11-2017, 09:51 AM
James McDonald's Avatar
James McDonald James McDonald is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Odenton, Maryland
Posts: 2
Send a message via AIM to James McDonald
Jame's Zero Force Motor

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroMikey View Post
Okay Okay I got it. Not bad, that sums it up nice and
easy for guys like me to understand the "WHY" ya know not just another
mtr but one with those characteristics should be an advancement.

When I run my SUUL coils the motor needs to go fast. Can one of these
run at normal speeds say 3000-6000rpm's? Or does it need to go over
10,000 rpm's or like Yaro said his runs 13,000? Can they be slowed down
some from 13 grand and still get the energy effect?

In other words does each zero motor build have to reach a specific node
(or as it is called Sweet spot) to be effective?

What if I wanted to run half that speed? That would still be double
the r's of what I got now. The thing is I don't know if I can get the
money for all that machine work for high tolerances.

Hi All --

The easiest way to keep the RPM's down is to keep the voltage input to
the Bedini-Cole circuit under 36 volts. Since everyone will build their Zero Force Motor slightly different the resonance point where your motor coil goes into a 2500 RPM jump in just a few seconds is the scary part. Depending on the reed switch timing I can make my Zero Force Motor do this at 40 volts or at 55 volts. I have pushed the voltage up to 66 volts but only for a few seconds before backing the voltage off. I have had two events where the magnets few off even though they were glued on with some strong epoxy. To get to the higher voltages without using batteries I made a power supply that will go up to 180 volts DC with an adjustable AC input. My Zero Force Motor will start to spin at 2.7 volts. Currently I am working on a special Pulse Width Modulator board to control the speed of the motor. I am looking into buying some shaft to shaft hook up pieces to hook my Zero Force Motor up to a Volkswagen Alternator. Take a look at my YouTube Channel for my videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiMZZ0_0X10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRfm5lFc3TI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utjk-PT7mFo


-- James
__________________
 

Last edited by James McDonald; 10-14-2017 at 08:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-11-2017, 12:38 PM
Turion's Avatar
Turion Turion is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,334
Controlling Speed

James is correct. You control the speed of this motor the same way you control the speed of ANY pulse motor. It is NOT rocket science.
Variables:
1. Voltage
2. Frequency of pulse to motor
3. Width of pulse to motor

With this motor your pulse frequency per rotation is determined by the number of coils and the width of the pulse is determined by the length of the coils (if you want to get the most torque out of the machine you can't mess with this), so you can only adjust voltage. At higher speeds the pulse width is shorter. That makes it simple. Under load you increase the voltage to get the same rpm as unloaded, and/or you increase or lower voltage to increase or lower speed.

IMPROVEMENTS on the physical build of this motor while holding TRUE to its defining characteristics come down to two things. How it is wound and how to increase the strength of the magnetic field that will cause rotation. Peter L showed that backing the magnets on the rotor with steel to force the field in a specific direction is ONE way to do it. There are other ways and other physical configurations that are better. I know, because I have BUILT and tested them. They are exactly the same size as previous machines, but produced much more torque. And once THEY were built we experimented with different wiring ideas and got an ADDITIONAL increases in torque. We still have MORE things to test based on things we already KNOW worked on other builds that we can apply here, so are fairly confident we haven't reached the max torque available with our design. Our test machines were all 3D printed rotors and stators so we don't have as high tolerances as you can get with machined parts, but we were able to CLEARLY establish that the gains you achieve from close tolerances between rotor and stator are EXPONENTIAL. So machined builds are necessary to give the MAX performance of this machine. I have ALREADY seen that a 3D printed version has the torque to turn my generator and that's all I really needed to see to be convinced.

I am working with a design of this motor to meet the SPECIFIC needs of a VERY specific application. That is turning my generator. Just as Aaron said.
__________________
"I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds
"Try Not! Do or do not. There is no 'Try' ". Yoda
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-11-2017, 04:55 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 941
Just words

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
...

So again, research it, look at John's whole model and see it from his own perspective instead of your own.
Hi Aaron,

How do I know what you mean by indisputable without researching you, looking at your entire body of work and seeing it from your perspective instead of my own, which is logically derived from creditable definitions and worldwide body of literature, language and general understanding? Felix Bloch was a distinguished scientist who won a Nobel Prize, had a lecture hall named after him at Stanford and was the first director of CERN. Using his name for whatever reasons Mr. Bedini had is quite different than redefining COP. It is disrespectful IMO.

But let's discontinue this sidetrack. Thankyou for your responses. I'll try to not let established word definitions influence my opinions of John Bedini's work.

Regards,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 10-11-2017, 10:03 PM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by James McDonald View Post
Hi All --

The easiest way to keep down the RPM's is to keep the voltage input to
the Bedini-Cole circuit under 36 volts. Since everyone will build their Zero Force Motor slightly different the resonance point where your motor coil goes into a 2500 RPM jump in just a few seconds is the scary part. Depending on the timing I can make my Zero Force Motor do this at 40 volts or at 55 volts. I have pushed the voltage up to 66 volts but only for a few seconds before backing off. I have had two events where the magnets few off even though they were glued on with some strong epoxy. To get to the higher voltages without using batteries I made a power supply that will go to 180 volts DC with an adjustable AC input. My Zero Force Motor will start to spin at 2.7 volts. Currently I am working on a special Pulse Width Modulator board to control the speed of the motor. I am looking into buying some shaft to shaft hook up pieces to hook my Zero Force Motor up to a Volkswagen Alternator. Take a look at my YouTube Channel for my videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiMZZ0_0X10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRfm5lFc3TI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utjk-PT7mFo


-- James
Nice going James, you are one of very few with an open hand. You show
your build, tell how it works, tell how to control it and shows what it does.

You are master electronics man also. Genius
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #52  
Old 10-12-2017, 12:17 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turion View Post
James is correct. You control the speed of this motor the same way you control the speed of ANY pulse motor. It is NOT rocket science.
Variables:
1. Voltage
2. Frequency of pulse to motor
3. Width of pulse to motor

With this motor your pulse frequency per rotation is determined by the number of coils and the width of the pulse is determined by the length of the coils (if you want to get the most torque out of the machine you can't mess with this), so you can only adjust voltage. At higher speeds the pulse width is shorter. That makes it simple. Under load you increase the voltage to get the same rpm as unloaded, and/or you increase or lower voltage to increase or lower speed.

IMPROVEMENTS on the physical build of this motor while holding TRUE to its defining characteristics come down to two things. How it is wound and how to increase the strength of the magnetic field that will cause rotation. Peter L showed that backing the magnets on the rotor with steel to force the field in a specific direction is ONE way to do it. There are other ways and other physical configurations that are better. I know, because I have BUILT and tested them. They are exactly the same size as previous machines, but produced much more torque. And once THEY were built we experimented with different wiring ideas and got an ADDITIONAL increases in torque. We still have MORE things to test based on things we already KNOW worked on other builds that we can apply here, so are fairly confident we haven't reached the max torque available with our design. Our test machines were all 3D printed rotors and stators so we don't have as high tolerances as you can get with machined parts, but we were able to CLEARLY establish that the gains you achieve from close tolerances between rotor and stator are EXPONENTIAL. So machined builds are necessary to give the MAX performance of this machine. I have ALREADY seen that a 3D printed version has the torque to turn my generator and that's all I really needed to see to be convinced.

I am working with a design of this motor to meet the SPECIFIC needs of a VERY specific application. That is turning my generator. Just as Aaron said.
yes very good post keeps my mind on the subject matter. I have been
thinking about where i am going in terms of tolerance. Here is a quote
on electric motor air gaps. .010" is a standard

The air gap Lg (Fig. 5.100) should be chosen to give the greatest torque per stroke. This approach will, however, tend to make the air gap length small. T. J. E. Miller (1993) recommends that it be about 0.05 percent of the rotor diameter. This tends to produce air gaps in the 0.007- to 0.010-in range for small motors. This can lead to manufacturing problems and increased costs in commercial-type motors because tight tolerances will be required on many parts. Holding a 0.010-in air gap is very feasible in most manufacturing situations and is a good initial selection. Small air gaps increase torque but also increase audible noise.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-12-2017, 01:06 AM
Matthew Jones's Avatar
Matthew Jones Matthew Jones is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,618
Although there was a whole paper on the subject of the entirety of the b field of a magnet and the force that is included, I cannot find it. This question and answer cover the naming of this motor as a zero force motor.

Question
Quote:
It doesn't makes sense to me that when charge is moving parallel to magnetic field, force on charge by magnetic field is zero I have done some research and can't find proper answer some people say that answer lies in Lorentz transformations and special relativity so why isn't charge experiencing force?
Answer
Quote:
A B-field exerts force on a moving charge, in a direction perpendicular to the B field. If the B field and the velocity of the charge are in the same direction, then there is no way to distinguish any single direction of the resulting force (there's a 360 degree spread of perpendicular directions). So, the only force vector that has no direction must be the correct answer (i.e. zero force).

A B-field exerts force on a moving charge, in a direction perpendicular to the motion of the charge. By similar reasonong to above, this also means the force must be zero when B and the velocity of the charge are parallel.
"Resulting forces is the key word"

If you close 4 electromagnetic coils into a loop or a gapped loop all force exerted from the poles is neutralized. Since the poles cancel each other there is no Lorentz force exerted. IE "Zero Force" Lorentz force being the force calculated when push or pull occurs in a magnetic Pole.

Just because Lorentz force is canceled does not mean that all flux from the coil is neutralized. When the permanent magnet of the motor is perpendicular the wire in the coil 50% of it flux is opposed to the flux generated in the wire and the B Feild. This is the portion of the permanent magnet that drives the zero force motor.

Howard Johnson extensively researched this reaction in permanent magnets for continues rotary motion.

Matt
__________________
ADD BROMIKEY TO YOUR IGNORE LIST He is a saboteur bent on the systematic distraction of every good topic on this forum and since he has been here most working threads have shut down. He is the enemy. If you have blocked him already add this to your signature and encourage others to block him as well. His onslaught of rambling in large text and his constant attempts to misinform at the excuse of being stupid should no longer be tolerated.

USER CP/Ignore list.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-12-2017, 03:29 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,571
origin of the motor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Jones View Post
Although there was a whole paper on the subject of the entirety of the b field of a magnet and the force that is included, I cannot find it. This question and answer cover the naming of this motor as a zero force motor.

Question


Answer

"Resulting forces is the key word"

If you close 4 electromagnetic coils into a loop or a gapped loop all force exerted from the poles is neutralized. Since the poles cancel each other there is no Lorentz force exerted. IE "Zero Force" Lorentz force being the force calculated when push or pull occurs in a magnetic Pole.

Just because Lorentz force is canceled does not mean that all flux from the coil is neutralized. When the permanent magnet of the motor is perpendicular the wire in the coil 50% of it flux is opposed to the flux generated in the wire and the B Feild. This is the portion of the permanent magnet that drives the zero force motor.

Howard Johnson extensively researched this reaction in permanent magnets for continues rotary motion.

Matt
I believe Floyd Sweet wrote a paper on that topic. John was also not always consistent with his own definitions even though he knew what he meant. If you asked him about the zero force reference, he would point to the center of a magnet. And the Earth's degree of tilt relative to the sun was important to him and is why in the ZFM diagrams and other coil diagrams he always draws that diagonal line through the Bloch Wall.

For anyone interested, this is where I tried to get some discussion going about John's magnetic model since I have all his old lab notes on the subject that were never released. John Bedini's Magnetic Model They'll all be published in due time.

The origin of this Neutral Line motor was around the same time as his Space Flux Motor (the one in the glass case) and appears to be all pre-Ron Cole time.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-12-2017, 04:56 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post

he would point to the center of a magnet. And the Earth's degree of tilt relative to the sun was important to him and is why in the ZFM diagrams and other coil diagrams he always draws that diagonal line through the Bloch Wall.
Good stuff Aaron I often wondered why John always drew his zero
line crooked in the center of the magnet. I would look at that sometimes
and try to see if the line was allowing more room on the north or the
south and it did, then the next time it looked like there was more toward
the south magnet.

I just din't get that. I heard john say if it was day or night made a difference.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-12-2017, 07:51 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,571
23 degrees

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroMikey View Post
Good stuff Aaron I often wondered why John always drew his zero
line crooked in the center of the magnet. I would look at that sometimes
and try to see if the line was allowing more room on the north or the
south and it did, then the next time it looked like there was more toward
the south magnet.

I just din't get that. I heard john say if it was day or night made a difference.
On an 8 magnet SG, you may have heard him always reference the 23 degree - you can see it written at the bottom of the wheel) - that is an analogy to the Earth's 23.5 degree tilt. And that is significant to the interaction of the "scalar" magnetic fields between the magnets and the coils magnetic field.

__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-12-2017, 11:11 AM
Matthew Jones's Avatar
Matthew Jones Matthew Jones is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
I believe Floyd Sweet wrote a paper on that topic. John was also not always consistent with his own definitions even though he knew what he meant. If you asked him about the zero force reference, he would point to the center of a magnet. And the Earth's degree of tilt relative to the sun was important to him and is why in the ZFM diagrams and other coil diagrams he always draws that diagonal line through the Bloch Wall.

For anyone interested, this is where I tried to get some discussion going about John's magnetic model since I have all his old lab notes on the subject that were never released. John Bedini's Magnetic Model They'll all be published in due time.

The origin of this Neutral Line motor was around the same time as his Space Flux Motor (the one in the glass case) and appears to be all pre-Ron Cole time.
John was the one that told us that originally in the Bedini Monopole 2 group when he first showed that video of the motor with the iron pipe. Maybe 05, 06 time frame. Those groups have long since been shut down. But I remember it well because that was one of the few times I ever got straight answer out of him. He said there is no force exerted on the magnet, the magnet rides the flux lines on the side of the coil. He talked about the switching a little bit, switching direction at the center, then he never talked about the thing again until he started showing the printed models.

Matt
__________________
ADD BROMIKEY TO YOUR IGNORE LIST He is a saboteur bent on the systematic distraction of every good topic on this forum and since he has been here most working threads have shut down. He is the enemy. If you have blocked him already add this to your signature and encourage others to block him as well. His onslaught of rambling in large text and his constant attempts to misinform at the excuse of being stupid should no longer be tolerated.

USER CP/Ignore list.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-12-2017, 07:50 PM
Turion's Avatar
Turion Turion is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,334
Z Force

When I built my first Z Force motor I was unsure of proper position of the magnet when the coil was pulsed. So I manually positioned the magnet of the rotor on the coil in different positions and then pulsed the coil. I could look at how much rotation I got out of a pulse with the magnet at different positions. If you do that, it soon becomes very clear where the magnet should be when the coil is pulsed and that the magnet is "riding a wave" that moves through the coil. From the testing I have done, the coil should be energized just after the center of the magnet passes the end of the coil, and voltage cancelled just as the leading edge of the magnet reaches the end of the coil. There is no flip of polarity at the center of the coil that attracts the magnet as it moves away. Or at least I did NOT observe it in ANY of the testing I did. If you place the magnet just to the left of the center of the coil and fire it, you get the same reaction as when you place the magnet just to the right of center and fire it except the rotation of the rotor is not as great.
__________________
"I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds
"Try Not! Do or do not. There is no 'Try' ". Yoda

Last edited by Turion; 10-12-2017 at 09:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-13-2017, 01:40 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turion View Post
One:
If you use the ZFM to get a flywheel turning at high speed, even if that that takes a LONG time because of lack of torque, eventually, because of the high speed of the flywheel, you will have enough torque to engage a lenz free generator.

Two:
Other configurations of the ZFM are capable of MUCH more torque than the ones that have been shown in public. Don't assume that all the work that has been done with this particular motor has already been disclosed, because it hasn't. Build it, see what it will do, and then think about how to make it BETTER so it will have MORE torque. My solutions may not be the BEST ones, and people need to do SOMETHING on their own. But KEEP the air core coils because they are the heart of this machine.

Three:
ANY motor that pulses will have a collapsing coil that acts as a generator. When run on a 3 battery system at the proper frequency it will charge the third battery at a rate GREATER than the discharge of the primary batteries, something few motors will do. Because of the HIGH RPM at which this motor runs, it EASILY achieves the necessary frequency. Build it, run it, put a scope on the charge battery, and THEN tell me it is not worth anything.

All good input gentlemen, John Bedini did us all a favor by lighting
our way, that was his best under the circumstances.

Looking around i see machine materials. Tolerances could helped by
using curved rotor magnets. I'm thinking machining and prices.

DOUBLE ROTOR LOOKS GOOD, HEY?



https://www.apexmagnets.com/54mm-x-46mm-x-20mm-motor-magnets?fee=5&fep=168&gclid=CjwKCAjwpfzOBRA5EiwAU0 ccN1EhXNh6tX66kQ9hC5eENT9L-wjOmtCOnHFqijz_iD5UY_NVZwiJuxoCymoQAvD_BwE




__________________
 

Last edited by BroMikey; 10-13-2017 at 01:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10-13-2017, 03:19 AM
wayne.ct wayne.ct is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 510
Inconsistencies regarding Bedini video

Bedini notes that current drops to "zero" when iron core in introduced into the coil. He says the rotor speed increases while at the same time the current input declines. Usually when you introduce iron in a coil you increase losses in the system and you would expect the rotor speed to decrease. Therefore you have a system that appears to have an anomalous behavior. Two things to notice. First, the load is very light. The only load is the bearings for the rotor and air friction. Second, we don't know all the physical characteristics of the coil with and without the iron core. Usually you would expect the iron core in increase the inductance of a coil lower the resonant frequency. The physical characteristics are not obvious but there is the obvious increase in the rotational speed to the rotor. Therefore it appears the resonant frequency is actually INCREASING when the iron core is introduced. I was hoping to find more construction details to make this more evident. If these are available online, please post a link. Thanks in advance.
__________________
There is a reason why science has been successful and technology is widespread. Don't be afraid to do the math and apply the laws of physics.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
btw, force, heard, kind, motor, project

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

For One-Time Donations, use admin@ this domain > energeticforum.com

Choose your voluntary subscription

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers