Electric Motor Secrets

[Ted Ewert]

Hi Peter,
I made it through your DVD on Sunday morning. Although I was familiar with much of the theory, you really opened my eyes to counter emf. Also, your explanation about the containment of the magnetic field was awsome.
I've built a few Bedini motors, the window motor being the latest. It has very little counter EMF and runs quite efficiently as a motor.
Nevertheless, I'm already designing a motor in my mind to take advantage of your concepts. It will combine your ideas along with a few from Bedini and some other guys.
Who would have thunk that the simple solenoid could be so efficient. Thanks so much for passing along your wisdom. Motors are so much fun.

Ted

[Larz]

clarification of back emf

Hi all,
Im new to this group, and sadly to say I havent viewed the DVD. But im really curious and would like to get one thing straight here about the back emf. just listened on the sterling d allan interview...

Someone please correct me if im wrong.

Lets imagine 2 experiments. they are very basic and similar. they consist of an electromagnet, a powersource and a switch.

in experiment number 1 we activate the electromagnet and exert a pull on a target, in this case a piece of soft iron. If we have a whole bunch of measuring equipment, we can take readings of all sorts of things, but basically we can see that it takes a certain ammount of electrical energy to get some mechanical work done (pull the target with xx newtons)

in experiment nr 2 we have a permanent magnet instead of the soft iron as a target. so when we switch in the electromagnet the magnet is drawn closer ( if the emagnet is wired for pull N/S) . And if i get the thinking right by what is presented here, then just by moving the perm.magnet closer we increase the magnets field strenghth and hence there will be a counter emf produced in the electromagnet? so if we design the second experiment to show the same ammount of MECHANICAL work being done, there should be MORE electrical drawn from the powersource in the second case?

Is this so? If it is then we have a really nice thing coming up
I just want it confirmed, because i have a few very nice ideas for a motor that will use this idea.

Lars

[Peter Lindemann]

Steven,

Eric is a brilliant engineer by training. He is the most knowledgeable person I know regarding the duplication of Tesla's Magnifying Transmitters. I have not seen Eric since 1989 and do not know what he has been doing. Sorry.

Peter

[nali2001]

[Eric]

thanks!!! hahaha i love finding ways to recycle junk into new projects.
but if i get this to work than for the record it was actually my neighbors idea
,we both watched the dvd, drooling at the possibllities LOL, I ,not knowing as much about motor geomitry as he, was all set to research what it would cost to custom make a new laminated C shaped core and coil when mark, my neighbor, piped up and said "that looks like a shaded pole motor!" hahaha and I with a deer caught in headlights look in my eye replied "whats a shaded pole motor?", hehe, he in turn described it and of course i just had some "lying around" in my shop from appliances i tore apart. so that said...

i didnt know about the glass in laminations and i do have a portaban saw i was tempted to use to save money but i was allready going to see if the local high school might cut it for me with there plasma cutter. do you know if there would be any problems, would i damage the motor, if i use this type of cutter. if so and since i am willing to pay a machine shop or high school to "cut it right" the first time, what type of tool would you recomend?

second i am still curious about how to cut the core. i left two possible highlighted pictures on my seb site to choose from. one of the pictures shows a cut that leaves the largest continous stator contact surface area possible. and the other picture shows a cut with a much smaller stator contact surface area. if I use the simple bar rotor idea i would be tempted to assume that first the width of the rotor bar must match the the stator "brush" width and a wider rotor/stator would give more motor torque/power because there would be more surface area on the end of the rotor to "pull" into the stator. electricly this would also mean the electric pulse duration is longer so i would use more power but... the collected cemf would be more as well so maybe the "payed for" input would be similar.... so unless you believe there is an important reason not to have the large stator surface area i will have it cut for the large one.

also i am curious as to why the S rotor wont be better and the bar idea and, since its in your dvd, when would this design be appropriate?

thanks again!!
Eric

[Peter Lindemann]

Modifying a Shaded Pole Motor

Eric,

I took a look at your pictures.

You are totally on the right track here!!!! Cutting the stator core laminations is a bit tricky because they are covered with Silicon (glass) insulation. It tends to dull your cutting tools pretty fast.

Also, you'll find that running the coil on 12 volts DC will give you a lot of power, since there is no Back EMF in the coil to buck the input. You won't be able to run it on 120 volts DC as you suggested. It will melt the coil.

Make a new rotor that is just a bar (with curved ends) of cast iron across the section of the stator that is left after you cut away the sections you have marked.

Set the commutator to turn the coil ON when the front edge of the rotor is at the front edge of the stator, and to turn the coil OFF when the rotor is half way into alignment. The collapsing field will keep motoring the rotor forward until the magnetic field disappears, at which point the rotor will slide out of alignment unopposed.

This is the simplest version of the idea. This will work better than the "S" rotor and is the basic method we used in 1983 with the original Flux Motor, as far as just attracting bars of iron to the stator sections.

Keep us appraised of your progress! You really do understand the idea. Way to go!!

Peter

[Eric]

ok i took a bunch of pictures of a shaded pole motor i yanked out of a microwave you can view them here Eric's page, Home
just click on the photos link then click on an image to enlarge.

i have 2 pictures in particular with highlighted lines showing where i want to cut away the laminations of the stator core. i would like some advise as to which of the 2 pictures would be a better attempt. i am not sure but i am guessing based on the dvd the width of the center bar of the S rotor idea needs to match the width of the connecting stator "brushes" (for lack of a better word) so i am not sure if highlighted picture 1 would be practical.

for the rotor i will use the old rotor to determine the size of the new rotor with the same gap clearance between rotor and stator. i will have a machine shop cut me a new rotor out of soft iron (and cut a longer shaft) modeled after Peter's S shape idea.

not sure how i will do the comutator.... any ideas?

thanks
Eric

[Eric]

how about this test

yes i am aware of the first law and i had allready gathered that unity is refering to efficancy which considers the whole system and not COP which referes to what we put in to the system. however in your above statement refering to 746w=1hp for a direct induction motor and 200w=1hp for the new machine this doesnt jive for me because 1hp of mechanical shaft power is still one 1hp so i believe what your refering to is it "takes" 746w in a direct induction to produce 1hp and we are estimating that it "takes" 200w to produce 1hp with the indirect method plus we will recover maybe 170w back to reuse leaving us with 30w lost input power. i dont think this is a reversible example (meaning 1hp=200w doesnt work) if in the end my new machine still outputs 1hp of work, or slightly more, and i common shaft 1hp direct induction generator to it ,assuming 100% eff gen, then i get 746w out and watts are watts so i send some back to the source and use the rest for an outside load this should be a self sustaining cycle. while i do understand its not overunity from a whole system efficancy stand point, i do believe a >1 cop engine should run for as long as magnetics last in nature if that is where we theorize where the extra energy is coming from? today we produce electrical through the consumption of chemical "fuels" perhaps tomorrows future is the recognition that we might be able to "consume" magnetic energy or some unknown energy behind its curtain to produce more shaft work out by "intiating" a magnetic process with electricity.
am i close?

hahahaha heres an idea i thought i would float by for a test. i noticed in your dvd the picture of the c shaped lamintion core and coil with the S rotor looks very similar to a shaded pole motor i pulled out of a microwave oven. i could remove its old rotor, cut the top and bottom out of the laminations to closer
mimic your C shape, build a new iron rotor and comutator using the same shaft and bearings, and pulse 110v DC into the coil using your sugested circutry maybe use capacitors instead of batteries to drive the motor and collect and recycle the cemf by swapping caps and have a seperate circut that only "tops off" any lost energy in the process. this "top off" circut is the energy i "pay for" so i should measure watts there and build a mini dyno test to measure shaft output!!

sound like fun?
Eric

[Peter Lindemann]

lol now for a funny question. in the dvd you mentioned this idea is not overunity but... if as in your example a 1 hp motor might only use 30watts and 1hp equates to 746 watts ideally. doesnt this mean i could strap on a belt driven alternator to the shaft and deliver say 35 or 40 watts and still have slightly less than than 1hp of mechanical energy to use elsewhere making this a self sustaining motor? or am i missing something in the concept of unity.

thank again!
Eric

Eric,

Yes, you are missing something. The idea of efficiency is based on the First Law of Thermodynamics, often referred to as the Law of the Conservation of Energy. This idea is that energy can be converted from one form to another, but it is neither created nor destroyed by its passage through the mechanism. I do not believe in the idea of "Over Unity" because this Law is either correct and in-force at all times, or it is not. So, it is logical that the Law cannot be both correct and in-force, AND violated at the same time. It is well established that the energy conversion rate for the direct induction machine is 746 watts = 1 horse power = 550 foot-pounds per second of mechanical energy.

The magnetic attraction motors that my DVD discusses can be called indirect induction machines, as they use direct induction for the creation of a magnetic field, but it is the magnetic field that causes the mechanical energy production. So, the electricity input is only indirectly related to the production of mechanical energy in the machine. I have postulated that this process, which is NOT the same process as Faraday's induction, operates at a different conversion rate, somewhere around 200 watts = 1 horse power = 550 foot-pounds per second of mechanical energy.

Then, by configuring the machine to operate on short pulses of DC current, an inductor can be charged with electric current. This in turn, causes the creation of a magnetic field. As this magnetic field grows, it can be used to attract a piece of iron, producing mechanical energy. When the field is maximized, the current can be shut off, and the magnetic field will collapse. The collapse of the magnetic field will induce a new current of electricity that can be recaptured by the circuitry, and re-applied to the battery system, thus recovering up to 90% of the input electrical energy. If the machine can produce more than 10% mechanical energy production, then there is an anomaly here which needs a creative explanation.

So, the issue here is, how much mechanical energy can be produced by this process? The answer is, quite a lot, if you design the machine correctly. Way over 10%, in fact. So, when all of these processes are designed right, the machine apparently produces significant amounts of energy that are not explained by the Laws of Conservation.

So, three possibilities exist to explain this. The first is, that the Law of Conservation is just plain wrong, and nothing is being converted into anything else in any of these machines. Most people are not willing to entertain this idea. The second is, that the conversion rate for the indirect induction machine is different than for the direct induction machine, and therefore it can produce more mechanical energy from less electricity because that's what it does. Again, most people find this idea difficult to accept. The third is, that the machine is somehow tapping an unseen source of energy and converting it to the seen energy surplus. Many scientists are starting to consider this idea as the explanation for these phenomena.

No matter which explanation you pick, OVER UNITY is NOT one of the possibilities.

Does this help?

Peter

[Eric]

thanks!! i ordered that... and few more that seemed interesting, hehehe
i like your thinking on using older books. the only thing i couldnt find on Lindsay"s site was a book on designing and building transformers. i would love a recomendation for a good older books for building both regular inductive transformers and high freq tesla transformers for some other experements. but back to your dvd.

question about the soft iron keeper.
first is a magnetic field relatable to water pressure in that if you enclose the coil in soft iron and restrict its escape to the outside world to a smaller controlled outlet (I.E. the top halve of a solinoid shaft) the magnetic "pressure" (or maybe "velocity" is a better word)
will be stronger giving us more available work where we want it. much like using a valve on a hose to "spray" water on our lawn.

second (and i may find the answer in the book i bought) i would hazard to guess that field strength is partially related to the size or "mass" of copper in the coil but does the coil "shape" (and iron keeper geomitry) influence the strength of the field, or the "postion" of where i want most of the strength to act on the solinoid shaft. i think i understand what you mean about how no known design criteria is available for bob teals solinoid motor... but!! it is still a solinoid with a copper mass where the geomitry is altered by a soft iron keeper to constrict the magnetic field to the top half of the side walls of the shaft where the air gap is the smallest at the begining of the stroke instead of the end of the stroke. so when i build my first test i think i should be able to use the book you mentioned to calculate the "strength" of the coil mass and test my own geomitry to apply the position of strength.
also how exactly do the magnetic lines of force act on any solinoid shaft. is a standard solinoid shaft pulled from the top surface or are the magnetic lines of force circulating in a clockwise/or counter clockwise fasion through the hollow core of the coil pulling up at the sides of the shaft and is the reason that a standard solinoid is strongest at the end of a stroke because most of side suface area the shaft is all inside the coil and being pulled up by the field rotation? lol am i getting warmer or colder hahaha. maybe there is a book on studing design principles of magnetic lines of force to!!

also following what you are saying about building a model and measuring mechanical strength in say "pounds" do you think it would be a simple linear proportional equation to calculate how much bigger or smaller and identical duplicate of the first test model would have to be to achieve a target shaft work.

lol now for a funny question. in the dvd you mentioned this idea is not overunity but... if as in your example a 1 hp motor might only use 30watts and 1hp equates to 746 watts ideally. doesnt this mean i could strap on a belt driven alternator to the shaft and deliver say 35 or 40 watts and still have slightly less than than 1hp of mechanical energy to use elsewhere making this a self sustaining motor? or am i missing something in the concept of unity

whew!! ok i will stop now

thank again!
Eric

[Peter Lindemann]

Hi Peter,

1) I would like to know if Bob Teal is still with us or he passed?

2) I apologize for posting here without having bought your DVD yet, I would like to know that the discussion topics you outlined yesterday are based on a practical / working motor you /or/and your partners have actually built and measured to be really overunity or will be based on very logical theory? You have measurement results on at least one working overunity motor and if so will it be possible to learn about them?

Very sorry for my scepticism but I hope you understand it, I am open to think outside of the box, I believe in possible overunity devices but need practical facts.

Thank you,

Gyula

Dear Gyula,

No problem. These types of groups are full of stuff that is pure speculation, so your skepticism is warranted. My DVD covers a lot of ground. First, I show how to build a Dynamometer, and then run a Dyno test on an induction motor. Then, I show exactly what Back EMF in the motor is, and why it is the main factor holding back the performance of the motor. Then I show the history of motor designs that have No Back EMF, and what the problems have been in allowing these motors to produce high torque. That brings us to Teal's Magnipulsion Engine and how he solved these problems. I also show an advanced motor I built in 1983 that solved most of these problems, as well. I end with some speculative designs that have not been fully tested yet, but are in the process of being tested now.

So, there is a lot to learn. The purpose of the DVD is to get people to think about Zero Back EMF designs as the way to produce motors with COP > 1.

With all of this in mind, you may want to wait for some more definitive testing data to come in. On the other hand, some people like to be shown basic principles so they can come up with their own design that works. There are dozens of "solutions" that will allow a working model to operate in the high torque "window" while returning most of the electrical input.

As for Bob Teal, I do not know if he is still alive. If he is, he is 85 years old and probably living in North or South Carolina. I have not tried to contact him.

Peter

[Aaron]

Solenoids, Electromagnets, and Electromagnetic Windings by Charles N. Underhill

Solenoids, Electromagnets, and Electromagnetic Windings by Charles N. Underhill

There are a handful of used copies there.

[gyula]

Hi Peter,

1) I would like to know if Bob Teal is still with us or he passed?

2) I apologize for posting here without having bought your DVD yet, I would like to know that the discussion topics you outlined yesterday are based on a practical / working motor you /or/and your partners have actually built and measured to be really overunity or will be based on very logical theory? You have measurement results on at least one working overunity motor and if so will it be possible to learn about them?

Very sorry for my scepticism but I hope you understand it, I am open to think outside of the box, I believe in possible overunity devices but need practical facts.

Thank you,

Gyula

[Peter Lindemann]

Book on Solenoid Design

Eric,

You aren't rambling. You are totally on the right track. A good book that covers the math on what you want is: "Solenoids, Electromagnets, and Electromagnetic Windings" by Charles N. Underhill. ISBN #1-55918-096-X. This book was first printed in 1914. I like the old books because they are factual, and uninfluenced by changes in theory and politics. It is currently available from Lindsay Publications as a reprint.

This book will let you calculate magnetic field strength for wire size, number of turns and current. Teal's big secret was the method whereby he minimized the air-gap in the solenoid at the middle of the stroke. This sort of solenoid design is not discussed in the book, so you will not be able to accurately calculate the mechanical energy produced. You will have to build a model of the machine and MEASURE the mechanical energy generated to fully understand what it does.

Peter

[Eric]

assuming i do understand the dvd lets look at your demo of the single piston motor you built this i believe is a simple bifliar coil wound on a spool, the solinoid inside being soft iron has no permanate magnet field to generate a cemf soooo isnt there a way to calculate magnetic field strength based on number of turns, wire size, volts, amps, then using this field strength we can maybe calculate the nessesary pounds the piston can provide for the crank shaft? solinoids have been around awhile. the geomitry in a soliniod switch might not be what we want for a motor piston but for the size of the coil it might be a start. is there a way to calculate this? maybe i was too specific in my previous post. i am not really looking for a direct induction motor book but rather a more basic book on coil design without a permant magnetic field present, (like a solinoid switch). granted it might not cover the details of how to recover the cemf to charge the source but before i learn about that i was curious about calculating the magnetic field strength in terms of pounds and working from there to the rods and crankshaft in the hopes that i wouldnt have to just start blindly wrapping copper around a core and guess as to whether its enough to pull the rod. hehe.

hope im not rambling here too much
thanks alot for your help!!
Eric