Electric Motor Secrets

[sykavy]

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

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]

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?

[nali2001]

Idea

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

[Peter Lindemann]

System Suggestions

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

[gyula]

....
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.

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.

Peter

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

[nali2001]

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

[Peter Lindemann]

WOW factor, not included...

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

[Peter Lindemann]

Re: 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

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

[sykavy]

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.

[gyula]

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

[Aaron]

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.

[gyula]

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

[Aaron]

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:

[Peter Lindemann]

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

[Peter Lindemann]

Been there, done that...

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