Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2018 ENERGY CONFERENCE - ALL SEATS SOLD OUT!

2018 Energy Science & Technology Conference
Sponsored by Teslacoin Foundation

Teslacoin Foundation

http://tesla-coin.com


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.

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #91  
Old 05-17-2007, 05:10 AM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,191
Passive vs Active Rotor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexel View Post
Dear Dr. Lindemann,

Thank you for the clear explanation, now the "missing" Lenz effects make sense. To approach this problem from an energy viewpoint, the iron rotor piece requires no energy from the coil via transformer action so no energy is needed from the coil, except for the small losses induced in the iron rotor caused by eddy currents. It also appears that the eddy losses in iron may be the small Lenz effect you discussed - is this correct?

Taking this a step further, what if the passive iron rotor piece was replaced by a permanent magnet? This change now seems to make things much more complicated. With the right polarities the approaching attraction part should be enhanced, but now the leaving magnetic fields are going to want to induce currents into the coil to oppose the motor action. If the coil circuit is opened at that point then very high voltages should result. Does this make sense?

Thank you for your patience with beginners.

Sincerely,

Drexel
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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote

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

  #92  
Old 05-21-2007, 06:47 AM
Larz Larz is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Landskrona, sweden
Posts: 4
Engine design

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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 05-22-2007, 06:46 PM
sykavy sykavy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 184
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?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 05-22-2007, 07:58 PM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,191
Slowly getting it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sykavy View Post
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 wrapped 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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 05-24-2007, 08:52 PM
kenny_PPM kenny_PPM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 42
Flynn motor ??

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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 05-25-2007, 02:06 AM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,191
For the Last Time!

Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny_PPM View Post
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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 05-25-2007, 02:55 AM
kenny_PPM kenny_PPM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 42
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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 05-25-2007, 03:06 AM
sykavy sykavy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Lindemann View Post
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
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.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 05-25-2007, 04:52 AM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,191
Let's Be Perfectly Clear...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny_PPM View Post
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
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
__________________
 

Last edited by Peter Lindemann; 05-25-2007 at 05:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 05-25-2007, 03:48 PM
kenny_PPM kenny_PPM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Lindemann View Post
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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 05-25-2007, 06:38 PM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,191
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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 05-27-2007, 09:40 PM
nali2001 nali2001 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 82
To Lindemann

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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 05-28-2007, 12:35 PM
nali2001 nali2001 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 82
More 'No-load' generators

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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 05-30-2007, 02:59 AM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,191
Not the right forum...

Quote:
Originally Posted by nali2001 View Post
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
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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 05-30-2007, 03:18 AM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,191
No Load Generators...

Quote:
Originally Posted by nali2001 View Post
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,

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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 05-31-2007, 07:48 PM
Shad's Avatar
Shad Shad is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Croatia
Posts: 9
no load generators...

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
__________________
Only dead fish swim with the stream. Are you alive?
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 06-01-2007, 04:37 AM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,191
Why not....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shad View Post
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
Shad,

The question you are asking is "can the magnetic attraction motor be run from capacitor discharges?" The answer is YES. Ben discussed doing just that in post #39 in this forum. You can see in the schematic of your coilgun that the energy of the inductive collapse is thrown away with the shorting diode 1N5402. It would be simple to divert this into a second capacitor to conserve the majority of this charge for the next shot. With a 10ms discharge, a very high percentage of the energy could be recovered for another use.

Ed Gray was doing what you suggest with the dielectric discharges. He was able to repel plastic projectiles with extremely high force using dielectric discharges. He claimed he could launch a plastic projectile with a million amps and accelerate it to 88,000 feet per second in under 0.001 second. So, YES, your ideas are correct.

As for the air compressor part of Teal's second patent, it looks like an attempt by his patent attorney to toss in another application. None of the pictures, videos or other company literature ever shows or mentions the air compressor feature. Building an electric motor with high torque and low electricity consumption was the primary purpose of the design, as far as I can tell.

Peter
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 06-01-2007, 08:48 AM
Shad's Avatar
Shad Shad is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Croatia
Posts: 9
Hi Peter

Many thanks for these insights!
I would very much like to learn some things from you, especially about dielectricity and on how to use it in motors. After doing these dielectricity-discharge-experiments together with Lighty, I ‘fell in love’ with this kind of electricity and it won’t leave my thoughts, I constantly have to think about ‘her’  I am even dreaming of it. My wife could be jealous already…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Lindemann View Post
The question you are asking is "can the magnetic attraction motor be run from capacitor discharges?" The answer is YES. Ben discussed doing just that in post #39 in this forum. You can see in the schematic of your coilgun that the energy of the inductive collapse is thrown away with the shorting diode 1N5402. It would be simple to divert this into a second capacitor to conserve the majority of this charge for the next shot. With a 10ms discharge, a very high percentage of the energy could be recovered for another use.
This inductive collapse energy has two polarities, -/+, which of the two is more suitable to charge the batteries? I am sure you know a lot about the properties of this kind of dielectricity. Are there differences between positive and negative dielectricity? It seems to me as there was, but I don’t have as much experience as you do with this. I have the feeling that the positive dielectricity likes to charge dielectrics, such as plastic, etc. while the negative dielectricity likes to charge conductive materials, and that the positive heats up and the negative not.

Could you help me out here a bit, in case you have data or so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Lindemann View Post
Ed Gray was doing what you suggest with the dielectric discharges. He was able to repel plastic projectiles with extremely high force using dielectric discharges. He claimed he could launch a plastic projectile with a million amps and accelerate it to 88,000 feet per second in under 0.001 second. So, YES, your ideas are correct.
This is very encouraging! I will definitely have to try that, trying to make a no-load motor of that.

How did Ed Gray create the dielectricity to repel plastic projectiles? Did he use coils or asymmetric capacitors to repel the projectiles?

I am grateful for any tiny information you can give here!

Best of greetings,
Shad
__________________
Only dead fish swim with the stream. Are you alive?
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 06-02-2007, 04:26 PM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,191
I have to be fair....

Shad,

I don't mind discussing these things with you, but this post is 100% off topic for this group. It should be in the Radiant Energy Forum. I am not going to address these questions in this forum.

If we don't hold the line and limit this forum to Bob Teal, and No Back EMF attraction motors, it will digress into a forum about everything. I am not in other forums, because I DO NOT CHAT!!! I'm far to busy for that. I will help anyone, at any level, learn about advanced energy ideas, but I am not interested in commenting on every little detail of someone else's research. Its like trying to practice medicine over the phone. IT CAN'T BE DONE!

It isn't fair to ask Steven to stay on topic, without asking you to do the same.

Sorry,

Peter
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 06-06-2007, 03:07 AM
Drexel Drexel is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3
Rotating attraction motor?

Dear Dr. Lindemann,

In my searching for a suitable geometry for an attraction motor design I came across an application note AN1912 that is available on:

Welcome to Freescale Semiconductor

Search using AN1912 in "enter keyword" and take the first choice to download AN1912.pdf.

This technology is described as a Switched Reluctance motor. The note provides some theory as to its operation beginning on page 5. This SR technology appears to be a rotary version of an attraction motor but no reference is made to any COP performance.

I think I must be missing something here. I would appreciate your thoughts on this note.

Sincerely,

Drexel
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 06-06-2007, 05:26 AM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,191
Been there, done that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexel View Post
Dear Dr. Lindemann,

In my searching for a suitable geometry for an attraction motor design I came across an application note AN1912 that is available on:

Welcome to Freescale Semiconductor

Search using AN1912 in "enter keyword" and take the first choice to download AN1912.pdf.

This technology is described as a Switched Reluctance motor. The note provides some theory as to its operation beginning on page 5. This SR technology appears to be a rotary version of an attraction motor but no reference is made to any COP performance.

I think I must be missing something here. I would appreciate your thoughts on this note.

Sincerely,

Drexel
Drexel,

I have already answered these questions relating to Switched Reluctance Motors in Post #61.

If you want to discover something NEW, you have to build the machine and test it yourself. If you don't want to build and test the machine yourself, then you have to decide who you are going to believe. If you refuse to decide who to believe, then you are left right where you are.....not knowing.

I was first introduced to the work of Bob Teal in 1979. It took me until 2007 to figure everything out about the rotary magnetic attraction motors. It took me 28 years, so if it doesn't come to you right away, don't feel bad. Just read ALL of the posts in this Forum again. I have stated all of the necessary principles in earlier posts.

Peter
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 06-18-2007, 12:15 AM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,191
See for yourself....

Everybody,

With the help of a friend, I have built a Rotary Attraction Motor from a Series Wound DC motor. All of the windings have been removed from the rotor and the iron sections shaved off to produce more of a "bar rotor" shape. Aaron came by last week and made a video of the motor that will be posted soon. He will also post the schematic, pictures of the rotor modifications, and pictures of the whole set up.

For those of you who have been "waiting and wondering", I hope this helps you focus your interest in this line of research. Please wait for Aaron to post these new materials before asking any questions. Thank you.

Best wishes,

Peter
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 06-18-2007, 05:09 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,749
Lindemann Rotary Attraction Motor

Hi all,



Please visit this link for the the following video
Lindemann Rotary Attraction Motor


Scroll down on that page until you see the video download link that looks like the above link. That will allow you to download the wmv video.


6.21mb video in WMV format 8 minutes long


This proves this new type of motor can be built by modifying off-the-shelf motors. This demonstrates all of the basic principles in the Electric Motor Secrets DVD. No efficiency or power claims are made. This is simply an early test to demonstrate the principles. Closing the gap will increase the power.


Here are a few pics of the modification:












__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 06-18-2007, 07:59 AM
gyula gyula is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 809
Some more measurement data?

Hi Peter and Aaron,

I am pleased to see you have tested the Rotary Attraction motor principle in practice and your presented experiment is most welcome!

Can I hope to learn about some more measurement data on the modified motor when they are available? Mainly thinking of how the original / unmodified motor input power need and its loadability compares to that of the modified one.

I think many are interested in these data too.

Regards
Gyula
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 06-18-2007, 08:09 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,749
power output

Hi Gyula,

Peter will give you the more technical answer on this but what I understand is that the motor you you see has the same gap as an unmodified one. With a larger gap like this, there is a lot less power. I don't think it is practical to close the gap by adding anything to the rotor, etc... but a rotor can be made so that the gap is smaller if made that way from the beginning.

Peter was explaining to me about the concept of the math of the increase in the power by decreasing the gap. I don't understand the numbers but I'm very excited to see one of these that has a rotor made to have a very, very, very small gap. If the current rotor had a gap 2/3 smaller, the power could be 3 times as much for the exact same input. That comparison may not be accurate but that is the concept anyway.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 06-18-2007, 08:58 AM
gyula gyula is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 809
re power output

Hi Aaron,

Thanks for your answer.

I understand the performance of this motor greatly depends on the air gap between rotor and stator. So it is not fair to compare performances of the modified and unmodified motors once the modified motor has inherent power increasing possibility of decreasing the gap... But then this is not valid for the unmodified motor too, I wonder?
Also I understand the presently modified motor has a 'two segment' rotor shape and Peter showed a 'four segment' rotor shape in his drawings, so this also can make an improvement for the modified motor performance. So now i see comparisons can be made with care.

Regards
Gyula
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 06-19-2007, 12:42 AM
sykavy sykavy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 184
I know im being a jerk for saying this but doesnt it make sense to show one with a small air gap?
I mean, we would like to take the internet by storm like the SG motor. But this demonstration, and the one on the DVD suffer from not having the WOW factor, that it is extremely powerful for the imput. This may rankel ya'll but if we want people to try it some more concrete proof (wow factor) needs to be forthcoming.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 06-19-2007, 04:36 AM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,191
Re: Some more measurement data

Quote:
Originally Posted by gyula View Post
Hi Peter and Aaron,

I am pleased to see you have tested the Rotary Attraction motor principle in practice and your presented experiment is most welcome!

Can I hope to learn about some more measurement data on the modified motor when they are available? Mainly thinking of how the original / unmodified motor input power need and its loadability compares to that of the modified one.

I think many are interested in these data too.

Regards
Gyula
Dear Gyula,

This motor has both advantages and disadvantages. It represents an experiment to see if an off-the-shelf motor can be converted to run on the attraction motor principles. The answer is, it can. This motor was made WITHOUT any machine tools, like a lathe or a mill. This makes this model well within the realm of many backyard experimenters to build and learn its principles of operation from. That is the advantage.

The disadvantage is that it carries forward all of the inherent design characteristics of the motor it was made from. It happened that this motor was handy for the first experiment of this kind. It had an air-gap of .021 inches, and was wound for 115 volt AC or DC operation. It is rated at 1/4th horse power, and probably has an efficiency of about 75% (not measured by me).

In its unmodified form, this style of induction motor produces torque by the current running in the rotor windings as they intersect the stator's magnetic field. The gap is made larger in these commercial motors so as the bearings wear out, the motor will continue to run without the rotor hitting the side of the stator. These motors are designed for longevity of operation, NOT for high efficiency.

The purpose of posting the movie and pictures is NOT to prove to you all that you can make a "free energy" motor out of this. It is to demonstrate that the principles of the rotary attraction motor are universal and can be made from a variety of motor geometries.

This motor demonstrates all of the principles I discuss in the DVD, so you can see them with your own eyes. But, the torque is not maximum because the gap can still be closer, and the electrical recovery is not maximum because the ON time is longer than it takes to magnetize the iron in the stator. If you understand what this means, then you are learning something. If you want everything shown to you on a Silver Platter, then you have to wait longer.

Measurements of the torque on this model have been a challenge. All I have is the aluminum pulley to work with. I made 4 different leather straps to make the dynomometer braking mechanism with, and each one grabbed the curved, inside edge of the pulley violently at a certain point and made the process very dangerous. I then tried a piece of nylon rope, which worked OK, but it also stretched, so all of the deflection was not on the spring scales. This made the reading of the torque artificially lower by some unknown amount. Even so, the initial torque measurement for this decidedly flawed set-up was 22% efficiency for the mechanical energy created and about 20% electrical recovery. Considering the very simple circuit running it and the off-the-shelf nature of the physical geometry, NOT BAD. It shows that torque can be produced, with room for improvement by making the air-gap smaller, and that electricity can be recovered, with lots of room for improvement, by timing the impulses appropriately.

Obviously, there is no "free energy" being demonstrated. But that wasn't the point of showing it.

All I am trying to convey is that there is another motoring principle here that works, that is different than direct induction (Faraday), the Bedini SG method, or switched reluctance. Each of these motoring principles has advantages and disadvantages.

So, if you find a commercial motor with a close gap to start with, and apply the principles to maximize the electrical recovery, there is no reason a motor with 80-90% mechanical efficiency can't be made that also practices 80-90% electrical recovery. With some simple circuits, the recovered electricity can be put back on the front of the circuit, so (worst case scenario) an 80% mechancial energy production can be produced for a 20% input (100% - 80% = 20%). That is a COP of 4.

I hope this extra detail helps you understand, not only what this model is doing, but also what is still possible as improvements.

Peter
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 06-19-2007, 05:26 AM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,191
WOW factor, not included...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sykavy View Post
I know im being a jerk for saying this but doesnt it make sense to show one with a small air gap?
I mean, we would like to take the internet by storm like the SG motor. But this demonstration, and the one on the DVD suffer from not having the WOW factor, that it is extremely powerful for the imput. This may rankel ya'll but if we want people to try it some more concrete proof (wow factor) needs to be forthcoming.
Dear Sykavy,

When you know you are about to be a jerk, you always have the option of restraining yourself! But since we know you are just starting to learn about all of this, you are forgiven. If I was trying to SHOW you, or PROVE to you that I had a free energy machine, I would just do it. Actually, I am trying to do something even more important for you. GET YOU TO THINK!! Once you get the hang of it, you might be able to show yourself a free energy machine. Now, wouldn't that be something!

Personally, I have NO INTENTION of taking the internet by storm, or providing concrete proof that this works. I am offering an opportunity for you to learn the principles of operation of an extraordinary machine. There are other machines out there that are just as good, but this one works very well and is easy to understand.

Contrary to popular belief, the world does not run on WOW. Society runs on knowledge, understanding, and a huge set of mutual agreements. These technologies have been frozen out of the market for over 100 years, and WOW is not going to be enough to break the boycott. Only thousands of people, who actually UNDERSTAND the technology, will be able to make a small dent in this situation. You are welcome to buckle down and learn this, or go play some other video games. I'm not here to entertain you.

Peter
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 06-19-2007, 01:58 PM
nali2001 nali2001 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 82
To Lindemann and all - system suggestion

To Lindemann and all
Hello Peter I saw your new video of the modified motor. Interesting indeed. A nice clear demonstration. Well I thought have an optimization suggestion here for the general idea of no back emf switched reluctance motors. You also mentioned that to ‘on’ time of the coil was longer then the time it would initially take to saturate the steel. So the ‘on’ pulse power after the maximum saturation level is reached is unrecoverable by back emf recovery means. Although the long pulse is needed indeed to get any torque whatsoever. Since in the example motor you made, the power ‘on’ stroke is quite long because of the large degree of rotation (per pulse) the rotor must travel to get some attraction going.

Well I have here a ‘simple’ adaptation to such systems:
This adaptation will allow you to switch a lot more times in one rotation attraction stroke. This has the advantage that you can now compress allot more magnetic attraction is a small area a lot of times per rotation. Another advantage of the multiple pulses is that you can stay under the saturation level per pulse and so you can theoretically recover “all” the pulsed power.

I know the extra slots in these images are not really at the right alignment, but is should be good enough to get the general idea:

http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Linde/1.jpg

http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Linde/2.jpg

http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Linde/3.jpg

http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Linde/4.jpg

Also a simple movie showing each attraction pulse place:

Motor suggestion animation

Only thing is or course that the material should be able to handle the frequency. Plus the pulse timing must be more precise.

But this system has some huge advantages; you might want to consider it.
And oh yeah, these cores can be found in washing machine motors, you only need to cut these extra slots yourself.

http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/Lind...ingmachine.jpg

Thank you for your time.
Steven
__________________
 

Last edited by nali2001; 06-19-2007 at 02:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 04:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers