Electric Motor Secrets

[Aaron]

Revetec Cam Drive Engine

For further discussion on the cam drive engine concept, please see this thread:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/2177-revetec-cam-drive-engine.html

[Aaron]

Scotch Yoke

Carl,

If you are interested in the Scotch Yoke setup, I'd recommend posting a question to David here:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/2173-bourke-engine.html

An optimum geometry of the Scotch Yoke setup has been figured out by Bourke, who simply had the best Scotch Yoke setup, ever. By geometry, I don't mean the concept in general, I'm talking about the ratios of relationships of the parts between each other.

I understand I don't know what I don't know so there could be some of Bourke's engineering that might apply to his engine that might not necessarily apply to the solenoids....however, David would be the best to kick those ideas around. He has probably the best blueprints and maybe the only ones...for this as he actually has a Bourke in his possession. They are for the engine and the Scotch Yoke setup isn't unique to Bourke but David offers a great resource and I'd recommend checking out his site thoroughly to get a deep feel for the whole concept.

If anyone else wants to kick around ideas about the mechanical engineering part of the Scotch Yoke...might be best in this thread:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/2173-bourke-engine.html

I'll start a separate thread on the cam engine so it can have a life of its own as well...because when and if it does, anything useful that can be applied by anyone with the wherewithall to do it can of course bring it back here in the application of an attraction motor.

Many people won't be building either of these at home but there are many gifted engineers here that could build either of these in their sleep from the incredible work I've seen....and a CNC built from scratch!!!??

[muttdogg]

Piston engine

Carl, thanks for the reply
Here's my point. Sounds good, don't work. You are correct that speed needs to increase by 2x to get 1+ speed. The motor, no matter which torque transfer you use, will not develop enough HP to make a difference. I wish it would, I'd use it! Please take a look at Doc Peter's posts, or his video, you might see why you might be on the wrong track. Like I said the transverse piston is the way to go. Sorry I can't remember the web site. Even that, which will give you more torque, it won't be enough. Now if the Lindemann attaction motor could be modified........
Dan

[hh1341]

[hh1341]

Well maybe the second piston will form a keeper at the opposite end of the core its being pulled into

[vzon17]

All you New Guys

,

Aaron is sometimes TOO SUBTLE, but he is right this time. For converting a linear motion to a rotary motion, the crank shaft and connecting rod is the WORST for efficiency. The Scotch-yoke is much better, but the CAM DRIVE systems are the best. Do a Google Search on "Revetec" and see what I mean.

Next, ALL of these "multi-coil" arrangements has been tried in the past. The patent office is littered with this junk. None of them help produce more torque!!!!! High torque production efficiency has to do with the geometry of the IRON KEEPER, switch timing and the efficiency of the recovery circuits. That is what my DVD is all about.

You guys are all rapidly moving toward building expensive junk. I highly recommend you all slow down, study the fundamentals much more thoroughly, and spend your money on keeping your girl friend happy! You'll get more out of it!!!

Peter

There is only one problem with a single coil its range of pull is limited. You don't get a full power stroke with it. by adding a second coil you can increase the length of the power applied to the stroke all the way from one end to the other and do it both directions.

And quit being such a wet blanket on new ideas I see you doing that on many posts on this forum. I don't care whats littering the patent offices that has nothing to do with here. That is a non sequitur.

The revetec looks real nice. but try building one at home.. ha ha ha.

a scotch yoke you can put together with minimal tools or precision so its the best choice at the level we are working at.
As far as keepers on the cap end of the second coil you don't need one as the piston moves into that position on its return stroke and the second piston forms a keeper on the other end of the coil each time also. moveable keepers what a concept :-)
You can have keepers on thte ends of both coils and even extending into the inside of the core a little ways. one might even be able to work out some kind of overlap on the coil energizing so the gap between the two coils also attracts the piston. 3 attracting gaps for the price of two. maybe.

[hh1341]

Dan,

The one thing I see in the Revetec, that would work for a boat, is you could have counter-rotating concentric props.

They are not getting work out of the second tri-cor cam in the gas engine It is just an idler to balance the load.

Carl

[vzon17]

Jeepers Keepers

Now to the subject of the keeper.

With the proposed 2 core, 2 coil design, the kipper will be less than perfect, as the core moves past the end of the coil.

To have the better end caped keeper as seen on the DVD, 1 core and 2 coils may work. Albeit, the inboard keeper would have pass the con-rod through a hole bored in it's end.(picture 2 open tin cans, open ends facing each other, one with a hole in the end. )

We would only get 2 power energizings per revolution with this set up (better than Teal, who got one, per rev, per solenoid; as per his patent).

We would have to build both options to determine if the power gain with 4 energizings, off set, the compromised keepers.(maybe someone knows the answer to this?)


[ATTACH]677[/ATTACH]
Keep checking this drawing, it changes.
BTW how can I get these drawings to show large on this page? ( looks like it is asking for a URL, I don't got one. Could I use a Yahoo site?)

Carl

Well maybe the second piston will form a keeper at the opposite end of the core its being pulled into

[muttdogg]

Hey Doc Peter, and any else who cares
That Revetec motor(engine?), looks like an upside down,sideways and backwards version of the Wankel engine. Also looks like too many surfaces to wear out, thus continuing the throw away society I thought this thread was trying to get rid of. Now, in all fairness I haven't built the Doc's motor, but have been reading this thread from page one. Now I am finally to the last page (know how long it takes to read this thread from page one?), so if my input is scurillous,I am doing my best. I have built two Bedinis, and am on the third, where I will try to recover the back emf and cemf and charge a battery, and work on the horsepower aspect. I am also very interested in a piston driven motor. I seem to recall a patent somewhere on line, but can't recall. I'm sure I do not have the technical knowledge of some here on this thread, nor the electronic versatility, probably not even the discipline to experiment as wholly as the next. I am an artisan, not an artist. I like to build, so if I irritate anyone, especially the Doc, my apologies. Not intended. I also like to read, read and read again until I am positive the outcome will suffice. When I see, what I feel is someone going down the wrong path, I speak up. No qualms about it. That is why I brought up the transverse piston. H1141. or whatever, and vson are swinging up a tree on a vine that is too short. Ala George of the Jungle. As Bullwinkle would say, "Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat." Sorry if this is long-winded.
Dan

He's not the kind you have to wind-up on Sunday

[muttdogg]

looks like wankel

Hey Doc Peter, and any else who cares
That Revetec motor(engine?), looks like an upside down,sideways and backwards version of the Wankel engine. Also looks like too many surfaces to wear out, thus continuing the throw away society I thought this thread was trying to get rid of. Now, in all fairness I haven't built the Doc's motor, but have been reading this thread from page one. Now I am finally to the last page (know how long it takes to read this thread from page one?), so if my input is scurillous,I am doing my best. I have built two Bedinis, and am on the third, where I will try to recover the back emf and cemf and charge a battery, and work on the horsepower aspect. I am also very interested in a piston driven motor. I seem to recall a patent somewhere on line, but can't recall. I'm sure I do not have the technical knowledge of some here on this thread, nor the electronic versatility, probably not even the discipline to experiment as wholly as the next. I am an artisan, not an artist. I like to build, so if I irritate anyone, especially the Doc, my apologies. Not intended. I also like to read, read and read again until I am positive the outcome will suffice. When I see, what I feel is someone going down the wrong path, I speak up. No qualms about it. That is why I brought up the transverse piston. H1141. or whatever, and vson are swinging up a tree on a vine that is too short. Ala George of the Jungle. As Bullwinkle would say, "Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat." Sorry if this is long-winded.
Dan

[hh1341]

Keepers

Now to the subject of the keeper.

With the proposed 2 core, 2 coil design, the kipper will be less than perfect, as the core moves past the end of the coil.

To have the better end caped keeper as seen on the DVD, 1 core and 2 coils may work. Albeit, the inboard keeper would have pass the con-rod through a hole bored in it's end.(picture 2 open tin cans, open ends facing each other, one with a hole in the end. )

We would only get 2 power energizings per revolution with this set up (better than Teal, who got one, per rev, per solenoid; as per his patent).

We would have to build both options to determine if the power gain with 4 energizings, off set, the compromised keepers.(maybe someone knows the answer to this?)



Keep checking this drawing, it changes.
BTW how can I get these drawings to show large on this page? ( looks like it is asking for a URL, I don't got one. Could I use a Yahoo site?)

Carl

[hh1341]

you should write in red and underline more often

[Aaron]

cam drive

The peswiki site says 3X more torque than a regular engine. I don't know the specs on how the Bourke compares.

" The Scotch Yoke System seems to be much more simple and possibly more torque."

I only compared the animated gif on the peswiki page to the looks of the bourke animation. So you'll have to do your own studies...either way, they both blow away the normal connecting rod crankshaft method.

The solution to the coil has been presented from the beginning from the Teal patents and by Peter directly saying it.

[Aaron]

Cam Drive Torque method

Carl,

This method is probably not the way to go:
Directory:Revetec Cam-Drive Engine - PESWiki

The Scotch Yoke System seems to be much more simple and possibly more torque.

[Peter Lindemann]

Thinking before Acting

Aaron,



Maybe I should take a look at this other concept before I start cutting metal.

Carl

All you New Guys,

Aaron is sometimes TOO SUBTLE, but he is right this time. For converting a linear motion to a rotary motion, the crank shaft and connecting rod is the WORST for efficiency. The Scotch-yoke is much better, but the CAM DRIVE systems are the best. Do a Google Search on "Revetec" and see what I mean.

Next, ALL of these "multi-coil" arrangements has been tried in the past. The patent office is littered with this junk. None of them help produce more torque!!!!! High torque production efficiency has to do with the geometry of the IRON KEEPER, switch timing and the efficiency of the recovery circuits. That is what my DVD is all about.

You guys are all rapidly moving toward building expensive junk. I highly recommend you all slow down, study the fundamentals much more thoroughly, and spend your money on keeping your girl friend happy! You'll get more out of it!!!

Peter