Electric Motor Secrets

[Shad]

Theory
Experiments - Thyristor Fired Coilgun

[Peter Lindemann]

Why not....

Theory
Experiments - Thyristor Fired Coilgun

Shad,

The question you are asking is "can the magnetic attraction motor be run from capacitor discharges?" The answer is YES. Ben discussed doing just that in post #39 in this forum. You can see in the schematic of your coilgun that the energy of the inductive collapse is thrown away with the shorting diode 1N5402. It would be simple to divert this into a second capacitor to conserve the majority of this charge for the next shot. With a 10ms discharge, a very high percentage of the energy could be recovered for another use.

Ed Gray was doing what you suggest with the dielectric discharges. He was able to repel plastic projectiles with extremely high force using dielectric discharges. He claimed he could launch a plastic projectile with a million amps and accelerate it to 88,000 feet per second in under 0.001 second. So, YES, your ideas are correct.

As for the air compressor part of Teal's second patent, it looks like an attempt by his patent attorney to toss in another application. None of the pictures, videos or other company literature ever shows or mentions the air compressor feature. Building an electric motor with high torque and low electricity consumption was the primary purpose of the design, as far as I can tell.

Peter

[Shad]

The question you are asking is "can the magnetic attraction motor be run from capacitor discharges?" The answer is YES. Ben discussed doing just that in post #39 in this forum. You can see in the schematic of your coilgun that the energy of the inductive collapse is thrown away with the shorting diode 1N5402. It would be simple to divert this into a second capacitor to conserve the majority of this charge for the next shot. With a 10ms discharge, a very high percentage of the energy could be recovered for another use.

Ed Gray was doing what you suggest with the dielectric discharges. He was able to repel plastic projectiles with extremely high force using dielectric discharges. He claimed he could launch a plastic projectile with a million amps and accelerate it to 88,000 feet per second in under 0.001 second. So, YES, your ideas are correct.

This is very encouraging! I will definitely have to try that, trying to make a no-load motor of that.

How did Ed Gray create the dielectricity to repel plastic projectiles? Did he use coils or asymmetric capacitors to repel the projectiles?

I am grateful for any tiny information you can give here!

Best of greetings,
Shad

[Peter Lindemann]

I have to be fair....

Shad,

I don't mind discussing these things with you, but this post is 100% off topic for this group. It should be in the Radiant Energy Forum. I am not going to address these questions in this forum.

If we don't hold the line and limit this forum to Bob Teal, and No Back EMF attraction motors, it will digress into a forum about everything. I am not in other forums, because I DO NOT CHAT!!! I'm far to busy for that. I will help anyone, at any level, learn about advanced energy ideas, but I am not interested in commenting on every little detail of someone else's research. Its like trying to practice medicine over the phone. IT CAN'T BE DONE!

It isn't fair to ask Steven to stay on topic, without asking you to do the same.

Sorry,

Peter

[Drexel]

Rotating attraction motor?

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

[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

[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

[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:

[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]

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]

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

[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.

[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

[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

[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