Drexel,

I am glad to see you thinking this through. OK, the motor designs I am suggesting have a passive iron rotor. This allows these motors to operate with No Back EMF and gain in efficiency because they do not create any forces or fields that buck or resist themselves. There is ONLY ONE magnetic field in the system, the field of the stator coils, and they passively attract the rotor while turning on and off.

The moment you introduce a permanent magnet in the rotor, now you have TWO MAGNETIC FIELDS in the system. These two fields can and do interact with each other. These interactions invariably cause cross inductions, leading to the Back EMF problems the passive iron rotor avoids.

The small Lenz Law forces that appear in the stator coils account for the "rise time" and the "collapse time" of the magnetic fields produced by turning the current On and OFF. The movement of the iron rotor changes the inductance of the coil/core and therefore also affects the rise time and collapse time of the magnetic fields. But these changes are small, when compared to the losses produced by Back EMF.

Perhaps you should just run a few experiments on your own so you can see what happens. Thinking about these things can only get you so far. At some point, you must "see for yourself."

Peter

I would like to direct your attention to a clever principle wich transforms linear movement to rotary movement. Green Steam Engine Home Page
It seems to me that this type of motor would be very practical when the cylinders are exchanged with coils/ironpistons?

I like the idea of feeding the coils a high voltage - short discharge, and to capture the voltage spike efterwards, and to have a "multicylinder" setup. The torque could possibly be extremly high and yet smooth?

/Lars

Hi Peter
I watched your DVD again.
Now maybe I understand better. But i'll try and explain what I think I understood.
Id like to focus on Teals set-up.
I understand the most torque from the magnetic attraction means the iron needs to be very close.
Why then is there a iron lip on the top of the coil. I still don't understand that.
Also could the spool for the coil be wraped around a copper pipe or does it need to be plastic?

Sykavy,

Thanks for your questions.

The purpose of the "iron lip" on the top, inside of the coil is to close the magnetic field HALF WAY through the stroke. This allows the power stroke (point of strongest attraction) to coincide with the mid-point on the crank shaft (point of greatest tangential force). This arrangement allows the motor to produce the highest amount of mechanical energy for the least amount of electrical input.

The drawings I have used in the DVD are not the only configuration that will work to create this set of conditions. Its only meant to illustrate the point.

If the coil is wrapped on a copper pipe, the copper will act as a "shorted turn" one loop secondary coil and create Back EMF against the power coil when it turns ON and OFF. This will dramatically slow down the rise-time and decay-time of the power pulse in the coil. Since rapid rise-time and decay-time is advantageous for higher RPMs of the motor, using copper pipe like this inside the coil is not recommended.

Peter

Peter, with all respect , isn't this method, i Should say, working model, a flynn PPT motor (without any permanent magnets of course) with Bedini circuit recovering the collapsing field??

If it is more than that please reply, as I am going to water jet cut laminates within .005 thousandth air gap to rotor and build a flynn (4x force)with the recovery circuit of bedini as you also have posted and if I can add to that efficiency I would be all ears!

Ken

Dear Kenny,

The method and principles of building an electric motor with No Back EMF is MY DESIGN. I built my first working model in 1983. It could recover 80% of the electrical energy and produce high torque. This was before I ever met John Bedini. These motors produce mechanical energy at a much higher rate than any other method I know of, including Faraday's direct induction, Flynn, Bedini, or anybody. Recovery of the collapsing field is a bonus, but it is NOT NECESSARY for the mechanical energy gain.

I'm pretty sick of people like you, Kenny, (with all respect...sic) who haven't bothered to study my information, while you are perfectly willing to listen to people who obviously don't understand it. My system is NOT merely a Flynn/Bedini motor that I am stealing. None of these characterizations are true. In the last 25 years NOBODY has suggested doing what I am saying now. NOBODY!!!

Flynn's system requires permanent magnets; mine doesn't use any. Flynn's system uses a combination of a permanent magnet field AND an electromagnetic field to produce a combined magnetic field with extra strength. If you think you are going to build a unit that combines this idea with John's recovery circuit I published, what you are REALLY doing is just trying to build Bedini's BUCK-BOOST motor from his first patent. This has NOTHING to do with what I am talking about! You haven't even bothered to read all of the posts in this forum, where the distinctions are clearly defined.

Bedini's Mono-Pole system recover 95% of its electrical energy but produces low torque because the magnetic fields are open. My system produces high torque and a recovery that is not suitable for battery charging because my magnetic fields are closed down all the way, so very little Radiant Energy is produced. Actually, my system doesn't even need to recover the inductive collapse to produce energy, although it can be a bonus if it is engineered right.

If you want to learn about the benefits of building a No Back EMF motor, then buy my DVD and study the material. If not, just build your "Flynn" motor and do what you want.

Peter

Peter, you are right about I haven't read all the posts on this forum.
On just about every other active forum YES! not this one yet though.
I basically just read the posts that were from you!

I tested a simple version of your motor's attraction with iron only, no magnets and my magnetometer a long while ago, didnt know it was your idea at that point in time. I already know the torque is there, seperate from the other motors, except flynn 4x the normal torque. And a recovery circuit from another. The reason I posted is I am trying to get the MAX torque from all the technology I am aware of and put it all together in one motor (or as close as the similiarities approach each other anyway). And I know how to get (3 squared), 9x the torque from a flynn now.


But good on ya. I give credit where credit is due.
I was under the impression BACK EMF recovery was Bedini.
CHeers mate for finding it out.
Good luck with your passion.
Thanks for replying!

Ken

Thank you for your answer!
I think i understand better now. Could the coil be just a normal winding then?
What gauge and how many windings would you suggest?
One thing i saw on your DVD was a patent with a "v" noch in the top of the moving iron core to about half way down. Would that be a good idea?

I like the simplicity of Teal's design to get me started. Your designs would be a natural progression to being more efficiant and less friction. But Teal's seems easier for a tinker to experiment on; trying to understand what's going on then to perfect it.

I really appriciate you making these alternative ways known! Especially for us tinkers who have no formal education in electronics. It will pay off sometime and God will reward your nobel efforts.

It would be great if people could start experimenting with your ideas from your DVD like they do John B.'s Monopole.

For some reason it has captured my imagination more than John's Monopole.

Ken,

Who invented Back EMF recovery? NOBODY! Joseph Henry invented the first electro-magnet, in 1821, using power from a battery running in a coil of wire. He was the first to see that when contact is broken, a big spark appears. Various researchers and scientists, since then, have studied this phenomena. Most people considered the effect a nuisance. Tesla was the first to suggest that there was a new form of energy in this discharge. Most people ignored him too. I credit John Bedini for working out how to use this energy to charge batteries. Scouring the historic record, nobody else figured out how to do that.

Bob Teal knew the energy was there to recover, but only figured out how to light light bulbs with it. This can be seen in the interview clips and the still photos of his motors. Even in my 1983 Flux Motor design, we had the energy recovery, but we never applied it to recharge a battery. Ed Gray was charging capacitors, dumping the charge into an inductor, getting the mechanical energy production, AND recovering the inductive collapse to charge another capacitor. Gray EXPLODED batteries trying to recover the energy, but never really figured that part out.

So, JOHN BEDINI is rightly credited with INVENTING the circuits and methods for safely and effectively using the energy of the inductive collapse to charge batteries. But NOBODY invented the inductive collapse. This is simply a process of nature. Every DC-to-DC converter uses the process to create a voltage rise, but there is no energy GAIN in this method. Even Rick has to covert some of the mechanical energy back to electrical to get the machine to self-run. So, the TRUTH is, the free energy in all of these machines shows up as MECHANICAL ENERGY! Nobody is claiming more that 95% electrical recovery in the Mono-Pole motors.

Also, I do not claim to have invented either the No Back EMF motor or the idea of attracting iron to an electromagnet. That would be preposterous, in the extreme. I do claim to have built working models of No Back EMF magnetic attraction motors in 1983. I do claim to UNDERSTAND the conditions that must be satisfied to maximize the production of mechanical energy in these motors, and I do claim to appreciate the benefits of using these methods over all others. That is what my DVD is about.

You have seen, in your own experiments, that the torque is there in the methods I am discussing. You have also said that you can produce 9x torque using a Flynn type design. So, the question is, HOW MUCH electricity does it take to create each effect? You don't need MAX torque, you just need the max torque for the least electrical input. If you focus on this question, it will show YOU what direction YOUR research should take.

You want to build the "ultimate machine" and you want it to be the next one you build. DON'T WE ALL! The only thing you can do is build your next machine, based on the best knowledge you have at this time. That's what we all do. John Bedini has THE LARGEST museum of machines that were built and tested of anyone that I know of. He found what he was looking for! I have also built and tested over 50 different experimental designs. I also found what I was looking for. John and I were looking for different things.

What are you looking for?

Peter

What I look for or I will say that my journey here is: to continually improve, the efficiency of my machines with all currently available knowledge applied.

what "I can do" as you describe, I have already done sir. thru many experimenting. i haven't built 50, but I also have already built and found the 'machine' I was looking for last year which is a offshoot of many different ppl's inventions put together.. a combination of hi voltage pulses very hi freq (tesla) low current generator neo magnets hi torque with back recovery like margratten's , with a leading front edge pulse floating ground (bedini) recovery, that does reach >COP1.0. but that was a smaller scale with the machining I had available at the time.

But it does not stop there, it won't ever stop somewhere at a point in
time for me. there is no one 'ultimate machine' with me. always more to
learn and apply. to EXPERIMENT AND OBSERVE of this world. it is my favorite blessing and curse!

At this point in the game I see a exponential increase in the efficency of 'energy out with the least amount of electrical energy in' with all of the info obtained as of recent. yours also contributing.
And I see how this applies to my NEXT build.

may you experience the same.

Ken

Ken,

Sounds like you are well along in your research. I have looked for the "easiest, simplest, low-tech" method that works. Something that will run for years with no maintenance and just hum along in the closet. Something that can be built from junk, lying around, or fixed with a saw and a hammer.... and maybe a file and a screw driver too!

No sense knowing how to build a machine if it can't keep your own lights on.

Best wishes,

Peter

Hallo Peter and thanks for the reply regarding the old FLuxgate generator and your work on it. If you have the time and feel like it, please supply us with the data and info regarding that device.

Now you might already knew this one, but here is a very detailed and helpful patent which describes a means and method of building motors and generators which do not suffer from Back emf / or Lenz Law. Even more so the back emf is rendered so that is aids motor motion or generated output power. See it here: http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat6169343.pdf
or
Motor and generator wherein magnetism aids motion - Google Patents

I know you have always been interested in Gray radiant energy stuff, well some old video's have been surfacing lately. So helpfully people will show more interest in the old Gray stuff and related Tesla technology's in the near future.
Here are some shots from the conversion tubes for example:
http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Gray/Tube1.jpg
http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Gray/Tube2.jpg
http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Gray/Tube3.jpg
http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Gray/Tube4.jpg
http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Gray/MaybeTube5.jpg
http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Gray/TableSys.jpg
http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Gray/TableSys2.jpg

Steven

Hello all,
Just for info and inspiration, here are some other 'No-load' generators:

No-load generator - Google Patents

and

Alternating current generator - Google Patents

Steven

Steven,

This is not the right forum to discuss the Flux-Gate Generators or the Ed Gray Conversion Tube designs. Please start a new thread for other topics and keep this one for the discussion of No Back EMF Motors.

Thanks,

Peter

Steven,

Just so people are clear. A fair number of patents have issued in the last 20 years on No Back EMF motors and generators. But there are still a few of us around who were doing this more than 25 years ago, who never filed for patents. Both John Bedini and I had working systems that date from the early 1980's, and John has some stuff that dates earlier than that.

The "free energy" community has been GROPING around for the last 20 years, looking for a simple ENERGY GAIN methodology. The No Back EMF methods ARE one such method that people, for the most part, are not aware of. Those of us who have known this, and known for DECADES, have been quiet about it, thinking some business opportunity might arise. I no longer believe the business opportunity will arise, so I am PUBLISHING what I know.

The designs and methods for producing No Back EMF Generators are much more complex than the Motor designs. This forum is to share information on the No Back EMF Motor designs to those who wish to learn. I am NOT interested in CHATTING or COMMENTING on dozens of semi-related ideas.

Please keep this thread focussed on Bob Teal, No Back EMF Motors, and the presentation of my DVD Electric Motor Secrets. Thank you.

Peter

Hi Peter

I have one question about the no-Back-EMF-Motor

Would it be possible to run it like a electric coil-gun?
Below I give two websites on the basics on how coil-guns function, for those, who haven’t heard about it or might need more detailed info.
You will see that it is very similar to the no-back-EMF-Motor.

Theory
Experiments - Thyristor Fired Coilgun

The piston might need to be a bit shorter than what you show in one of your videos, so it can accelerate nicely in the coil and won’t get stuck. These coil-guns produce tremendous powers. If now this projectile would work like a kind of air-spring it theoretically should make a nice motor?! The piston would compress the air together, with tremendous power, the compressed air acts like a spring and presses the piston back into its original position. Springs in common show a weird effect, physics can not really explain. If it discharges or releases the force a two to three times stronger force will result, which was invested in the compressing of the spring. Naudin made good experiments with springs one can see them on his website, with OU effects. This would give a nice interaction, and the invested energy would be recovered in this way.

But what occupies me much more is if the coils could not be directly fed with dielectricity and thereby built up a magnetic field in the coil, which after the collapse would invert into a dielectric field, which could be caught in a capacitor again.

Lighty and I in the past two years did experiments with positive and negative dielectric spikes and could observe very interesting effects in the coils. Although there almost was no current going into the coils a striking effect occurs on the magnetic fields and the magnet jumps under the influence of this force. On the other hand magnetic materials like iron or mu-metals react almost not at all, or the reaction is very weak.

If a magnetic projectile would be taken now, instead of an iron-piston one would need very little energy to run it.

If I remember well, did the inventor Bob Teal use his invention for air compressors? Could it be he simply had an air-spring which could recover its energy?

Best of greetings,
Shad