Electric Motor Secrets

[Peter Lindemann]

Different Scales

Peter,
I made a crude drawing, that should explain how I measured the deflection on the scales:

http://www.emuprim.lv/bildez/images/viskautkas_labs/visadi_strunti_1/table.GIF

(don't laugh, I am not an artist )
This way we can also attach a bigger weight to the scales and load the motor more. One person just needs to look that the leather strip remains where it is and doesn't fall off the shaft.
The scales I am using are very similar to such ones:
Handy Portable Hanging Digital Electronic Scale - blue - eBay (item 160235158312 end time May-28-08 11:11:02 PDT)

If both scales show a deflection, is it right that I must use the sum of both readings in my calculations? This was not clear in your video, because you just had a deflection on one scale. Also, If we have an object of known weight, can we just hang that object on the shaft/wheel just like in the picture above and do the tests this way? I mean this way we already know the weight of that object and need just write down the voltage, amperage and RPM's. Or is this a stupid idea?

Elias, The scales need to be held gently in place bu another person, because if not, they indeed would fall down We just found that if we load the shaft using the scales like Peter showed, the readings on the scales change very fast and it is not easy to get a steady reading, because a person can not load the motor with steady load using his hands. But if the scales just hang down, one person just needs to hold the leather strip in place and the readings and load are steady and don't change in the process of measuring.

Ok, I will go for the wheel then.
24% seems strangely small

Jetijs,

There are a couple of problems here. First of all, just hanging the scales on the shaft will not measure "torque". Second, your digital scales are probably not going to work because their sampling rate is too fast, and you may never get a stable reading. I highly recommend that you use an ANALOG, spring based scale for these readings, like I did. Third, the technique is such that if there are readings on both scales, the value is the DIFFERENCE between them, not the SUM. I recommend that you watch my demonstration over and over until you fully understand the process.

From what I can tell, you have not measured any of the mechanical energy producing capabilities of the motor yet.

Also, you need to modify your circuitry (by inserting a low ohm current measuring resistor) in the circuit going to the power coils. You should also take the output from the output coil and apply it directly back to the capacitor, and not the way you show it in the schematic drawing. Right now, you can't measure anything discreetly because currents are going back and forth on common ground buses and such. Input pathways and output pathways must be discreet and distinct for proper measuring.

Right now, you are only measuring the NET input. We need to know the TRUE power consumption of the coils. Your mechanical energy production should be at least 60% of the power going to the coils, not 60% of the NET input.

You may also have to watch the wave form on the scope while you do the DYNO test, to see what the input wave form is doing. If you slow the motor down too much during the test, the current wave form may flatten out on the top, lowering the electrical energy return. So, there may be a specific speed that optimizes all of these effects. You have to find that "optimum window" and test the motor there. Once COP>1 operation is measured in that window, then further circuit modifications can be engineered so the motor will operate at that efficiency in a wider speed range.

there is a lot more to do to test this motor properly. Please don't be in a hurry.

Peter

[Jetijs]

Peter,
I made a crude drawing, that should explain how I measured the deflection on the scales:

http://www.emuprim.lv/bildez/images/viskautkas_labs/visadi_strunti_1/table.GIF

(don't laugh, I am not an artist )
This way we can also attach a bigger weight to the scales and load the motor more. One person just needs to look that the leather strip remains where it is and doesn't fall off the shaft.
The scales I am using are very similar to such ones:
Handy Portable Hanging Digital Electronic Scale - blue - eBay (item 160235158312 end time May-28-08 11:11:02 PDT)

If both scales show a deflection, is it right that I must use the sum of both readings in my calculations? This was not clear in your video, because you just had a deflection on one scale. Also, If we have an object of known weight, can we just hang that object on the shaft/wheel just like in the picture above and do the tests this way? I mean this way we already know the weight of that object and need just write down the voltage, amperage and RPM's. Or is this a stupid idea?

Elias, The scales need to be held gently in place bu another person, because if not, they indeed would fall down We just found that if we load the shaft using the scales like Peter showed, the readings on the scales change very fast and it is not easy to get a steady reading, because a person can not load the motor with steady load using his hands. But if the scales just hang down, one person just needs to hold the leather strip in place and the readings and load are steady and don't change in the process of measuring.

Ok, I will go for the wheel then.
24% seems strangely small

[satchid]

Hi all,
I am Willy Gooris from Belgium and new in this Forum. My interest go's heavily towards this motor and read all the post in this tread. I ordered the motor DVD from Peter.


Lighty, I admire your knowledge.

You used UCC3732x driver in the motor controller,

Due to availability of material here, Is there a replacement for the ucc37321 controller from Maxim?

Thanks,

Willy

[elias]

I suppose ...

Jetijs,

Don't get discouraged, I think that your have great error in reading your spring scales. You should load your motor more than this so the error in your readings gets negligible in comparison to the load your motor has. Also I think that an 8mm shaft is too small for much precise readings. You'd better use a large wheel like peter does for measuring the applied torque of your motor. I am looking forward to see better results. Also I suppose that you can increase the efficiency of your motor by running it on more voltage.

How does your spring scales stand on there? without falling due to the rotation of your shaft.

Elias

[Peter Lindemann]

Not Sure about this method

Ok, I replaced the bearings with self aligning ones and got the motor running.
Everything seems fine now and I can run the motor for as long as I want with no change in speed. So I went on to measure the efficiency.
After gathering some data and calculations, the numbers seemed bad. I loaded the motor 8mm shaft several times and each time with different force, but all the calculations showed efficiencies 31% and below
For example, here is data from one of the tests:

Input power: 25.5V, 2.47A.
RPM's 4146
Scale deflection: 1.28Lbs on one scales and 0.71Lbs on other scales.

So the input power is 25.5v x 2.47a = 62.99W or 0.0844 Hp

The shaft diameter is 8mm so the circumference is 8xphi or 8x3.1416=25.13mm or 0.0824 Ft

RPM x Ft / 60 = 4146x0.0824/60=5.69 Ft/s

5.69Ft/s x (1.28Lbs+0.71Lbs)= 11.32 Ft-Lbs/s or 0.0205 Hp

So Efficiency is output/input or 0.0205/0.0844=0.242 or 24% efficiency.
Is this right? Seems too bad. The other results are similar.

Maybe I measured the deflection on scales wrong? I did this the following way. I put the motor so that the shaft end is reaching past the table top, then I attached a piece of thin cloth sheet to the scales. I turned the scales ON and just let them hang on the shaft using the cloth sheet. To the load was just the weight of the scales. This way I could get steadier results, because it is difficult to load the motor evenly if you hold the scales above the motor in your hands. Maybe this is the wrong way to do this?
I am a bit confused about these results

Jetijs,

Your description of how the scales are used is confusing. It does not sound right, though. Hanging the scales on the motor shaft just weighs the scales. This is not what you want. Also, I don't think your digital scales are the right kind for this measurement. They seem built to weigh objects by having them placed ON the scale. Also, your cloth sheet does not seem to be able to produce the appropriate amount of friction to load the shaft.

The input voltage, input current, scale deflections AND the RPM (under load) all must be registered simultaneously to do the calculations. This produces a POWER reading. To actually calculate WORK, the readings must be maintained for a TIMED RUN.

Doing the Dynamometer test is a bit tricky. It is very difficult to do just using a small shaft as the "wheel of known circumference".

You are going to have to think this through, and maybe get some different scales.

Peter

[theremart]

RE: scales

Soft leather is what Peter suggested for the strap.

Also, do you have a wheel of know diameter on the shaft?

I would suggest getting the help of a friend to either hold the scales or do one of the tasks, not everyone has 6 hands as Peter does

[Jetijs]

Ok, I replaced the bearings with self aligning ones and got the motor running.
Everything seems fine now and I can run the motor for as long as I want with no change in speed. So I went on to measure the efficiency.
After gathering some data and calculations, the numbers seemed bad. I loaded the motor 8mm shaft several times and each time with different force, but all the calculations showed efficiencies 31% and below
For example, here is data from one of the tests:

Input power: 25.5V, 2.47A.
RPM's 4146
Scale deflection: 1.28Lbs on one scales and 0.71Lbs on other scales.

So the input power is 25.5v x 2.47a = 62.99W or 0.0844 Hp

The shaft diameter is 8mm so the circumference is 8xphi or 8x3.1416=25.13mm or 0.0824 Ft

RPM x Ft / 60 = 4146x0.0824/60=5.69 Ft/s

5.69Ft/s x (1.28Lbs+0.71Lbs)= 11.32 Ft-Lbs/s or 0.0205 Hp

So Efficiency is output/input or 0.0205/0.0844=0.242 or 24% efficiency.
Is this right? Seems too bad. The other results are similar.

Maybe I measured the deflection on scales wrong? I did this the following way. I put the motor so that the shaft end is reaching past the table top, then I attached a piece of thin cloth sheet to the scales. I turned the scales ON and just let them hang on the shaft using the cloth sheet. To the load was just the weight of the scales. This way I could get steadier results, because it is difficult to load the motor evenly if you hold the scales above the motor in your hands. Maybe this is the wrong way to do this?
I am a bit confused about these results

[elias]

Hi Mart
In this case we are re capturing the BEMF spike, this is exactly the same as in Bedini systems, so the batteries also should be treated accordingly

Yes, I think I can feel the strong aether current when touching the terminals of the charging battery in the output section of my Lindemann motor. Also the neon bulb lights up when touching the collector of the transistor with one terminal only, which is an indication of aetheric current I suppose.

BTW I think you mean the Radiant Spike by BEMF Spike, Don't you?

[Jetijs]

Hi Mart
In this case we are re capturing the BEMF spike, this is exactly the same as in Bedini systems, so the batteries also should be treated accordingly

[theremart]

Minor question.

Is the energy put off by the modified DC motor as Peter suggests the same as conventional charging, or is it radiant energy as Bedini would define it?

Was wondering how one would treat the batteries after they were charged with this method.

thanks

[elias]

Your friends are correct in their line of thought. Why should they accept your assertions without any material proof? I personally don't have problem accepting the fact that Peter's approach to energy recovery is sound and possible, especially in the light of the fact that I personally tested various systems that use fundamental paradigm as his recovery system does. However, I still hold my final thought on the subject to a moment when I see exact measurement of net electrical input vs net mechanical output that Jetijs will soon provide. Reasonably skeptical mind is something one has to cherish if one is to filter out all the garbage found on net. Some of the theories people put out are well intended and theoretically sound but they don't work as intended.

That being said I do think that Peter's system is well on it's way to show predicted results. I just like to see concrete measurements. No offense Peter.

That's right, I hope Jetijs could show us COP > 1 is possible with this system.
To be honest my skepticism has made me ponder a lot about this system and on why can it achieve COP > 1. One conclusion i have made is the fact that magnetism is not consumed in this motor and it only is used and gets converted back to electrical power again at the end. just a crude model.

[lighty]

Peter,

Is that idea so old? I mean I was going to elementary school and burning fuses all around the house (early "experiments" with electricity) at the time you thought of it. Indeed, one has to admire your patience.

Jetijs also had knowledge and determination to make it reality. Although he made some hastily mistakes he also found a way to correct them in an elegant way. He deserves a lot of beer for his efforts. In fact you both do.


@Jetijs

Could you contact your wire supplier and see if he has flat wire of the adequate cross-section (I don't remember the cross section of the wire you're currently using)? Flat wire will allow for even more magnetic flux being transferred to the core or if you wish it will reduce stray flux to a minimum. Of course it's not necessary at this point and you shouldn't bother yourself with it but once you have some spare time and if you'll be still interested you could try to drain every last bit of performance from your motor using several tricks. Also, you could use different voltage regulator (or two of them in succession) to connect even more batteries if needed. I'll be glad to help as much as I can from across the Europe.

[Peter Lindemann]

No offense taken

Your friends are correct in their line of thought. Why should they accept your assertions without any material proof? I personally don't have problem accepting the fact that Peter's approach to energy recovery is sound and possible, especially in the light of the fact that I personally tested various systems that use fundamental paradigm as his recovery system does. However, I still hold my final thought on the subject to a moment when I see exact measurement of net electrical input vs net mechanical output that Jetijs will soon provide. Reasonably skeptical mind is something one has to cherish if one is to filter out all the garbage found on net. Some of the theories people put out are well intended and theoretically sound but they don't work as intended.

That being said I do think that Peter's system is well on it's way to show predicted results. I just like to see concrete measurements. No offense Peter.

Lighty,

I'm with you! There is no substitute for concrete measurements. Also, reasonable skepticism is necessary if you are not to be taken in by all manner of wild claims. I have "believed" in this motor since I first thought it up in 1983. I have a friend who has modeled this motor in a special computer program and the results of this analysis are positive and support COP>1 operation. So, my confidence is very high, but like you, I will be glad to "know" it works after Jetijs tests his model.

Thank you for helping make this project a GLOBAL, cooperative effort! I could not have done it all here, by myself.

Peter

[lighty]

I recently talked about this motor with one of my friends in the electrical engineering department, and he certainly could not believe that the mechanical output + recovery could be more than the supplied input. Their mind is trained to work in a certain way and is very difficult for them to accept otherwise.

Your friends are correct in their line of thought. Why should they accept your assertions without any material proof? I personally don't have problem accepting the fact that Peter's approach to energy recovery is sound and possible, especially in the light of the fact that I personally tested various systems that use fundamental paradigm as his recovery system does. However, I still hold my final thought on the subject to a moment when I see exact measurement of net electrical input vs net mechanical output that Jetijs will soon provide. Reasonably skeptical mind is something one has to cherish if one is to filter out all the garbage found on net. Some of the theories people put out are well intended and theoretically sound but they don't work as intended.

That being said I do think that Peter's system is well on it's way to show predicted results. I just like to see concrete measurements. No offense Peter.

[elias]

So Wierd!

Jetijs

The motor I built did not have any heating problems, although it could run at speeds as high as 7000 RPM. My motor even had pretty worn out bearings. I am going to measure the efficiency of my motor in the coming weeks as I have finished my military training, I will also post some videos.

I have found a guy who is working on maximizing the efficiency of a 40KW motor!!! I am going to meet him next week. I hope I could convince him to help me build a 40KW Lindemann motor! I don't think that mentioning the fact that COP > 1 is possible with this motor is a wise thing, because they won't believe it anyway. I recently talked about this motor with one of my friends in the electrical engineering department, and he certainly could not believe that the mechanical output + recovery could be more than the supplied input. Their mind is trained to work in a certain way and is very difficult for them to accept otherwise.

Don't give up! Keep up the great work of yours!

Elias