Electric Motor Secrets

[kenny_PPM]

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

[Peter Lindemann]

Slowly getting it...

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

[sykavy]

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?

[Larz]

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

[Peter Lindemann]

Passive vs Active Rotor

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

[Drexel]

Further thought

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

[Peter Lindemann]

Good Question!

Dear Dr. Lindemann,

Your discussion of your "Magnetic Distributor Generator" triggered a question: how is it that the attraction motor circumvents Lenz's law? As the piece of iron is attracted towards the electromagnet coil, magnetic fields will be induced into the iron that interact with those produced by the electromagnet. By Lenz's law, won't opposing currents then be induced back into the electromagnet coil?

I have watched your "Electric Motor Secrets" DVD video now twice and find it fascinating. However, I am learning so I may have missed the answer to my question even with two DVD views.

I have just ordered "Secrets of Cold Electricity" DVD and look forward to its arrival.

Sincerely,

Drexel

Drexel,

Thanks for asking this question. I'm sure others have been a little confused by this as well. The question is, does the attraction of the iron rotor piece produce any Lenz's Law effects in the stator coils? The answer is YES, it does. The next questions is, how much? The answer to this is, less than 1% as much as if the iron rotor had a coil on it and was allowed to produce electricity as it was attracted into alignment. The absence of any electricity producing coil on the iron rotor is the important difference.

The magnetic field induced in the iron rotor is totally passive and is responding exclusively to the magnetic field produced by the stator coil windings. Therefore, it has no power to cause a reverse influence. So, there is nothing in the rotor/stator relationship to cause a reverse induction in the stator coils.

The reluctance of the magnetic path is changing as the iron rotor comes into alignment, so there are changes in the inductance of the circuit, but this is not the same as a Lenz's Law reverse induction.

I hope this helps you understand the difference.

Peter

[Drexel]

Lenz and attraction motors

Dear Dr. Lindemann,

Your discussion of your "Magnetic Distributor Generator" triggered a question: how is it that the attraction motor circumvents Lenz's law? As the piece of iron is attracted towards the electromagnet coil, magnetic fields will be induced into the iron that interact with those produced by the electromagnet. By Lenz's law, won't opposing currents then be induced back into the electromagnet coil?

I have watched your "Electric Motor Secrets" DVD video now twice and find it fascinating. However, I am learning so I may have missed the answer to my question even with two DVD views.

I have just ordered "Secrets of Cold Electricity" DVD and look forward to its arrival.

Sincerely,

Drexel

[Peter Lindemann]

Flux-Gate Generator

fluxgate generatorhttp://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/pics/00.jpg

http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/pics/01.jpg

http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/pics/02.jpg

http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/pics/03.jpg

http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/pics/04.jpg


Regards,
Steven

Dear Steven,

Sorry I never replied to this post. With everything else happening at that time, it just slipped through the cracks. So anyway, here is my reply.

The resemblance of the generators shown at the end of Electric Motor Secrets and the one's in your "fluxgate generator" link are NOT a coincidence. Actually, I am the inventor! It's ancient history now, but here's what happened.

In 1980, John Ecklin began offering a $500 prize to anyone who could design a viable generator to circumvent Lenz law. His original Stationary Armature Generator patent was the beginning of this search. I was 28 and living in Hilo, Hawaii. I ran dozens of experiments and eventually designed a machine I called the "Mechanical Rotary Transformer" in September of 1981. I sent copies of the design to John Ecklin and Bruce DePalma and asked for their advice. DePalma showed my design at an alternative energy conference in Toronto, Canada in late October, 1981 and it was seen by Pete Charles, an electrical engineer in the Sacramento area.

In a letter I received back from John Ecklin on November 21, 1981, John writes "I don't know how to advise you on a patent. I use the patent disclosure document program...." He also writes "Your MRT-1 is a well engineered device." All of my correspondence with John Ecklin is still in my files.

I took John Ecklin's advice and filed a patent disclosure document on the design on December 1, 1981. My original copy was stamped Received in the Patent Office Mail Room on December 4, 1981, file #104580. In that document I state "The device, called the Mechanical Rotary Transformer (MRT) consists, in its simplest configuration, of two "magnetic distributors" and four transformer cores and coils firmly bolted together."

Meantime, Pete Charles was back home building the first unit. He had it running by January 1982. He got my phone number from Bruce DePalma and called me. Unfortunately, a guest in the house picked up the phone and didn't write down the message, so I didn't know that Pete had called. When I didn't call Pete Charles back, he just figured I wasn't interested. In March, a young engineer showed up at Pete's place interested in testing the generator. That person was Paul Brown. The infamous "Paul Brown Report" issued on June 15, 1982. In the credits at the end, he states "We would like to express our thanks to Moss Research who made this project possible." Moss was Pete Charles' wife's maiden name and an alias he used once in a while.

I was first alerted to the existence of the "Paul Brown Report" when I received a letter from John Ecklin dated September 12, 1982. In it he writes: "Dear Peter, Have you seen the Paul Brown Report for Moss Research? It sure looks like your Rotary transformer...."

The damage was done. In the days before the internet, nobody cared that I had documents stamped in the patent office 7 months before the "Paul Brown Report" issued. By that time, Paul was famous and I was just a "nobody". To this day, 26 years later, most people still have no idea who designed this machine. Mostly it has been called "Paul Brown's Magnetic Distributor Generator". Your re-edited copy of the "Paul Brown Report" document calls it the Brown Ecklin Fluxgate Generator, but your document has taken Paul Brown's name off the back of the report above the date.

The historic truth is, I worked out the design for this machine in the summer of 1981 in Hilo, Hawaii. Pete Charles built the first working model in Sacramento, California in January of 1982. Paul Brown published the first written report on a preliminary set of tests results in June of 1982, which included a number of exaggerations. The machine is NOT capable of 300% operation. 120% efficiency is about tops! And yes, these machines make lots of obnoxious noise! The unit I show in the DVD was built by Michael Knox and is capable of about 700 watts output. The picture shows a low power test, as you may notice, the light bulbs were not to full brightness.

I moved to Santa Barbara in 1982 and with Michael Knox continued to work with these designs for both generators and motors. Of all the variations on the four coil/core configuration, the Flux Motor was the most important innovation. Again, totally my design, built by Michael Knox.

At some point, I may scan all of these documents from my files and put up a page on my website.

Until then, that is the history of the "Paul Brown Report" and the "Magnetic Distributor Generator".

If you have any questions about these machines, I'd be happy to discuss them in a different forum.

Peter

[sykavy]

It depends on the kind of material you're using and the strength of the magnetic field you're applying to it. If you use the ordinary iron, sure it would soon got to be magnetized. If you use some soft steel (soft in the sense of it's magnetic hysteresis characteristic) it probably won't happen at least not if you don't apply to it some extremely strong magnetic field. Finally if you use some narrow hysteresis characteristic material if would never get to be magnetized.

You can learn more about magnetic hysteresis here Hysteresis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I apologize if I barged in this discussion but I'm just trying to help.

Dont apologize i welcome your imput, especially in the Radiant Energy thread, which sounds like youve got it. (Vy mate velmy dobry English tesh.) Thanks for the link! Im trying to learn.

[lighty]

Another question, would the iron start to become magnetized after awhile?

It depends on the kind of material you're using and the strength of the magnetic field you're applying to it. If you use the ordinary iron, sure it would soon got to be magnetized. If you use some soft steel (soft in the sense of it's magnetic hysteresis characteristic) it probably won't happen at least not if you don't apply to it some extremely strong magnetic field. Finally if you use some narrow hysteresis characteristic material if would never get to be magnetized.

You can learn more about magnetic hysteresis here Hysteresis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I apologize if I barged in this discussion but I'm just trying to help.

[Peter Lindemann]

No Problem...

Sykavy,

No problem. Thanks for the apology. In this life, we ALL start at the beginning and learn at our own pace. Building your own machines and running your own experiments is very important if you are going to learn this material. Be patient with yourself. Learning happens. It cannot be forced.

Your efforts are not less important because you are at a different position on the "learning curve". It is your commitment to learn it that raises your value in the conversation. Any of us are glad to share what we know, and are doubly glad when you are willing to take responsibility for coming up to speed by your own effort.

Keep up the good work.

Peter

[sykavy]

The motor was great , I know it was just an illistration. Sorry if i sounded like i thought it was a proto-type.

It is such a simple idea i don't know why more people haven't followed this way of thinking.
I loved the point of separating the EMF and the mechanical.

Another question, would the iron start to become magnetized after awhile?

The reason I ask is that id like to get some students involved. They will enter a solar energy race with manned boats. If i could get a motor to run on less energy and get back the emf and dump it into another motor instead of a battery it could be pretty impressive.

After looking at the other discussions here, i apologize for my silly questions. Im still working on getting my SSG going and others here are way ahead in the experiments and training.

[sykavy]

Sykavy,

Thanks for the compliment. Yes, friction in the electric solenoid engine designs is a problem. Special structures must be put in place to minimize the friction. This is why I have suggested going back to the rotary designs where friction can be minimized more easily.

Aluminum does NOT contain the magnetic field like iron and cannot be substituted as the magnetic keeper in these motors.

Yes, the torque in the piston engine design I showed was weak. I said as much in the film. The reason it was weak was that the magnetic field still had over 1 inch of air gap at the end of the stroke. To get the mechanical power out of these motors, you must fold the magnetic field all the way down into the moving iron piece. Total air gap at the end of the power stroke should be no more than .010 inches.

I showed that motor for two reasons. The first reason is that it did show the NO BACK EMF behavior in direct contrast to the induction motor. The second reason is that I could demonstrate that the more I folded the magnetic field down, the more mechanical energy it produced WITHOUT drawing more electricity. Both of these are important PRINCIPLES for you to understand if you want to design a motor for yourself.

Thanks for your questions,

Peter

The motor was great , I know it was just an illistration. Sorry if i sounded like i thought it was a proto-type.

It is such a simple idea i don't know why more people haven't followed this way of thinking.
I loved the point of separating the EMF and the mechanical.

Another question, would the iron start to become magnetized after awhile?

The reason I ask is that id like to get some students involved. They will enter a solar energy race with manned boats. If i could get a motor to run on less energy and get back the emf and dump it into another motor instead of a battery it could be pretty impressive.

[Peter Lindemann]

Thank you!

Peter
I just saw your video it came in the mail yesterday. All i can say is you have a talent to teach. I understood almost all of it.

I do have a few questions that i had trouble with. How does one handle the possible friction in the Teal piston. When it is in the relaxed mode and not being magnetized, what would keep it from scraping the sides?

Would alluminum work to hold in the magnitism as well as iron? I was thinking that the extra weight could off-set the increase in power.

Btw the tork of the teal example didn't seem strong.

It was a very interesting DVD and i think trade high schools should get a copy of it. There is definitely some more work to be done on the perfection of the electric motor

Sykavy,

Thanks for the compliment. Yes, friction in the electric solenoid engine designs is a problem. Special structures must be put in place to minimize the friction. This is why I have suggested going back to the rotary designs where friction can be minimized more easily.

Aluminum does NOT contain the magnetic field like iron and cannot be substituted as the magnetic keeper in these motors.

Yes, the torque in the piston engine design I showed was weak. I said as much in the film. The reason it was weak was that the magnetic field still had over 1 inch of air gap at the end of the stroke. To get the mechanical power out of these motors, you must fold the magnetic field all the way down into the moving iron piece. Total air gap at the end of the power stroke should be no more than .010 inches.

I showed that motor for two reasons. The first reason is that it did show the NO BACK EMF behavior in direct contrast to the induction motor. The second reason is that I could demonstrate that the more I folded the magnetic field down, the more mechanical energy it produced WITHOUT drawing more electricity. Both of these are important PRINCIPLES for you to understand if you want to design a motor for yourself.

Thanks for your questions,

Peter