My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines

[DadHav]

Thanks Bobo,
It could be that or as Dadhav points out, it could also be the combination of magnets I used I'm anxious to get the generator part working. it might have to wait for the weekend...
I have thoughts of building my own stator where the cores are paramagnetic and not connected to each other at the center.
the big thing I like here is the lack of sparks which tells me spiky is being used. So JB sends spikey to a negative resistor, and UFO controls spikey on the fly like a lion tamer

Pat, I'm glad you didn't take my comment the wrong way, I'm only trying to help by keeping things real. UFO is lucky to have someone with your ambition interested in his project. Ha, you know better than anyone how testy I can get when I don't to get the answers I'm looking for. I don't know about you but I would be delirious if I could just add to the flight time on my models. You know where to reach me if you want to shoot the breeze about something.
John H.

[DadHav]

Hi all,
Let me try to clarify basic approach to "over-unity".
Over-unity is always pure magnetic performance.
So we need to think magnetically!
How?
In my opinion asymmetric approach is big advantage in the dc motors(rotor)- engineering because of avoiding collision between input magnetic field and induced magnetic field -back emf.. but..we need to think about THIS:
Anytime we have: copper-pm magnets topology,we will ALWAYS have magnetic drag because of counter mag. field induced in copper wires when approach pm. magnets...so it mean that we do not have here an clear no back emf performance.
If we want to have better cop and even over-unity than we need to have no back emf performance at all and achieve PURE MAGNETIC COUPLING BETWEEN ROTOR AND STATOR without inducing any add. magnetic field.
So,an topology combination with copper and pm. magnets will NOT provide pure magnetic coupling without induced back emf performance in copper wires!!
Now what to do..?
Or we need to change topology and replace pm. magn. stator- with pure electromagnet-(copper and soft iron ),
or to replace rotor with pure soft iron with no magnetic memory(no steel)!!
Any other combination leads to induce add. magnetic field,dragging and back emf performance between rotor and stator!!!
In pure magnetic topology there is not INCREASING amps draw when is motor shaft on load-just slowing down but INPUT POWER STAY THE SAME!!!!!
The output power will depend only from the magnetic power coupling from the stator electromagnets(how thy are strong) and how close is iron rotor(or asymmetric copper rotor) to the stator!!!
So,in such topology WITHOUT PERMANENT MAGNETS- we will have with this asymmetric rotor mode:
asymmetrically wounded copper rotor and copper stator.
All what we need is properly pulse on/off stator and rotor and have pure magnetic coupling without induced back emf what is the case with pm magnets,or :
we can replace copper rotor with pure soft iron rotor and have also pure magnetic coupling.
Additionally we can always in this topology collect even 90% of collapsing magn. field energy from the stator electromagnets with well known diode plug fashion and ALL POWER FROM THE SHAFT WILL BE FOR FREE WITHOUT AFFECTING INPUT POWER ON LOAD!!
That is my opinion.
waterfall

That's some pretty heavy thinking there dude. There's something I might add to your thoughts. Changing the way the eddy currents travel in your motor could be an all new ball game. Using different materials as you mention in the proper combination could be as important as a new winding. I've experimented with this and have videos to post when I get to it. My first modification changed an Aero motor from a 900 KV to 1050 and reduced the current consumption by 10%
John H.

[redrichie]

@ Mathew I don't feel patricks statement was a dig at JB was it? Didn't he have sooo many videos showing his work on the ssg? I don't think saying has no torque is a dig seeing as how its an energizer and not a torque motor. Even john has said that. s far as I have seend hasn't minoly posted more success in the ssg field than anyone I have seen? But I digress, will both of you please refrain from posting whatever Animosity both of you have toward each other to a different place. BOTH of you are replicating someone else's work in THIS thread. So none of these comments are relevant here. Correct?

[Turion]

I see everybody going back and forth on this setup about what can be measured and how it can or can't be measured. We cannot measure the volume of water in the ocean or the wind in the sky. This is true, and who cares. If I can't harness the air in the sky or the water in the ocean to do WORK, what good are they? (for that purpose anyway) The wind can blow and the waves can crash, and that runs no lights in my house nor does it move my car down the road. So who CARES how much "radiant energy" a system puts out if you can't harness it to do work? It is the same thing. And I guarantee you that if you harness something to do WORK, that work CAN be measured. That is what I am doing with my testing...measuring the WORK this system can do compared to the WORK a standard setup can do vs the resources used to DO that work. Any other kind of testing is meaningless as far as I am aware. If the motor spins faster and has more torque for LESS AMPS at the same voltage, I would say we have a winner. The noise it makes, the speed it rotates, the bright lights and pretty sparks...none of it mean anything. Work is work...data is data. I will have the answers that are meaningful to me very soon. Come on guys, lets put together the data that is meaningful.

I can measure the voltage and amp draw of the standard motor. I can measure the voltage and amp draw of the modified motor. I can measure the voltage and amp draw of the light hooked to the generator that is attached to the standard motor. I can measure the voltage and amp draw of the light hooked to the generator that is attached to the modified motor. And I can measure the amp draw and voltage going to the small 18 volt motor I am going to connect to the voltage output of the modified motor. If the two outputs total in watts to greater than the input total watts, I feel like that's pretty conclusive. Here is the data from my test on a standard motor connected to a standard motor as a generator, with that generator connected to a light. If anybody has a finished modified motor, connect it shaft to shaft (using the inside piece of a Bic pen and a little super glue) to a standard motor and attach the same bulb I specced out (available at most auto parts stores) and see what the voltage and amp draw of the modified motor is....then compare.

With the motor connected to another motor it showed 12,204 RPM
at .82 amps running on 12.3 volts
The output of the second motor (used as a generator, under the load of the bulb) was 7.2 volts at .7 amps lighting a Sylvania 211-2 Bulb rated at 12.8 volts 12.4 watts
When that bulb was connected as load, the RPMs of the motor decreased to 10,200 at 1.4 amps and 12.3 volts.

So. The basic motor with a second motor attached runs on 10.08 watts
under load (with light connected to generator) it runs on 17.08 watts while producing 5.04 watts.
Can we all agree that this is an accurate method for determining what the motor is producing? Because these are the standards of measurement I will be using when I test the converted motor.

If I can get the same or greater output on the generator at significantly less amp draw on the modified motor than the standard motor, that would be a winner too. There ARE ways to measure what something will DO even if you can't measure the something itself.

I have had some problems with my modified motor. My commutator sections are straight across from each other, show connections to each other, and show no short to other sections or the body of the rotor, but when I put it in the housing and rotate it, I have significant sections of the rotation where there is no contact with the brushes. I rotate one brush housing slowly to see if I can resolve that problem and it doesn't help. If I can't resolve it soon I will give up and build another motor. I'm beginning to wonder if I have gotten something on my commutator that prevents solid contact by the brushes. I will be spending the morning figuring it out as best I can and then building another motor if I have to.

Dave

[prochiro]

Dave

Hi Dave
I have built many of these new motors now and in one, had the same problem. I found that you will burn up the motor if you try to resolve this problem with power hooked up. I put the shaft in a lathe and held the motor from spinning, then ran the lathe on medium speed for an hour or so to set the brushes and correct any commutator faults. It worked.
Dana

[Turion]

I don't have a lathe, but I can put the motor in a clamp to keep it from spinning and stick the shaft in my variable speed drill to spin it. I'll give that a try. Thanks a BUNCH for that idea.

Dave

[DadHav]

Finished all the testing on the standard motor setup.
Radio Shack model 273-257
9-18 volt DC motor
1.98 Amps max

With the motor connected to another motor it showed 12,204 RPM
at .82 amps running on 12.3 volts

The output of the second motor (under the load of the bulb) was 7.2 volts at .7 amps lighting a Sylvania 211-2 Bulb rated at 12.8 volts 12.4 watts

When that bulb was connected as load, the RPMs of the motor decreased to 10,200 at 1.4 amps and 12.3 volts.

So. The basic motor with a second motor attached runs on 10.08 watts
under load (with light connected to generator) it runs on 17.08 watts while producing 5.04 watts.
Can we all agree that this is an accurate method for determining what the motor is producing? Because these are the standards of measurement I will be using when I test the converted motor.

The conversion motor showed 14,462 RPM's but when I went to check the amp draw, I got some really irregular readings. I disassembled the motor and discovered that my second commutator had rotated slightly on the shaft, so I have they epoxy drying now, and will post the data when I have a chance to run it again, which may not be until the morning. Meanwhile, I will be assembling another motor and generator.

I can say for sure that the RPM's of the motor are higher than the standard motor. Just the facts ma'am.

Sorry I don't have ALL the data to report, but this is the kinda crap you live with doing this stuff, and I am pretty careful about making sure things are working correctly before reporting incorrect data.

Dave

Dave I previously posted a link to a video testing one RS motor Running a second as a generator. I think I posted it for you and the few other who ran similar tests with the modified motor. Anyway I think I posted a bad link. This shows how much more current it takes to light the bulbs from the generator instead of connecting direct.
Motor Generator Test - YouTube
John H

[DadHav]

Hello Farmhand,

How are you?...fine?

Great...You Farmhand do not change...Man!!

The thing is...

I know exactly what Efficiency is...
What everything is...but
beyond just that...I've got the proof it works...no matter what anyone here says...
Real working models man...did you see my video?

here take a look since you are here...pls do not miss it...I dedicate it to you...serious...I mention you there Farmhand...turn volume up...

20090823173537 - YouTube



but later on I would have another one...see if you could "debunk it"...

And yes, I imagine it first, design it make it work in my head...then build it and it works at first shot...do you?


Keep your "optimistic mind as always"...you will really get far...very...


Many regards


Ufopolitics

UFO. I'm sure you are a good man and very passionate about what you are doing but There's something I think you should do and get this all over with. First, LarryCross addressed this video very well as it applies to the current density of a LiPo. But theres more, there is nothing to compare your results with. You have no amp meter on the input. You have never made a torque measurement anywhere. Pressing a pair of pliers against the shaft is not a torque measurement. You have never put a load on the motor and analyzed the watt draw. You refer everyone to Lindenmann as it pertains to testing a motor but you have never used his method yourself. A little bit of honest testing would go a long way here and stop all this bickering. I would be the first to throw my hat in the ring. I would be happy just to see an increase in efficiency so I can extend the flight time on my model airplanes and drones. Changing the world can be up to you and the people who would like to do that. Personally I wouldn't care to be a part of the Social Economic disaster it would cause world wide. Thousands of people will be out of work if the invention wasn't presented in a way that it could be absorbed into the economic structure. You certainly would have more than the MIB to worry about. Did you ever talk to a professor of economics at a university. I did. Incidentally there are some here that if they modify a motor it does change from a Corvair to a Corvette. So far what I see is the only reason there is an argument on this forum is because you haven't properly tested your motor. Changing the world is an ambitious goal but before that happens someone has to have an original motor and a modified one on a work bench and there has to be load tests, watt meter readings and results that would be staggering. By the way I think Lind's method of checking torque is old fashioned and clumsy.
John H.

[erfinder]

Truth be told this setup is old!

INTERUPTION......PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT......


This technique dates back to Tesla, would be nice to hear that repeated form time to time. Would be nice to see what was learned from the source instead of this ranting and raving....I have yet to see anything new or improved. The method under display was perfected to an extremely high degree by Tesla, where is the info on what he did? I mean this Tesla tech.....Right...?



Then theres that one guy...whats his name...Robert W. Alexander. In 1975 he got a patent 3913004.pdf granted for this same topology....check the attachment if you are interested. Same damn topology...my question to you is, in light of this, why are you teaching people or better directing the researchers here to "Frankenstein" perfectly good motors?


Refering to the attached images, you will find that these motors,





these things, the dual commutator devices you are trying to get people to build ALREADY EXIST and have since Tesla's time!!! Guys and gals, please do your homework, save yourself a boat load of trouble with fabricating. If you really want to work in this direction, study the attached patent, and find yourself a few of those old DYNAMOTORS and tear them apart and rewire them! Or....ignore me and continue working on your frankenstein motors! The true potential of this direction is in that patent, and in the information Tesla left regarding it this special topology, not in what you are being sold....my opinion...not subject to change any time soon..

This stuff is old and I'm tired of seeing hard working, serious researchers singing and dancing to this tune. Where in the hell are all the real questions? Why is no one challenging this confused mess. Some are and I truely applaud you! Keep asking those questions, one day they will get answered, by someone else...a competent authority, if we are lucky.

There is nothing wrong with established science, other than the fact that is one sided. Science as its taught is complete in its onesidedness..... what I'm seeing here is a guy who has cloned that one sidedness? So now we simply have way more of the same....not good in my book.

Be careful with going with the sacred geometry...you reintroduce symetry...but you knew that...right....how does asymetry apply to your topology?

anyway..

Fellow researchers, the anwsers are right in front of us. How can we formulate the right questions if we're caught in the following the leader spiral.....

Some leaders have provided all we have been searching for, real working technology that is ready right now, however, for whatever reason, the information wasn't released in a format that the layman (us) could do anything with.

The following is to be taken as an example only...maybe...

That being said.....the school girl is more that just a battery charger. Some of you know that. Radiant energy....Why in the hell is it limited to one side of the conductor?????? Isn't the magnetic field generated by the entire coil? Hmmmmm.....somethings missing.....and you have found it when you find the second spike, the spike which charges the supply like the spike you generate now charges the second battery.....

Ignore everything in this post except the patent and the images of the motors! Or ignore that too....its up to you.

Regards

[Les_K]

I see everybody going back and forth on this setup about what can be measured and how it can or can't be measured. We cannot measure the volume of water in the ocean or the wind in the sky. This is true, and who cares. If I can't harness the air in the sky or the water in the ocean to do WORK, what good are they? (for that purpose anyway) The wind can blow and the waves can crash, and that runs no lights in my house nor does it move my car down the road. So who CARES how much "radiant energy" a system puts out if you can't harness it to do work? It is the same thing. And I guarantee you that if you harness something to do WORK, that work CAN be measured. That is what I am doing with my testing...measuring the WORK this system can do compared to the WORK a standard setup can do vs the resources used to DO that work. Any other kind of testing is meaningless as far as I am aware. If the motor spins faster and has more torque for LESS AMPS at the same voltage, I would say we have a winner. The noise it makes, the speed it rotates, the bright lights and pretty sparks...none of it mean anything. Work is work...data is data. I will have the answers that are meaningful to me very soon. Come on guys, lets put together the data that is meaningful.

I can measure the voltage and amp draw of the standard motor. I can measure the voltage and amp draw of the modified motor. I can measure the voltage and amp draw of the light hooked to the generator that is attached to the standard motor. I can measure the voltage and amp draw of the light hooked to the generator that is attached to the modified motor. And I can measure the amp draw and voltage going to the small 18 volt motor I am going to connect to the voltage output of the modified motor. If the two outputs total in watts to greater than the input total watts, I feel like that's pretty conclusive. Here is the data from my test on a standard motor connected to a standard motor as a generator, with that generator connected to a light. If anybody has a finished modified motor, connect it shaft to shaft (using the inside piece of a Bic pen and a little super glue) to a standard motor and attach the same bulb I specced out (available at most auto parts stores) and see what the voltage and amp draw of the modified motor is....then compare.

With the motor connected to another motor it showed 12,204 RPM
at .82 amps running on 12.3 volts
The output of the second motor (used as a generator, under the load of the bulb) was 7.2 volts at .7 amps lighting a Sylvania 211-2 Bulb rated at 12.8 volts 12.4 watts
When that bulb was connected as load, the RPMs of the motor decreased to 10,200 at 1.4 amps and 12.3 volts.

So. The basic motor with a second motor attached runs on 10.08 watts
under load (with light connected to generator) it runs on 17.08 watts while producing 5.04 watts.
Can we all agree that this is an accurate method for determining what the motor is producing? Because these are the standards of measurement I will be using when I test the converted motor.

If I can get the same or greater output on the generator at significantly less amp draw on the modified motor than the standard motor, that would be a winner too. There ARE ways to measure what something will DO even if you can't measure the something itself.

I have had some problems with my modified motor. My commutator sections are straight across from each other, show connections to each other, and show no short to other sections or the body of the rotor, but when I put it in the housing and rotate it, I have significant sections of the rotation where there is no contact with the brushes. I rotate one brush housing slowly to see if I can resolve that problem and it doesn't help. If I can't resolve it soon I will give up and build another motor. I'm beginning to wonder if I have gotten something on my commutator that prevents solid contact by the brushes. I will be spending the morning figuring it out as best I can and then building another motor if I have to.

Dave

Turion,
Thank you... This is good scientific discovery. All the opinions need to go.
UFO has graciously given his Ideas. All we need to do is experiment and see for ourselves one way or the other. I haven't talked much as I have nothing to contribute until I can do a legitimate and reasonable test.

DadHav you could have this done in an hour... and better than anyone here.

@all This is really fun stuff. It is no different than building a model airplane, we should all just build it, have some fun in the process, and if it flies and UFO is correct all the better.....

UFO, I have been wondering about The Brushless motors used in the R/C world, once we get through these basics do you have something on that subject to share? Don't want to jump ahead to soon so I can wait if needed.

Les

Les

[waterfall]

That's some pretty heavy thinking there dude. There's something I might add to your thoughts. Changing the way the eddy currents travel in your motor could be an all new ball game. Using different materials as you mention in the proper combination could be as important as a new winding. I've experimented with this and have videos to post when I get to it. My first modification changed an Aero motor from a 900 KV to 1050 and reduced the current consumption by 10%
John H.

Hi John

""That's some pretty heavy thinking there dude.""

Yeah..i know..but is it not exactly that what you are looking for here?
Are you not tired of chasing your own tail in this boring fe game?
How long you are in this?
Heavy thinking is what we need here.
Tesla said that one is for sure.He don't know what energy is!!
We all need new approach and new experience.That`s for sure!
RGDS
Waterfall

[bbem]

@Ufo,
The Trolls and preachers have finally found you.
@DadHav
Ask your professor what to do about the financial crisis and who did caused it, and who needs to pay for it.
@Erfinder,
Ufo stated more then often that is was a Nikola Tesla invention.
You have a very negative attitude.

Bert

[phrao]

Not the same

INTERUPTION......PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT......


This technique dates back to Tesla, would be nice to hear that repeated form time to time. Would be nice to see what was learned from the source instead of this ranting and raving....I have yet to see anything new or improved. The method under display was perfected to an extremely high degree by Tesla, where is the info on what he did? I mean this Tesla tech.....Right...?

[ATTACH]11754[/ATTACH]

Then theres that one guy...whats his name...Robert W. Alexander. In 1975 he got a patent [ATTACH]11758[/ATTACH] granted for this same topology....check the attachment if you are interested. Same damn topology...my question to you is, in light of this, why are you teaching people or better directing the researchers here to "Frankenstein" perfectly good motors?


Refering to the attached images, you will find that these motors,

[ATTACH]11755[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]11756[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]11757[/ATTACH]

these things, the dual commutator devices you are trying to get people to build ALREADY EXIST and have since Tesla's time!!! Guys and gals, please do your homework, save yourself a boat load of trouble with fabricating. If you really want to work in this direction, study the attached patent, and find yourself a few of those old DYNAMOTORS and tear them apart and rewire them! Or....ignore me and continue working on your frankenstein motors! The true potential of this direction is in that patent, and in the information Tesla left regarding it this special topology, not in what you are being sold....my opinion...not subject to change any time soon..

This stuff is old and I'm tired of seeing hard working, serious researchers singing and dancing to this tune. Where in the hell are all the real questions? Why is no one challenging this confused mess. Some are and I truely applaud you! Keep asking those questions, one day they will get answered, by someone else...a competent authority, if we are lucky.

There is nothing wrong with established science, other than the fact that is one sided. Science as its taught is complete in its onesidedness..... what I'm seeing here is a guy who has cloned that one sidedness? So now we simply have way more of the same....not good in my book.

Be careful with going with the sacred geometry...you reintroduce symetry...but you knew that...right....how does asymetry apply to your topology?

anyway..

Fellow researchers, the anwsers are right in front of us. How can we formulate the right questions if we're caught in the following the leader spiral.....

Some leaders have provided all we have been searching for, real working technology that is ready right now, however, for whatever reason, the information wasn't released in a format that the layman (us) could do anything with.

The following is to be taken as an example only...maybe...

That being said.....the school girl is more that just a battery charger. Some of you know that. Radiant energy....Why in the hell is it limited to one side of the conductor?????? Isn't the magnetic field generated by the entire coil? Hmmmmm.....somethings missing.....and you have found it when you find the second spike, the spike which charges the supply like the spike you generate now charges the second battery.....

Ignore everything in this post except the patent and the images of the motors! Or ignore that too....its up to you.

Regards

the patient you post is not the same as UFO's.

Just compare the patient to UFO's drawings and they are not the same. There are two coils in the patient. One coil terminating both ends to one commutator and the other coil terminating both ends to the other commutator. UFO has two coils in series, one end terminating onto one commutator and the other end to the other commutator.

Very different.

i can't wait till UFO has married up all his threads. that where i think he is taking all of us. i'll build my motor on the weekend, i have all the parts ready to go.

[gene gene]

First time builder

Hi all,
I first would like to thank especially UFO & everyone here for sharing of their work on replications. I will be attempting a build myself, but I have little electrical knowledge and hope you all will be patient with my questions.
I have 2 of the radio shack 273-256 motors for my first build, if I ruin one they will have more in on Friday.
I do not know the math's and hope to focus only on amps in and power out.
I have in mind a simple home made brake that I will use to test before and after motor modifications.
My first question is, can I use my radio shack 12V*500mA AC-to-DC power adapter as a power source? I can always use batteries latter, just hoping to reduce variables in source for testing.
Thanks, Gene

[Bob Smith]

Thanks for 3 Pole Troubleshooting

Hi UFO and Dana,
Thanks for the 3 pole motor troubleshooting. No humming in the motor when connected. I think the problem might be the quality of the brushes. I've got 2 nice 3-pole motors from an electric side-view car mirror. Will try and work with them today (if the missus will let me . Will keep you posted, and thanks for your help.
Bob