It is currently Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:53 pm



Welcome
Welcome to imhotep's labs

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: rotary attraction motor is not better to OU
PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 2:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:44 am
Posts: 397
Has thanked: 6 time
Have thanks: 12 time
I finally found the title of video of Peter lindemann doing measurement of rotary attraction motor (RAM). "lindemann motor 2a"

Here is the screen capture:
Image

Image

Image

There are three measurement, with output are loaded with:
1. short circuit which resulted in 1.1 Amp consumption and 2960 rpm
2. light bulb which resulted in 0.4 Amp consumption and 3620 rpm
3. battery to charge which resulted in 0.2 Amp consumption and 3660 rpm

There is NO MEASUREMENT OF OPEN OUTPUT.

This measurement show clearly that this rotary attraction motor behave just like all variant of bedini circuit (with the exception of stingo). When you give it load, the motor will consume more amp and the motor will be slower.


Just try it on your charger, measure the current consumption of open output with shorted output. You will see the the current consumption with shorted ouput is much higher (with the exception of stingo). shorted output is the highest load possible for most Bedini circuit / motor.

Shorted output is worse load than light bulb, worse than 12V battery.



I do not know about "No BEMF" thing. But it is obvious that this motor will draw more current if you give it more load. That is not any different from most other motor.

There is another weird thing. The mechanical load testing was done when the output was shorted. That is wrong. Mechanical load testing should be done when the output is open. Because shorted output is the worse load, touching the wheel (to produce mechanical load), obviously do not change the consumption as much. It would be different if mechanical load was done when the output is open.


So, using attraction mode do not change anything. Using attraction mode do not make you closer to OU.

_________________________________
freeenergyindonesia.proboards.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 
 Post subject: Re: rotary attraction motor is not better to OU
PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 4:27 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:48 pm
Posts: 1016
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 27 time
sucahyo wrote:
I finally found the title of video of Peter lindemann doing measurement of rotary attraction motor (RAM). "lindemann motor 2a"

So, using attraction mode do not change anything. Using attraction mode do not make you closer to OU.

_________________________________
freeenergyindonesia.proboards.com


If you use mechanical switching such as a read switch or contact points as i did, as the speed drops under load more current is drawn per on time but as the on time per revolution is the same effective current remains constant (more or less). My motor was very inefficient, I believe i have posted it on this site at the time, but what was interesting was the recovery.

The key is not to use the recovery as an output but recycle it and feed it back into the input thus reducing the current requirement from the source.

A 50% efficient motor with 25% recovery could then be wired to make the motor give a mechanical output of 75% efficiency when compared to what is drawn from the source. No overunity. If we managed to find a motor that was in excess of 60% efficiency and gave us in excess of 40% recovery then of course we could get close or even surpass a COP of 1

Motors of this type are typically 35% efficient or less giving around 17.5% recovery so as you can see they are a non starter but the principal is valid

An induction motor is typically 80% efficient but in reality it is about half that as the rotor is powered for free and makes up the differance.

This method of recovery is only one part of the story on how to take a motor above a COP of 1. The second part is to feed this recovery back to the input reducing the current from the source. The third part is to use a transformer action to get another free boost in efficiency just as in an induction motor. The fourth is to mitigate the BEMF by using it as a source of current and use that either for feeding back to the source or as an output. The fifth is to put generator coils on the same core thus having a generator with no additional iron losses.

That is as far as I got and i was able to take a 30+% efficiency motor and run it at around 90% efficiency. My equipment and motor were all old and mostly not very well constructed so with better resorces

There is another trick of core saturation which I need to try when I have the funds.

What I am describing is known as the Lockridge device and I have posted much about it on here and the energetic forum as you know. And the last tricks all come from the trifilar coil.

I believe I know how the motor and generator parts work, I am fairly sure how the trifilar coil works but matching all the components will be difficult with my trial and error method.

Peter demonstrated just one of the tricks to gain efficiency in a pulse motor, there are many more as I am sure you know.

Using the attraction mode keeps all the flux in the core thus improving the transformer action

Mike


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: rotary attraction motor is not better to OU
PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:44 am
Posts: 397
Has thanked: 6 time
Have thanks: 12 time
Thanks for the information. yes, I understand your point.

Yes, recovery is the key. People have use capacitor as means of energy recovery. This proven to increase efficiency of the motor. But the problem is capacitor has proven to destroy radiant. As evidence, radiant that use capacitor as charging means all has poor charging performance. I believe that recovery should be done with only battery. From what I see in some video in IAEC, recovery give only a small boost. I believe that low efficiency increase happen because their circuit will actually have worse efficiency when the BEMF was used. Problem because of the choice of coil switching circuit.

Another problem is people never really care about the duty cycle, especially the ON time. Most implementation even have no way to control the ON time.

Using transformer function / generator function will reduce the efficiency, according to this:
http://www.icehouse.net/john1/index100.htm


Also, about the prospect.
"On April 21, 2007, Sterling D. Allan interviewed Peter Lindemann regarding his Electric Motor Secrets DVD, in which drawing on 30 years of his own research and development, he explains in simple terms what back EMF is, and how one can build motors and generators that do not involve back-EMF. He asserts that such designs can improve upon the most effective motors of today by many-fold, not just a few percent."

Despite the claim, it seems the efficiency of any pulse motor never exceed the efficiency of commercial motor. This is serious problem. This show something wrong with the theory when no pulse motor reach the efficiency of commercial motor. It is also serious problem when people never try to compare what they build with the commercial one.

For the motor to reach OU, I believe that it must beat the commercial motor version first.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: rotary attraction motor is not better to OU
PostPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:50 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:48 pm
Posts: 1016
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 27 time
Most electric motors are low efficiency because they are too small, magnetic force, and so torque, is given by amps x turns and then the amps are limited by resistance. if you build a motor with the same number of turns fed by the same current but at a lower voltage you get the same mechanical power despite a lower consumption of electrical power but this motor will be bigger because you need bigger wire.

I think that the motors we use today were designed this way on purpose.

A typical universal motor is around 35% efficient on DC and close to 70% efficient on pulsed DC if it is fed with the right frequency and pulse duration. Now build a large universal motor designed to give the same torque and power on a lower voltage but oversize the wire so that the resistance is very low, its efficiency will be much higher because there will be less losses due to resistance per watt of input. Typically you can get around 50% efficiency on DC and 90+ on pulsed DC. these motors are available but are expensive.

Now go a step further build a motor with the same number of turns on the coils but much bigger wire, the resistance is even lower and the efficiency is even higher. you can see where this is going haha In practice the motors become huge and we never quite reach 100% efficiency but this is the design of motor we need to apply the modifications I have talked about.

You are right about the duty cycle and the on time, people dont care but they should. the duty cycle and on time should be matched to the inductance of the coils so that maximum efficiency is obtained.

The transformer action occurs in many motors but usually works against us, It is often mistaken for BEMF but it isnt. We alter the geometry of the motor so that the the transformer action assists torque and does not oppose it. Compensated motors use the transformer action in a way that opposes torque, this compensation muffles out transients to some extent too. All compensated motors are using transformer actions.

So what is this geometry? see the drawing

The red coil is the power or pulsed coil, the green coil is the transformer or compensation coil. The setup is duplicated in the other half of the motor.

Note how the power coil causes no torque and thus no BEMF. Note how the compensation coil causes torque and BEMF/generated current but also the transformer output is here.

This motor is set up in attraction, not repulsion.

If you build this motor you will find that it draws huge current due to the much reduced BEMF so you have to drop the voltage to prevent burning it out.

My tests gave about 35% mechanical efficiency but with an electrical output of 50% all be it dirty current. thats 85%. Now remember the transformer output is AC thus opposing the generated current half of the time. There are ways around this that I have been working on and if successful I should exceed that magic figure of 100%


Attachments:
coilsetup.JPG
coilsetup.JPG [ 250.06 KiB | Viewed 1148 times ]
coilsetup.JPG
coilsetup.JPG [ 250.06 KiB | Viewed 1148 times ]
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: rotary attraction motor is not better to OU
PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 5:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:44 am
Posts: 397
Has thanked: 6 time
Have thanks: 12 time
Thanks for the explanation. Thanks for the info on motor efficiency.

David Lawrence experiment show that spinning copper can act as brake. One spinning copper disc will make nearby copper disc to spin too..

Utilizing the current from generator will make the the generator coil act as drag too, but the question is how much.

Agree that lowering input voltage but using same current / resistance / winding create more efficient motor. But this remind me of Joseph newman, that propose opposite method, to use voltage instead of current. More winding, small wire, high voltage run.

Good luck


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: rotary attraction motor is not better to OU
PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:33 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:48 pm
Posts: 1016
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 27 time
sucahyo wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. Thanks for the info on motor efficiency.

David Lawrence experiment show that spinning copper can act as brake. One spinning copper disc will make nearby copper disc to spin too..

Utilizing the current from generator will make the the generator coil act as drag too, but the question is how much.

Agree that lowering input voltage but using same current / resistance / winding create more efficient motor. But this remind me of Joseph newman, that propose opposite method, to use voltage instead of current. More winding, small wire, high voltage run.

Good luck

Most of the drag is caused by the current draw in the generator coils, then bearing and brush friction. as the BEMF in the motor is around 1/3rd of what you would expect in a normal universal motor so you have many advantages.

With a standard universal motor at full load you have about 50% of the applied voltage doing the work, with my design you have 5/6ths of the applied voltage. The generator load is similar to what you would expect as BEMF so the speed is about the same with half the applied voltage but you have the electrical output too. This leads me to believe that there may need to be more turns on the output coils than we have on the power coil, so that the output voltage can match the input. Having said that the transformer effect and generated voltage may be adding together. Im not able to test this as yet as all my equipment was stolen, including the motor. No conspiracy it was just as a result of splitting with the wife hahaha.

So far I have run the motor on DC, AC and half wave rectified DC with results as I have described. On pulsed DC i should get an increased efficiency especially if the speed reaches the frequency of the coils.

As I said before, the problem is AC and DC being generated in the output/compensation coil, I have ideas on how to solve that but no way of testing it.

I truly believe that this IS how the Lockridge device worked, but this is only part of the story because we dont have the trifiler coil functions on it yet.

Some have said that it never really existed but my research would suggest that it was a real device.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: rotary attraction motor is not better to OU
PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 3:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:44 am
Posts: 397
Has thanked: 6 time
Have thanks: 12 time
Thanks you. I see . too bad with the equipment.

Lindemann video above show that the motor will run more efficiently is the generated voltage / BEMF is not used.

I agree that Lockridge device is real. But the key to make it work may still not understood even by Lindemann or Bedini.

I will look forward for your prototype.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: rotary attraction motor is not better to OU
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:46 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:48 pm
Posts: 1016
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 27 time
sucahyo wrote:

I agree that Lockridge device is real. But the key to make it work may still not understood even by Lindemann or Bedini.

I will look forward for your prototype.


You could be right about Peter and John, I did have a dialog with Peter for a while but he seamed convinced that the method of operation laid in a different direction.

What I find interesting is that no other person, as far as I know, has worked out how to make a four pole universal motor work in the way I have, unless they have kept it under their hats. Its not rocket science but simple motor principals that myself and Hiwater have tested to some extent.

1) Run on DC

The key points are that their is virtually no BEMF in the powered field coils, the armature does have BEMF in the same way as any other motor but overall we have reduced BEMF thus more of the input power is converted to torque.

Efficiency is further improved by having the motor and generator on the same iron core, not because of the iron losses but because there are only one set of bearings and brushes causing friction.

The generation is standard and so consumes the extra power, plus some of the standard power. This results in a motor that is slower than an unloaded motor as it is always under load, but faster than a fully loaded motor while giving us a normal DC output.

As a DC to DC converter it should be reasonably efficient though well below overunity.

2) Run on AC

BEMF is as above

Efficiency is further improved as the iron losses asociated with 2 AC devices is not there as the iron is magnetised by the input and none is consumed by the generator plus what I said above.

As an AC to AC converter it does not really work well as the DC generation opposes half of the sine wave in the transformer effect.

3) Run on pulsed DC

BEMF is as above

The efficiency should be the same as AC but im not sure, the voltage output in my tests was higher and although the transformer effect still gives a theoretical AC output it may be that it is offset towards the DC.

As a Pulsed DC converter it wasn't very good as there was some AC on the scope but the highest peaks of the AC were of the same polarity as the DC generation causing an increased voltage (Interesting)

Increased frequency may offset the AC output further. Replacing the Shoes with solid iron may assist this this offset although solid iron shoes in a normal AC device reduces efficiency by causing more heating of the iron.

I haven done this yet but I will tell you what I think, Placing the trifilar coil around the motor will, if it is wound in the right direction, cause increased saturation of the iron. This may convert the AC output to sine wave DC output as the iron will not have sufficient time to cause the wave to go negative. The sign wave DC and generated DC going in the same direction should increase the current flow capacity to greater than that of the input. If the voltage drop is not too great then it is good news as efficiency will be high. If the voltages of the generation and transformer actions are additive (one of my tests appeared to show this) then the current capacity will be multiplied by the voltage and we may have surprising results haha

The trifilar coil does have other functions but best to confirm these findings first.

If this is true, we will have made another step towards overunity.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: rotary attraction motor is not better to OU
PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:44 am
Posts: 397
Has thanked: 6 time
Have thanks: 12 time
Interesting. Preventing the coil from reaching saturation would be tricky.

For trifilar, the two winding may take space required for efficient first winding. The thickness of the winding may produce 90 degree magnetic direction from the core. Maybe longer iron core?

We know that magnet field is rotating around the wire. 20 wire in series make the magnetic field aligned with the series. But a 10x10 wire make the magnetic field surround the wire.

I am confuse about DC, AC and pulsed DC reference. Were you explaining the way to power the coil?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: rotary attraction motor is not better to OU
PostPosted: Sun Mar 09, 2014 10:51 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:48 pm
Posts: 1016
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 27 time
sucahyo wrote:
Interesting. Preventing the coil from reaching saturation would be tricky.

For trifilar, the two winding may take space required for efficient first winding. The thickness of the winding may produce 90 degree magnetic direction from the core. Maybe longer iron core?

We know that magnet field is rotating around the wire. 20 wire in series make the magnetic field aligned with the series. But a 10x10 wire make the magnetic field surround the wire.

I am confuse about DC, AC and pulsed DC reference. Were you explaining the way to power the coil?


I don't fully understand the principals of what is happening in the iron so ill just put out what i think could be happening.

We usulally run motors with the iron well below saturation but i suspect the lockridge was run close to, or even at iron saturation, that is the iron cannot contain any more flux. I read somewhere in Eric Dollards work that this prevents the output of a transformer going negative, i.e producing an AC output from a pulsed DC input. If this is true then that solves the problem of having both AC and DC in the generator coils. The iron is pulsed at sufficient frequency so that it never fully discharges its flux.

The trifilar is in effect a choke amongst its other functions, it is charged and then when the supply is cut off it is discharged into the motor. It is the inductive kickback from this large coil that is actually powering the motor and not the supply. The inductive kickback will supply the voltage required to overcome the inductance of the motor coils so that the same current flows through the motor as what we put into the trifilar coil. I forget who demonstrated this a few years ago but it was either Squires or Babcock.

The inductive kickback from the motor coils occurs at the same time as the trifilar coil is being charged, through a transformer action both these events result in an output in the generator coils. Maybe we have 2 outputs for 1 input ie double the current in the generator coil.

When I was talking about DC, AC and pulsed DC i was referring to tests performed on the motor alone without a trifilar coil. I tried all three methods of supplying the motor. It also gets confusing because there is both a DC and AC component in the generator coils.

I hope this helps you understand what I have done hehehe it gets very complicated.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
suspicion-preferred