Jetijs,

Remember that your last stator ended up being glued slightly out of alignment. So, it is very important to glue the stator pieces together exactly right.

I recommend that you build a jig to hold all of the pieces between two flat plates of steel or thick aluminum. Mount four guide posts to the bottom plate so they go through the mount holes of the stator pieces with very little clearance, and on into the top plate. This will keep all of your stator pieces in alignment. If you use an epoxy, make sure you use some sort of "release" compound on the guide posts or you will never get the stator out of the jig after the epoxy hardens. A silicon or Teflon spray can work well in this situation. Spray the guide pins multiple times and let the silicon dry completely before use. These guide pins should not be threaded, so they provide a uniform positioning reference for each lamination in the stack.

Use a slow acting epoxy so you have enough time to coat and place each lamination in the stack and clamp the jig tight before the epoxy cures. After you clamp the stack tight, wipe off as much excess epoxy that is squeezed out as you can before it hardens. The more you can clean up the edges before the epoxy cures, the easier it will be to finish later.

Think each step through and build all the necessary tooling to make it right the first time. Make sure the guide pins can release from the mounting plates independently from the stator stack in case your "release" compound doesn't work perfectly, and the guide pins have to be pounded out later. Cover the top and bottom of the mounting plates with "release" compound, or wax paper, so the epoxy doesn't stick to them.

Test the system completely BEFORE you apply the glue, and make sure everything aligns properly. Don't be in a hurry. This is a very important procedure and it must be done 100% perfectly, the first time, for the motor to work well with a critically small air-gap.

Once this is done, you should be able to chuck the stator piece into your lathe and using a ceramic cutting bit, carefully re-surface the inner diameter (that faces the rotor) to produce a perfectly uniform curvature.

A similar procedure should be followed when gluing the rotor pieces together.

Well, that's all I can think of for now.

Keep up the great work!!!

Peter

Thanks Peter,
Those are some very good suggestions
Jetijs

Extra Hold Hair Spray works terrific for an epoxy release agent and is very cheap.

- Schpankme

That spray might or might not work depending on the sort of epoxy used. There are chemical separators available that are made specifically for use with various epoxy compounds. And they're cheap too.

Acetone is ideal for epoxy removal.

Lighty,

I'd prefer if you ran a simple experiment to discover for yourself if Extra Hold Hair Spray could be used as a cheap substitute as a release agent.

- Schpankme

Schpankme,

Thanks for your suggestion about the cheap epoxy release agent idea. I, too, wish people on this forum would run more experiments and ask fewer lame questions, but in this case, I am asking you to refrain from any further remarks that openly suggest your negative opinion about another member of the forum.

There are some people here I would really LOVE to regurgitate my lunch on, but we are trying to build an archive about a really important improvement in electric motor design, even if most people so far are very slow to catch on.

Please help us keep the tone of this forum CIVIL and polite at all times. I appreciate your help.

Thanks,

Peter

Peter,

I've repaired my previous post; and will keep my comments to questions or direct replies "on subject".

- Schpankme

Peter

I have completed my windings. and have wired the stator with two sets of 6 coils. Each set of 6 has a resestance of 1.4 ohms. When I use 24 volt imput and ark to the windings my roter will turn about 5 times. But I am having trouble with the transistors. When I use my slot optical switch and send a low voltage on the base, the transistor turns on but I do not see the full 24 volts through the collector to the emitter. I could see in your video you have a neon light would this help? I can get the roter to just barly turn when I use the transistor but it will not keep the rotor turning. I have tryed a 2n3055, TIP31, and a high voltage nte2594. would the use of larger wire and sodering all connections make the differance as in your motor demos on youtube?

Twoody,

Without seeing your complete schematic, I am only guessing, but from what you have said, I assume you are trying to drive the base of your output transistor directly from the output of the optical switch. The problem in this situation is that the output current able to be supplied by the optical device is much lower than the current drive needed to fully turn on your output transistors. Check the spec sheets for each device and you will see what I mean.

Go back and look at the ideas Jetijs was working with to create one or two stages of intermediate amplification between the optical switch and the output transistors. This may help you understand how to correct your problem.

Of the transistors you mentioned, the 2N3055 should work fine once there is enough drive. The neon bulb only protects the transistor from being burned out IF the recovery circuit is disconnected during operation.

I do recommend you solder your connections.

Peter

Schpankme,

Thanks for your understanding.

Ultimately, Free Energy is only safe to give to civilized people. Otherwise, it just becomes an easy source for unlimited warfare. The real battle for civilization is in ourselves. It is up to each one of us to CHOOSE civility at all times, even when our emotions dictate otherwise. Unbridled self-expression has some extremely negative social consequences.

As things seem to be going, it looks like Free Energy is about to be released on this Savage World. I expect it to be quite a MIXED BLESSING in the early stages.

Thanks again for your voluntary commitment to choose compassion over judgment.

Peter

It's simply that there are various epoxy resins to be used and not all of them act chemically the same way with other chemicals. Why risking the reduced strength or elasticity of the hardened epoxy if there are certified epoxy separators on the market that are very cheap? That's all- I meant no harm of offense.

Indeed a lot of things are being prepared to be released commercially. Free energy? Nope. Cheap energy? Certainly.

I wonder what next 10 or 20 years will bring us?

Free energy may not be available at mass scale until we learn to live peacefully and respect each other. But maybe free energy will bring peace too. it's the chicken or the egg problem.

Here is a relavant patent by a Davis. It has a lot of simularities with Teal and what we are trying to do here. Those more versed in this business like Lightly could give a comment:
United States Patent: 4019103

"An electromagnetic motor and generator is disclosed having a pair of solenoids wound on a cylinder, each of said solenoids comprising three separate but connected windings. A magnetizable piston is positioned for reciprocation in the cylinder and is connected to a rotatably mounted crankshaft. A commutator connected to the crankshaft and interposed in an electric circuit selectively energizes the solenoids to cause rotary motion of the crankshaft. An additional circuit means is also provided for recapturing electrical energy generated in each of the solenoids upon deenergization of the solenoid by said switch. "

Thanks!

Anyone can go here and download the PDF for this patent:
Patent 4019103

Sykavy,

Yes, the Davis patent has some similarities to this project. The big drawbacks in the Davis design are as follows:

1) The power is ON in the coils too long. You can see in the text that he is only hoping to recapture about 1/3rd of the electrical energy.
2) The stator iron structure is total insufficient to produce high torque.

I have the Davis patent in my files and could have used it as an example in my DVD, but decided NOT to because it did not represent a significant advancement.

In this project, we know exactly how to produce both high torque and recapture 80% or more of the electrical input. Davis may have envisioned performance on this scale, but his design is thoroughly incapable of producing it.

He does show separate coils for recovering the electricity, but does not show how to recycle the recovered energy for immediate re-use, as we have already done in this forum.

This patent is an interesting, historical footnote, but offers nothing in the way of advancing the art at this point.

Peter

Sykavy,

I have had a chance to reread the Davis patent since I made the comments above and I have a few more things to add.

First of all, I would like to thank you for bringing this patent to the attention of the forum. There are actually a number of important issues the inventor is grappling with that are relevant to our discussion. There are also a number of important historic precedents established here.

The first thing I would like to say is that the inventor is still a little bit confused by the action of his machine. He refers to it as a "motor/generator" when in fact, it should be more properly referred to as a "motor/transformer". This is relevant to our discussion, because we are trying to build a system that behaves as a "motor/forward converter".

This patent clearly shows a simple schematic where energy from a collapsing coil is recovered to a second battery through a single diode. This predates John Bedini's monopole motor patent by 24 years, as well as all of the published circuits of the SSG project. So, the legal status of the "single diode recovery" configuration is clearly in the public domain. Bedini's SG can routinely recover 90% or more of the energy in the coil collapse, whereas Davis is hoping for 33% recovery. So obviously, the simple diode configuration is only part of the "secret" to efficient energy recovery, and Bedini's arrangement works considerably better than Davis.

Davis does show that by manipulating the coil design with various coils in parallel and series, that advantageous combinations can be found. This will always be true. There is plenty to be taken advantage of by the engineer who is advanced in his understanding of these issues.

On the mechanical energy producing side, Davis is very far behind Teal. He is essentially moving his iron plunger in an "air-core" coil situation, with no iron stator to channel the return magnetic flux. This will greatly reduce the amount of mechanical energy the machine can produce, as I demonstrate in my DVD. Plus, his commutator is ON all of the time, sending continuous power to one input coil or the other. So, Davis has not figured out how to maximize torque while minimizing electrical input.

On the electrical energy recovery side of the circuit, he shows one "run" battery, but THREE separate recovery batteries, each one for various parts of his complex coil system. By dividing the recovered energy into three parts, no single part could seem very substantial. He is also running the system like a transformer, where part of the input energy is directly "transformed" to electrical output in his tertiary coils. This directly loads the input power with back EMF to produce an output pulse. This process is totally absent in what we are trying to do here. It is also properly absent in Bedini's systems.

Historically, it is important to see that inventors have been grappling with all of these ideas for decades, and that the motor designs in this forum can be seen to have addressed most of these design issues.

There are lots of other little issues brought up in this pat