Dear Peter,

Thanks for your informative answer, I appreciate it. I think the core of your answer boils down mainly to the above text I left quoted from your letter.

I have pondered on what the best shapes and the number of segments for the rotor and stator of your rotary attraction motor setup could be chosen? i.e. apart from the minimum air gap attainable with precision, you indicated initially a cross shape (four bars) for the rotor.
I wonder if the number of the bars on the rotor is increased, do we get more torque? Naturally the on time in this case should be chosen accordingly (it reduces) and also the mechanical size (the 30 degree arc) of the bar also should be modified accordingly.

So what do suggest as an optimum solution for a given output torque?

My question is slightly related with that of Steven I have just seen his excellent animation/pictures but somehow I feel that the 5 - 5 segments on his stator should be supplied with 5 individual coil pairs (and not with 2 coils for the 5 - 5 segments) and switch on only one opposing coil pair at a time with the control logic means because this way the flux I create from the input can be focused to the rotor area just approaching for attraction.
What do you think?

Regards
Gyula

Steven,

Thanks for reviewing the latest materials. Especially, thanks for thinking about how to improve the processes.

When using the left-over rotor from a modified series motor, the rotor iron ends up having slots in it. I believe this introduces unwanted and unnecessary inefficiencies in the magnetic attraction process, by breaking up one, continuous attraction into a number of smaller attractions. Adding extra slots to the stator pole faces, I think, only makes this situation more complicated. You can see that the effect of your suggestion is to ADD more AIR space to the rotor/stator interface zone. Since it is generally agreed that the air-gap introduces inefficiencies, and that the optimum design would use the smallest practicable air-gap, I predict that your suggestion may not produce the benefit you anticipate.

I believe that a new, solid core rotor piece facing the solid core stator piece will give better results. But, that is my opinion. Like I said, I'm glad to see you thinking about this. You should try your adaptation, and see what it does. The experimental results are the truth.

Another possible solution is to break up the input ON time into a series of shorter pulses, based on the rise-time of the inductor. I believe this will produce a more beneficial effect by maximizing the electrical recovery and by maximizing the amount of the motor torque produced by the electrical recovery. This is the new motoring principle I describe at the end of the DVD. The new motor movie clearly shows that the motor works on less input when the electrical recovery produces its share of the motor torque.

Each different stator/rotor arrangement will have adaptations of the principles that maximize its operations.

Thanks for suggesting that people can find this type of iron lamination stator core from old washing machine motors. This gives home experimenters another possible starting point from which to begin. Thanks!

Peter

Yeah pulsing the same coil multiple times with the same rotor as you drew in the picture might indeed also have good results.

Anyway I got the idea from this page:
Waveform Optimization

Steven

I may be barging here with probably a bit complicated idea, but why not using an MCU to pulse the coil on some higher frequency up until the point of the predefined highest saturation? One could then use adaptable software to make the motor self-adjustable- point of turn on and off would be taken by opto-switch and the SenseFET could be used to constantly measure the current consumption thus determining the saturation of the core and adjusting the duty cycle accordingly, one would then only need to measure rotational speed of rotor (with the earlier mentioned opto-switch) and to adjust the frequency accordingly.

It's quite a bit more complex configuration but it's doable with any off the shelf 8-bit MCU.


One thing that's bothering me though is the torque of the presented motor. I mean it's a very good thing that the Back-EMF is reduced and the torque doesn't affect load but did anybody tried to measure torque of that configuration (no matter it's not ideally made) and to determine some consumption/torque relationship that could be use as a point of reference to compare it to subsequent designs or even compare it with other technologies altogether?

Thank you for forgiving me BUT
If you dont PROVE that you can get MORE torque all you have a very efficiant TOY. Heck there was no measurement of torque at all! I know it isnt a free energy device. The SG motor was used as an example of what it says it produces it will produce. As of yet you have not POVEN the air gap is the problem neither on the DVD or the recent video. I would like your idea to be successful and break out the alternative energy getto. Im not looking to be entertained but it would be nice to SEE concrete EVIDENCE for the torque you say COULD BE there.

Lighty,

Your idea of using an 8-bit logic chip to control the circuit can definitely work. This is for advanced engineers and is beyond most backyard experimenters. I am researching various approaches. I am also looking at going in the other direction and modifying the brush commutator to run the motor. That way, only a diode to channel the kick back would need to be added.

I'm not sure setting an efficiency benchmark to build from with the current modified motor is useful. It has too many built-in design features that reduce the efficiency. This was just a first test to see if a series wound motor could be modified to produce a rotary attraction motor. For those of us who are working on this project, it proved that further work on this idea is worthwhile. We have already identified an other, larger series motor that has a much tighter air-gap. More extensive modification will be made to this second motor, to try to make up for more of its deficiencies.

I have shared what we have done so far. That's all.

Peter

This is my first post to the forum. Upon completing my third review of Dr. Lindemans DVD I found it a refreshing change of attitude. I have read all of the post in this forum up till the last one posted by Dr. Lindeman.

My first impression was that the update showing the motor armature being cut was the irregularities (non-smoothness) of the armature. I have had some experience with this type of rough surface and what to do about it, although in my case it was because I was trying to balance a flywheel. What I did was to use Iron filings I purchased from Edmond Scientifics and mixed them with marine epoxy/hardner. In my case I placed them into a mold I made of wood, then when dry I shaved and cut the wood away. The same type of method may work to smooth out the rough ruts by finding a paper tube, like the ones that wrapping paper comes on and simply put it over the rough part of the armature. It would have to fit snug then just fill in the cavity(s). I have also found that if the epoxy is a little rough, it's not hard to mill it or sand it to the exact shape you need. This may come in handy should we find that it is necesary to have a specific gap to get the armature to a desired speed.

Just a thought I wanted to share with anyone who might find it useful for whatever stage they may be at.

Also I was looking at the circuit in the DVD and found that I have everything in my "surplus" (junk) pile in the basement so I am going to get this circuit together by the end of this weekend.

Keep the great posts coming.

Dear Forum Members,

I assume many of you have seen the news that the Steorn Magnet Motor public demonstration failed to work. It is my personal opinion that this demonstration was probably interfered with somehow, since it worked for 4 hours the day before, and then developed "friction" problems in the display case. They have had multiple working models for years, having asked over 100 Universities to test them in private.

As I have stated in my public writings for years, I do not believe the authorities will allow an unequivocal demonstration of a fuel-less power plant in the foreseeable future. If you want one, you are going to have to learn how to think, build models, test them, and share quietly with your friends.

I have told you everything you need to know about how to build an electric motor that can produce 80% mechanical energy and return 80% of its input electrical power. That is enough to build an electric motor with a COP = 4. The probability of me being able to SHOW you anything more is low.

I encourage all of you who have been waiting to see a finished model to start experimenting. Print out everything I have posted in this Forum and study it until you understand it. Then build a model.

Best wishes,

Peter

Hello to everyone in forum
I am reading post and see we are not asking right question, we must use logic. Motor will have magnetic field of increasing time or increasing magnitude this is obvious, Bob Teal he is using impulse current this is obvious. We will see this is Tesla circuit, Bob Teal patent 4093880 is tesla circuit so I will explain. Primary coil is 18, secondary coil is 18', switch 63 is transformer primary battery DC to impulse currents, capacitor 61 it is resistance to electric current it is raising potential. Primary coil 18, secondary 18', capacitor 61 this is tesla special transformer. We will not use semiconductor in circuit potential is electrostatic, semiconductor will not be working here. You do not see this so we begin, primary coil 18 of coarse wire it is charging through switch 63 it is closing and its potential is raised, secondary coil 18' of fine wire it is resisting electric current, secondary coil 18' is wound over primary 18 both potential is raised. Switch 63 it is open, primary coil 18 is having negative discharge into capacitor 63, this is series circuit with primary battery it is charging. Now you will see primary coil 18 is negative plate in capacitor 18-18', secondary coil 18' is positive plate,next secondary coil 18' it is discharging into primary coil 18, capacitor it is discharging into primary coil 18 and we have high potential impulse cycle. You see primary battery is tension on capacitor 61 in cycle not electric current, tension. We see the negative discharge in primary coil 18 is dynamic having infinate potential over resistance, our primary battery is static potential, it is not changing. You see this is easy circuit but is important primary coil 18, secondary coil 18' is same mass. We will calculate volume of copper wire in coils, Area x Length, these are being equal. Now you understand Nicola Tesla circuit is resistive capacitor in resonant state, it is conserving energy no creating, conservation.

Dear NT2,

Thank you for taking the time to think about Bob Teal's patents and circuits. Relating them back to Tesla is a creative exercise. To the best of my knowledge, Teal's Magnapulsion Engine circuit did not require a resonant energy circulation to produce high torque. The torque is produced by keeping the air-gap to a minimum.

While your circuit analysis is interesting speculation, I suggest that you actually build a model and see if it operates according to your theory.

The motors are already proven to run very well with simple switching and recovery methods discussed on this forum, and elsewhere.

Good luck with your ideas, and thanks for THINKING outside the box!

Peter

Hello Peter Lindemann
I am having great respect for you, many people they are afraid to fail, they are being afraid to succeed, they are thinking if they try there shadow will turn and bite them on ass.
I am building your attraction motor many years ago and is working fine today, is logical motor. But we must look deeper, you are saying torque is in small air gap but we must understand what is in air gap. Stator is dipole, is creating dipole in rotor so we see all energy in motor must exist in air gap, a void. You will call it bloch wall or neutral point of zero magnetic pole, people they are just understanding the power of void, we must ask how can there be reaction to energy we apply at void?
See Bob Teal patent, he is having two coils 18-18', I am thinking this is not for giggles there must be purpose. He is changing patents but his two coils remain? Why two coils is question we must contemplate, we will see function not form, form it is misleading us.

Hi Peter,

How I so wish to understand what you are explaining with such exactitude!! As I observe this thread, All I can feel is that I "know nothing"!!! Is there a way that individuals such as myself can experience what you know without the "feeling" of complete ignorance?

It is my desire to be of assistance to this cause, but I can't help if I can't even explain what I wish to address and/or understand!!

Please Please make this more understandable for those of us that are just "reading"! (meaning those of us that are completely ignorant!!)

Is this Possible?

PLease know that I ask this with much Honor and RESPECT!! You are amazing and I only wish to understand your amazing concepts

Thank you so very much for your time and effort you give to this Forum!!!

Hello Peter. I was wondering, what airgap size would be a good value in your opinion. I’m asking this because you (as I remember correctly) said the airgap in your demo motor was too large, well here we use cm and mm so when you said it had a 0.021 inch gap I never took the ‘trouble’ to convert it to mm to get a better sense of size. Well I just did a conversion and I was kind of surprised that you call a 0.021 inch or 0.53mm gap too large. I mean in my opinion it is pretty small already. I remember from my fluxgate “Ecklin” generators (sorry for that) that getting super tiny air gaps is a real pain and so I was kind surprised that 0.021 inch would ‘not’ cut it. I understand it depends on the actual rotor size but what would you thing to be a good size? It can’t be to tiny since we need to consider bearing wear and metal expansion due to Eddy Current heating and such.

Thanks!
Steven

I think that Peter has taken a too much criticism lately. I do feel bad i also got a little testy with him. But, like you i am confused at not wanting to give more detail info. I mean, he didn't have to start this forum. I suspected he would be more fiendly if one of us would attempt to make one of his motors. I think Bob Teal was doing just what Peter said on his video, which was very informative and good. (I would recommend Grace to get it if she wants to understand what we are talking about. It is well worth the money)

I think part of the air gap problem is more than just the .53mm. There is also the problem of the lip on the electro magnet part. It seems a little short to get the strength on the pick up. Also would a different winding help and make it a stronger elecro-magnet. Bedini uses a double or triple inter-winded wire to make his coils for his SG motor and I ve read that that can give you a stronger magnetic pull. In the video Peter was using 4volts but in this video on the forum I think Peter was using 19.5 volts. I dont know why the difference.

Anyway I do appreciate that Peter has put out this stuff and though it isnt perfectly presented, I think he has given me enough to work with when I start experimenting. In the end that is all we have, experimentation. Are you going to try something too?

Hi SYKAVY,

I feel a bit sheepish now because I do believe that Aaron has already told me to get this information created by Bob Teal! I will most certainly ask Aaron ASAP how I can get my hands on it! Thank you very much for the recommendation.

Also, I would like to add that I am almost certain that Peter is way above feeling any concern over criticism! In my opinion Peter is more concerned about getting this powerful information "out there" than what feedback, good or bad, HE is receiving.

As long as this information continues to "evolve" into better and better works for this world then this is all Peter, you, me and others are concerned about.

All these posts help me to understand more and more! Thank you!

I am ready to learn more!

Hi Grace

You can find info on Peter's dvd here:
Free Energy - Electric Motor Secrets, Bob Teal | Magnipulsion, Edwin Gray, Nikola Tesla, and other books & videos by Dr Peter Lindemann

Talk to you soon and tell Pamela hi! Hope you all are having fun together!

Dear Steven,

Yes, getting the air-gap small is a "pain", but that is what is required for high mechanical power production. The Flux-Motor I built in 1983 had air-gaps of .002" per gap, for a total air-gap of .004". This is one-fifth the air-gap of the demo unit shown in the YouTube clip. If that unit was up-graded with an air-gap of .004" (instead of .021") the mechanical power produced would be more that 4 times greater for the same electrical energy input.

I measured the mechanical power output of the demo motor at about 23%, so increasing that by 4 times brings it into the 90% mechanical energy range that I have said would be there. Look at the air-gaps practiced in the Switched Reluctance Motors. You'll see they are very small when the motor is rated at 94% efficiency.

Peter