Tweet
PESWiki
@Allan,
why you have the same information on your side ?
Regards
Joehan
@Allan,
why you have the same information on your side ?
Regards
Joehan
-
-
ok i am going to just say my 2 cents worth here, you wont hardly see me at all on a disscusion group as i have learned that its easy waste a ton of time following various discusion groups on the web. most of my time will be spent actually throwing some money and time "building something" i "think" will work based on what i "learned" from the dvd.
I know what its like not having a lot of money, im not rich, christ im just a pizza delivery driver!! (plus i have no formal background so i am learning and thinking as i move ahead) but what i do know is that it is easy to be afraid to fail.. we all grow up being taught that its bad to fail. you get in trouble for getting D's in school instead of being "encuraged" (a reprimand is discouragement) to use that grade as a starting point to improve. this is one of many examples of how we are taught as we grow up. ironicly (and paradoxilly) if you look at sports, like baseball, a designated hitter who is ranked at 300 is considered a verry sucessful player and also makes waaaaay more money than a 200 hitter. ok now lets look at that 300. that 300 means that out of a 1000 swings he hit the ball 300 times. that means he "failed" 700 times!!! funny how we are taught its bad to fail and the baseball hitter is making more money now because he was willing to go out and "risk" failing the most!! what he knows and you dont is that failure is a nessary building block to achieving!!!
ok why this lenthy discription, because based on what i am reading on this group YOU GUYS ARE LOSING THE FOREST FOR THE TREES, (yes i am yelling to get your attention) LOL i even know there are many of you out there in the world who, in the back of your head, are telling me that i may be a pizza driver with not a lot of money but i(meaning you) have even less money to lose. see you see fear of bad consiquences and a reprimand set in and your reduced to speculation instead of taking a swing at it. look at how you guys are nitpicking peters new dvd. look at how rick is nitpicking the credibility of peter and his dvd. look at how your whining about how there is no reveiled secret in "bob teals" design and...how did rick put it "Teal is made to be the grand savior of the environment and world economy when nothing significant is presented of his work" . jeez its a friggen piston design with tie rods and a crankshaft that will wear out and break. (a simple shafted electric rotary design is much simpler and more elegant) if you didnt sleep through the beginning of the dvd you would have realized the secret lies in harnessing all the unopposed magnetic torque, and recycling energy is an added benifit to this. bedinis monopole "only" focusses on maximizing the energy spike, for torque its gutless. teal was an example not the definative solution. its like you guys want the answer spoon fed to you or something, and you would probably like it for free to boot!! im sorry but if you want a step by step direction list you can follow with out thinking then you should be paying peter waaaay more than 30 dollars so he can think for you! i dont know where i heard this or if its true but i heard "the average person spends only 5 minutes on oriiginal thought in a typical day. it used to be 10 min before television was invented!" sounds scary to me!!
so back to the dvd, you guys completely missed the boat on whats important. the 1 piston motor, the teal design, peters own flux motor design (of which you guys expressed no interest in at all in the previous posts, probly because peter didnt spoon feed you the "how to" directions for that motor in the dvd haha), the executive desk top toys, even the hypothetical s curved rotor at the end of the dvd are all EXAMPLES of past work and present ideas. when i watched the dvd i did not think these wer the heart and soul of the dvd. again you guys missed the forest for the trees, i felt the most amazing and important part of the dvd was the detailed way he went about describing the shortcomings of the present day direct induction motor. and giveing me a picture like understanding of what really goes on in these motors. if i actually get off my armchair for a second and "think" about how much practical mechanical shaft work i can get when i have a motor thats not acting against it self i get exited! then add to the fact that not having money forces me to "think" more creatively. and find a "possible" solution to "relativly cheaply" modify a piece of existing garbage into a motor that might give me a similar result to peters flux motor idea that he allready built in the past! when i finnish it (in about 2 weeks from now) i will run it. compare input watts with "real power" out on a mini dyno test. then if it doesnt work i will learn all i can from it and move on (i wont whine and throw a fit) if it works then thats all i need to build a massive belief in my self and this idea that i can further learn how to calculate what i need to "build it bigger and better" .
there, its long and windy and a little harsh, if offended i appolgize (only if you dont fit the above description otherwise consider the harshness as a tonic)
point is you guys need a wake up call. so go watch the dvd (again for some)
and use your noggin to add something of value to this group. i will not post any more details on my ideas because there mine and you need to focus on your ideas, then if you need help with your ideas post your questions, of which i would gladly help you if i can (remember im learning to) so dont give up if i cant. just find some one who can, be it a highschool teacher or the local garbage man, you never know who has the answer based from there past life experence.
remember that in the dvd all peter did was show us what happens in a direct induction motor, share some history on alternative ideas, and.... this is the most important, he encouraged you to "experement" in the end of the dvd. this means learn to think, dare to try, and be ready and willing to learn!!
cheers!
EricComment
-
Give up? Heck no!!! I'm going to build me one of them over-unity dynomometers if it's the last thing I do.
Comment
-
Bob Teal - Magnipulsion secrets?
Bob Teal obviously had some secrets since the articles, the interview video, etc... show him demonstrating things that are not covered in the patents and he personally seems to have left this information out on how he did it. At least, in a direct way. By talking about collapsing magnetic fields, etc... in the interview and elsewhere are vague enough explanations that anyone "skilled in the art" will get what he is talking about and therefore making it unnecessary to even put them in the patents.
One thing is for sure. Patents don't mean much as far as being an authoritative document to allow duplication of a technology. Inventors are not required to disclose any more than is necessary to protect the concepts. To my underdstanding at least. I know a handful of people who have over 100 patents combined on many different technologies and plenty of them have a "fudge factor" in them. Enough to protect the concepts but not enough to duplicate the secret sauce that makes it do what the inventors are demonstrating.
Bob Teal says in the interview video clip that cemf and the collapsing magnetic field are the same and they are not. The cemf is obviously an active effect while applying the power mostly through induction I suppose and the collapsing magnetic field is a different event AFTER the power is turned off. 2 separate events. So, I think it is easy to see that his explanation of cemf and the collapsing magnetic fields are not entirely accurate, but I think common sense shows that he was aware of the concepts of what he was dealing with.
It appears that the Magnipulsion did not try to motor against itself creating cemf for the fact that lighting bulbs didn't force the input to climb up...the output isn't connected directly to the input. Also, the collapsed magnetic fields seem to be obviously used even in the interview's simple desktop example of that coil pulsing and the collapsed fields were charging that cap to 40volts from 12v input. Just about all of us who has experimented with John's circuits knows that the collapsing fields will charge caps like this so I don't think there is much debate there.
I am NOT implying that Teal was doing it just like John because I think there is no question that John has the world's most efficient way to do it. Teal has a tradeoff with getting torque out of his motor. And with some type of "iron keeper", etc... the spikes probably won't be super radiant like John's. BUT, whatever does happen to be there in the Magnipulsion type motor's collapsed fields will probably be recovered the most efficiently using John's method at least.
Bob Teal may have mentioned magnets but that is exactly what an electromagnetic coil is and that is also exactly what permanent magnets are. Both are magnets. One electromagnetic and one permanant. Since all of his explanations revolve around electromagnetic coils, I believe it is safe to say that when Bob Teal mentions magnets that it is synonomous with electromagnetic coils.
I personally believe that Teal's motor is an open system and his recovery is absolutely not locked into the input. I don't know if Teal charged batteries with the collapsing fields or not, but he obviously charged caps and lit bulbs with it and could do so without increasing the input necessary to power the engine meaning that the load is increased on the overall system but no more is necessary to run the engine. It is kind of a one way system. The input charges the coils and the collapsed fields are funneled to a capacitor/bulb system in one way or another. That output and being able to power bulbs from it obviously isn't dependent on the direct input to the system. How? I don't know exactly how he did it but it is obvious he did it.
Maybe he had some diode leaving the coil to the cap when coil is shut off or maybe he had a secondary winding going to a bridge then to caps. Who knows? Those are the only two ways I can think it was done and that is because those are the only two ways I have done it in my personal attempts of bulding some of John Bedini's circuits and of course that is because that is what John shared with everyone.
With the torque, Teal explains about when the coils are turned on are definitely not at "bottom dead center" but upwards through the swing to take advantage of that force instead of sucking the rod straight up on the crankshaft. That is a very powerful concept and seeing some of the old motors are doing it inline which is very power robbing. Doing it partly through a swing turned on by whatever switch you want seems to be a very significant step towards higher torque in this particular model.
With the collapsed magnetic field, that will not "push" the rod out furthering efficiency, if anything, the collapsing magnetic field will suck the rod in even further and stronger. The iron is not polarized like a magnet so to speak and will just move towards the coil no matter what polarity the coil is at. So, turn the coil on when the rod is moving into the coil, turn it off before it gets all the way in there, the collapse will further suck the rod in plus whatever collapse is there..., a part of it will be recovered to a cap or whatever in addition to providing further mechanical work (when no more power is supplied) at that moment. This is a very powerful concept I think.
no backemf
more torque for less input
recovery of the collapsed fields
Magnipulsion did these.
Are the secrets revealed on how Bob Teal did them?
It is possible since Bob Teal never revealed them himself I suppose. I believe Peter said something like "even if this isn't the exact" method that Teal used, it had to fulfill those certain parameters.
Back efm is back emf and to get around having more cemf when increasing load the motor obviously had to apply certain principles.
More mechanical work with less input with turning on through the stroke and not at the bottom of it plus on the turn off, the collapsed field will further produce more mechanical work in the forward direction.
Recovery of magnetic collapse, Teal did this by what exact method? I don't know but it could have been by 2nd winding through bridge or diode from the coil...people see the diode leaving the collector but I see it as being at the bottom of the coil.
I learned a lot in Electric Motor Secrets because my experience with conventional motors ended with my RC cars back in the late 80's in Japan with the Tamiya kits. I know I push forward on the control and the car moves. That was about it. I have the general understanding of conventional motors, but Peter's video did clear a bunch up for me.
It may be in a lot of conventional language but I think that is a good thing because even though the virtual photon language of Bearden is probably the most accurate explanation for all of it, it is very difficult for many people to grasp and it just has to be in simple language for the masses to get it. Especially conventional motor designers who don't believe it is possible to increase the load without increasing the input amp draw. We have all experienced this with Bedini motors. I think Peter deserves a lot of credit for making it "pallatable" to non "free energy" buffs.
Bob Teal was obviously either holding back in the patents or came to further realizations after those patents as shown in the interview and articles. Whatever the case, I feel it is very worth of further discovery.
On a final note, John asks that everyone please not email him asking him about the Electric Motor Secrets DVD. He is too busy dealing with his own business and technologies. He will just refer you here anyway since this forum is where you ask questions about the dvd. He'll also ask you to just ask Peter since Peter made the DVD. John is swamped with emails about this and doesn't have time. Please respect this. Look what John has already given to the public so how could anyone ask for anything more. If that keeps up, people will start emailing him asking where to get the magnets!
Anyway, on that lighter note
just remember that there is nothing like actual experimentation and one experiment is worth a bajillion opinions.
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami
Books, Videos, ESTC Conference Info, Blog, etc. https://emediapress.com
Comment
-
JSincerely,
Aaron Murakami
Books, Videos, ESTC Conference Info, Blog, etc. https://emediapress.com
Comment
-
My Two Cents...
Dear Forum Members,
The recent posts by Eric and Aaron have reiterated the essence of what I am trying to convey in my DVD, and I do not wish to address any of these other knit-picky posts.
There is one thing I would like to address, and that is the comment by John Bedini, as follows:
"Also in the NEW movie, I built the engine you see running, I did the switching. as Teal's motor was not capable of charging any battery. the circuit you see with teal's drawing is not for storing energy at all. The circuit is a spark suppression for the points. The teal motor is not capable of charging batteries until you use the monopole circuit for recovery.
I'm not going to say anything more. Remember closing down all the fields is not an open system, no recovery possible.
John"
I agree with everything John says here, but I would like to add more detail to the account. The Solenoid Engine I demonstrate on the DVD was built at John's shop about two years ago, in the Spring of 2005. I was working for John's company at the time. One day I brought my Bob Teal file to work and John, Gary and I had a long and sometimes heated discussion about the possibilities of getting more torque out of one of these designs. I wanted to build it and John agreed to help. But we were at John's shop, and John is the skilled machinist and John is the skilled electronic circuit designer. So, naturally, John actually fabricated the parts that needed machining. We both worked on assembling it. When it came to figuring out how to run the commutator, we decided on an optical-interrupter system. The signal output from this was rather low, so John developed a gain stage to drive the output transistors. I don't show the circuit because it is one of John's unique solutions to a unique situation. It is similar to the SG type of circuit, but there are a few differences as well. Teal's patents suggests he was running a very short input pulse so we started with a very short ON time. That didn't work very well at all. At John's urging, we kept opening up the ON time until we were ON for about 160 degrees and OFF for about 200 degrees.
It was still not very powerful. I suggested that we needed to start folding the magnetic field down around the coil and so I built the plastic donut filled with iron filings. This helped some, but the motor didn't start running fast until we put the iron top piece on. Then the mechanical power started going up. This is shown in the DVD. After studying this motor over time, I realized the full significance of the necessity of closing the magnetic field all the way down in order to get the mechanical energy production up to the maximum. The model, as shown, still has more than ONE INCH of air gap in the magnetic circuit at the top of the stroke and over TWO INCHES of air gap at the beginning of the stroke. That is why I say we are missing 60% or more of the possible mechanical energy from this model. I actually believe this model is missing as much as 90% of the possible mechanical energy available from its electrical input.
I agree that Teal's circuit does not show how any electricity can be recovered from his magnetic field collapse. I venture a speculation, based on what circuit he does show, but I agree with John. Teal's patent does not show how energy can be recovered from his coils. But, obviously there is energy to recover, and Teal does demonstrate doing it in the Interview film, so he was clearly aware of the process and its importance. I still maintain that Teal's working models took advantage of this process and that John's circuits demonstrate how it can be done.
Now let's talk about closing down the magnetic field. John says that you can't get any "recovery" when the field is closed down completely. Its true that the Radiant Voltage Spike coming from the coil collapse is strongest when the coil is open to the environment. The battery charges best when the current pulse is preceded by this very high voltage spike. In contrast to this, the mechanical energy produced by the motor is maximized when the magnetic field is completely closed down and the total air gap between the moving and non-moving parts is only a few thousandths of an inch. Under this circumstance, the Radiant Voltage Spike is almost completely gone and the impulse coming out of the coil collapse is almost entirely electron current. This type of pulse charge will not desulfate the battery or heal it of past damage like the Radiant Spike will. So, you cannot "recover" a battery this way. But it will charge the battery to some degree, so it is not entirely useless. It will charge capacitors just fine. So, there is a trade off in how the electrical and mechanical outputs are engineered, and there are ways to get both effects by carefully studying these processes and engineering the machine accordingly.
So, I hope this clears up some of the confusion about this machine and the accusations that have been made. John built it, I helped a lot, and Teal's patent was on the table when we did it. I acknowledge in the credits at the end of my DVD that John and I built the Solenoid Engine test model, so nothing was ever intended to mislead anybody.
PeterLast edited by Peter Lindemann; 04-25-2007, 06:25 AM.Comment
-
Air spring
Now we are talking...
I have been thinking hard on this subject for a few days now. And most of the important stuff seems to have been talked about already. So I will not repeat loads of it.
Thinking more torque for a given input is way more important than how much you can recover by the collapsing field. This solenoid motor does seem to be able to create a lot of torque with a small input, but someone has to actually build one and then share the findings with us all.
like aaron said: let the eMagnet pull the piston in, and cut off the power before it reaches the endpoint. The collapsing field will result in one final big pull on the piston, and simultaneusly we can catch this pulse like tesla or john bedini did. (Take a look here if you want to see how tesla catched the collapsing field of a large inductor, to power a tesla-coil from a battery) so we both get to eat the cake and to have it still :-)
now add to this something that I have seen in the patents but are not quite so obvious: the solenoid housing is closed in the end where the piston goes in. this makes it practically an airspring. this is explained by tesla too (im a big fan of him ;-) in his mechanical steam or pressure oscillator. so when you cut of the power the spike will slam the piston towards the end, we catch the kick-back in a Cap, and the airspring will push the rod OUT! Dont forget, another solenoid is actually pulling at this right moment so the force of the airspring is ADDED to the force of the pulling emagnet. summa summarum: MORE TORQUE.
I believe that it is possible to build a motor that uses not very much electrical energy to run, wich creates a lot of torque, and that this engine can turn a conventional generator while recapturing some or most of the input energy. the generator will of course be delivering more out than we put into the motor... I really hope so...
LarsComment
-
Hi Gang,
Did a search on the US Patent site last night and found the two patents for the TEAL engin.
Name:
Teal, Benjimin R. (took me a while to find as R is middle name)
US4,093,880
US4,024,421
The site is free and all you have to have is a TIFF viewer to see them! There is a like at the site to a free viewer if you do not already have it on your computer.
Patent Full-Text and Full-Page Image Databases
Slogged through both, did not find anything particularly new or exotic AS PATENTED. Looking at others that the patents were compared to, some really neat ol solenoid driven engines "Invented" over the years though and going way back!. Oh, I LIKE reading patents! The double talk is usually up to your armpits!
Respectfully,
BenComment
-
Teal Motor More Thought
Hi Gang,
Reading all the above post it is obvious that the basics of the Teal motor is understood. Peter very clearly showed most of the basics that the motor requires to run and has discovered the secret of the enclosed solenoid field process that increases the output.
If anyone looked at the photo of my motor they will see all the attributes Peter has suggested for a successful motor including very close/closed coupling of the solenoid piston and coil. That is mandatory or the motor is a pip squeek with very low output.
What Peter has missed or has not shown is the effect of a pulse that is of a VERY HIGH POTENTIAL (hence high peak current in coil) and the effect it has on the output of the motor when all of the energy of the pulse is contained in the solenoid!. If you make a L/C circuit out of the solenoid coil and a cap which holds the basic power for one pulse, add a diode across the coil to capture any back emf IN THE COIL, pulse the cap into the coil for a VERY short time at anywhere from 600-1000 VDC, the motor turns into a power house! The LCD of the motor/cap/diode network turns into a PFN network that results in the single high voltage/current pulse and the diode helps kill the ringing.
The easiest way to SEE this effect is to take a 24VDC industrial relay, which basically has an enclosed field in the coil and movable armature. Place a HV diode (1000V at least, 1N4007) across it (this stops the ringing, keeps energy in the coil/solenoid and as it is NOT polarity sensitive, any current in the coil in either direction pulls it in!), observe polarity when you do the next step. Key it with 24 volts observe it's "clunk" as it pulls in, normal operation. Then charge a 1uf HV cap (at least 2000V rating) up to 24 V, remove from supply and connect it across it, keeping polarity right. Nothing happens. Keep going up in voltage, around 80-90 VDC, it will start pulling in weakly. Around 250 VDC it will clunk pretty well. Around 5-600VDC, it will BANG in, around 800-1000VDC it will almost tear the armature off as the Cap. discharges in less than 1-3ms. Another secret is the old Amp/Turns field here, VERY HIGH CURRENT PULSE, LOTS OF TURNS IN COIL=POWER pulse. There is a lot more going on here but that is the basics. The Joules stored in a cap as voltage goes up and the Amp/turns formula I believe result in a non linear output effect. Any higher than about 1000VDC, the coil insulation will start to break down. Due to the contained field, for some reason, you can pulse much higher voltages into the coil and not have a breakdown, I do not know why this happens but it does. If you look at the waveform at 800-1000VDC, you will see a perfect square 3-600us pulse with virtually no ringing (.5v max) as all the back emf is sucked back into the coil and USED. All the above works with a solenoid as in my motor too! I built the motor 6 months or so ago while playing around with GRAY motor theory and was not aware of the TEAL motor at that time. To make a motor of this type run, you simply add the mechanics, a power supply to charge up the cap. between pulses and a timing/firing device. Nothing new, just application of observations from that darn relay.
OH a word of warning, 1000VDC and 1UF will kill you if you get across it. BE VERY CAREFUL.....!!!!!!!!
Respectfully,
BenComment
-
Thank you Ben!
Hi All,
I am very glad to see the discussion moving on to the science here. Ben has hit the nail on the HEAD! When you look at Teal's commutator on page 3 of the first patent, you can see that he was using very short duration pulses. I suggest in the section of my DVD where I am talking about what features must be present in the solenoid design to get high torque, that Teal used a short, sharp current pulse of a few milliseconds, and that the ampere-turns in the coil equals magnetic field strength. A high energy thrust is transfered to the movable plunger when the crank shaft is in the middle of the stroke.
Ben's idea of applying a capacitor discharge to the solenoid at this point simply maximizes this process. Now, the magnetic thrust vectors applied to the crank are approaching "explosion" velocities, and the power goes way up. And you can still recover most of the electrical input. So the motor can create huge amounts of mechanical energy for the "differential loss" between the amount of electrical energy applied minus the amount of electrical energy recovered. In systems properly designed, this "differential loss" will be under 50 watts per mechanical horse-power produced.
Congratulations Ben!
I will be posting some new drawings on a back page of my website in the next day or so that will show some very simple rotor designs that can produce high torque. The "S" rotor is difficult to machine and in recent tests does not perform better than simple cross bars. More on this soon.
Also, Teal's patents are posted on my Bob Teal page as .pdf files for easy viewing and downloading.
Great work, everybody!
PeterComment
-
Aaron, Peter
Aaron, Peter
Just some things I found out. First Tom Bearden Knew Bob Teal, Tom told me the story. Teal demonstrations were conducted in public, in that public demonstration Bob Teal would ask the engineers to explain how this works. He would fill a bath tub with water drop a wire in the tub put the light bulb in his mouth with the other wire and step into the tub. The engineers could not explain where the power came from. Tom said he never recovered any energy to the batteries in any way, but he was working on it. The power the Teal engine consumed was not much but it did reflect the torque for the power put into it. The failure was, Teal was not able to show any improvements over the DC motors at the time. With the model Peter and I built, it did perform just as Teal's, without building the magnetic shield's for the top and the sides, it performs just like Teal's motor without taking any recovery. The next thing, Peter, you must think I fell off some hay wagon somewhere, Ron Cole and I built many solenoid engines as can be see in my garage and one at the shop and I never take models apart, also the drawing of a dual acting solenoid engine can be seen in Ron's drawings, Hall Switched. The Window Motor out performed all this when it is just a motor with all the coils, and it only takes mili-amps to do it. More research should have been done before the DVD was released. I have better models in my basement which I have not shown to anybody of engines with just Iron rods, so it is not like I'm not intrigued in any of this research, I have been doing this for years.
I have kept most of this out of the public domain for this very reason. Peter might have done this work in the 1970's but you need a machine to prove your point, money is no excuse if you believe in it. The other thing is that I was out of money the same time Peter was, it did not stop me from doing my work. I don't think I should post my notes on all this work, I'm just going to put it into a book and let Tony sell it, as they are simple machines that anybody can build, they all use the recovery to charge batteries. One more thing, I must have said to you, Peter 200 times the monopole is not a motor, it's an Energizer, I have also said this many time's on all the group's. Peter should take his time and do methodical research before doing anything like this, you must know all the answers and not assume anything, as you will fail. Before you expect to build things from just theory you must prove it out as the theory never works the same way. The drawings of the little toy is in no way valid of my monopole machine in any way as it does not recover anything, it uses an autofomer arrangement, so I rest my case until proven otherwise. Peter worked here for a year and he knows I do not think in conventional terms in electronics when it comes to recovering energy, as I see something much different then he does. I have no beef with Peter, except he should have just let Gary and I see the preview like Gary asked. Doing a DVD on DC motors is one thing, as for energy recovery you are playing in a much different ballpark as is know by people who have tried. I admit I did not share everything with Peter or the groups for a very simple reason, most would not be able to use it wisely, so I keep all my models simple, just basic pro-types at the shop. I never change my routine on this, because of what happened with Jim Watson, I never forgot that lesson.
John
Originally posted by Peter Lindemann View PostJohn Bedini
www.johnbedini.netComment
-
John,
Thanks for joining the group. It is sad to see some of your comments about me. You know I don't think you just fell off a hay wagon. You know that's not how I think about you. You are one of the great geniuses of our time. If you decide to publish your notes and release it as a new book, all of us would welcome that and I will be the first to buy a copy.
Please include Ron Cole's motor that produces 1 hp for 13 watts. People should understand that design too. (Just so everyone knows, the motor I am referring to has a totally closed down magnetic field at least half the time.)
I do not apologize for publicizing what I know about these types of motors. That you would have done it differently is noted. My purpose is to educate and get people to think about these processes. My DVD accomplishes this purpose. I am not going to build a prototype, start a company, try and convince people that it works, raise money and file patents. That is what you are doing, and it is insanely hard. Instead, I hope to help thousands of people understand these principles so they can design and build their own.
These motors can produce super-efficient torque even without the recovery, but can be 9 times better with recovery. Your methods of recovery are the best ever developed and I acknowledge that in the DVD.
Please help us develop the best recovery circuits for these magnetic attraction motors. You know how to do this in your sleep, but we all still have a lot to learn from you.
I don't know what you didn't tell me, John. I have never questioned your motives for what you do. If you don't want to help because of what happened to Jim Watson, that's perfectly OK. But it would be really nice if you and Rick would quit griping because the rest of us are learning something and moving forward.
PeterComment
-
Bob Teal Magnipulsion References
Bob Teal Magnipulsion references
USP #4,024,421 - Magnetically Operable Engine or Power Plant - PDF
USP #4,093,880 - Magnetically Operable Engine - PDF
Magneteal Industries, Inc. Company Literature
Newspaper Articles
"Impossible" Engine Invented for Real", LA Times, May 30, 1976
If anyone has a copy of this article, a copy would be apprecaited.Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami
Books, Videos, ESTC Conference Info, Blog, etc. https://emediapress.com
Comment
-
I might clear up one more thing. The stroke of the engine in Peters DVD requires that timing, in Teal's patent his stroke is so short this is why you see the short pulse.
Same thing happens in a combustion engine with the burn cycle. The research suggests that, and the working models that you only have power for 1/2 the pole piece. or if a piston is used 1/2 the coil length, you can not get around this physics. Look at what Aaron posted, the makeshift engine , look how long the power cycle is on. I made my point.
John
Originally posted by Peter Lindemann View PostJohn,
Thanks for joining the group. It is sad to see some of your comments about me. You know I don't think you just fell off a hay wagon. You know that's not how I think about you. You are one of the great geniuses of our time. If you decide to publish your notes and release it as a new book, all of us would welcome that and I will be the first to buy a copy. Please include Ron Cole's motor that produces 1 hp for 13 watts. People should understand that design too. (Just so everyone knows, the motor I am referring to has a totally closed down magnetic field at least half the time.)
I do not apologize for publicizing what I know about these types of motors. That you would have done it differently is noted. My purpose is to educate and get people to think about these processes. My DVD accomplishes this purpose. I am not going to build a prototype, start a company, try and convince people that it works, raise money and file patents. That is what you are doing, and it is insanely hard. Instead, I hope to help thousands of people understand these principles so they can design and build their own.
These motors can produce super-efficient torque even without the recovery, but can be 9 times better with recovery. Your methods of recovery are the best ever developed and I acknowledge that in the DVD.
Please help us develop the best recovery circuits for these magnetic attraction motors. You know how to do this in your sleep, but we all still have a lot to learn from you.
I don't know what you didn't tell me, John. I have never questioned your motives for what you do. If you don't want to help because of what happened to Jim Watson, that's perfectly OK. But it would be really nice if you and Rick would quit griping because the rest of us are learning something and moving forward.
PeterJohn Bedini
www.johnbedini.netComment
Comment