New electric motor principle...

[cala]

Hello.

Please, take a read to

www.geocities.com/k_pullo/PM3.htm

It's an study based on the Butch Lafonte's equilibrium motor.
Please, forget the claims, and take a look under classical physical principles.

Basically, on normal motors we use the electric energy to impulse the motor, and get similar mechanical work. On this device, the iron cores do the mechanical work, and the electric energy on coils "hide" the iron cores at proper timing, using electric energy, but almost without doing work.

The simulations give a possitive result.

Could you tell me what do you think?

Forget the regrets about me, or if it's free energy. Just see the physical fact that a magnet between two north poles (or two south poles) could feel no oposition nor atraction to rotate properly disposed. It could just feel no effect, and also it could cause no backEMF effect on the coils.

I wish you could see this fact with clear eyes. Sure you have more knowledge about physics than me, and i hope you could see what i'm talking behind this knowledge to explain if it works like spected, and not using other physics concepts to opose the results with the thermodinamics laws, the enthropy, the losses, the "build-it", etc...

If you answer that the method explained can't work, just tell me how do you get that conclusion. If you talk about all the laws that could restrict the working, please, talk me about how they affect this system specifically, and if you see a solution to avoid that problem, please, let me know.

If i expose this method to "physics people", they will use physics to go against it, not to analyze it.

If i expose this method to "free energy people" they will say it sure works, using physics or not.

So am I alone about this concept?.

Please, i need REAL physics people that uses physics knowledge like a tool, not like a weapon.

Thanks.

[Integral]

The electric energy introduced is not to be transformed into mechanical work, it's only a control signal to manage when the iron cores interact with the rotor magnet

If the electrical "control" signal is essentially counteracting the pole magnets it must do work to accomplish this. It requires work to build a field, wether it pulls on the rotor or not, does not matter.

Perhaps this motor will spin, what ever it does it will consume electrical energy therefore, No free lunch.

[cala]

Hello Integral. A lot of time without talking with you.

The work to build the fields also occurs on normal motors, isn't it?

So normal motors have the same problem to create the fields, and also, receive the back EMF, and then need extra work:

input work = Work to build fields + backEMF + mechanical work + losses

On the new configuration, you must do work to build the fields, but you have not backEMF, and the mechanical work is caused by the iron cores, not by the coils:

input work = Work to build the fields + losses

so the efficiency looks much greater. Dont you think so?

Could not the work of the atracting cores be greater than the electric work to build the fields?

[Integral]

It has been a while hasn't it!

I really do not have sufficient information to judge the effiency.

I must fall back on the old standard, build one. [:))] Then tell us what effiency you get.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by cala
so the efficiency looks much greater. Dont you think so? No. To me it looks like you are doing the same amount of work in a different place.

[cala]

On normal motors, there is no limit (in principle) to the work you can do. If you input more electric energy, the rotor will do more mechanical work.

On the new system indeed, there is an output work limit given by geometry and materials, not by the electric energy input. Given a geometry of the motor, there is a value of electric energy that is optimum to get the backEMF cancellation. At this point, the creation of the fields has almost no opposition to be created.

From the point of view of the electric energy on active coils, they have not to do work to move the rotor (this is done by the off coils iron cores), and also they don't receive any work or opposition to create the fields in form of back EMF.

So my question is:

Why the work the iron cores can do to the rotor magnet MUST be equal to the work to build a field inside this iron cores without opposition?

I think the work of the iron - magnet atraction phase is not related with the work of the active coil - iron magnetization phase.

From the point of view of the active coils phase, it's like if the rotor magnet where not there. Only the iron cores phase "see" the magnet, so the work on one phase may be different than on the other.

On one phase you've got a magnet been atracted by two iron cores, and two coils that seems not to be there (because the EMF should cancel).

On the other phase, you've got two coils magnetizating (or magnetizing) two iron cores, and a magnet rotating that seems not to be there (it's rotating by inertia and the atraction of the other phase, and the coils don't give torque).

So the electric energy is used like iron cores interruptor, when the energy is off, the cores are visible to the magnet. When current is on, the cores are not there to the magnet, that turns free.

I hope you see what i mean, but tell me more specifically what do you think. Do you think the work must be equal?. Why?.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by cala
On the new system indeed, there is an output work limit given by geometry and materials, not by the electric energy input. Given a geometry of the motor, there is a value of electric energy that is optimum to get the backEMF cancellation. At this point, the creation of the fields has almost no opposition to be created. Yes, at this point, its efficiency would likely equal that of a typical motor. Why the work the iron cores can do to the rotor magnet MUST be equal to the work to build a field inside this iron cores without opposition? Because blocking a field with another field uses the same amount of energy as harnessing that field. You keep saying "without opposition." There IS opposition. From the point of view of the active coils phase, it's like if the rotor magnet where not there. Only the iron cores phase "see" the magnet, so the work on one phase may be different than on the other. Therein lies your error. The iron core isn't going anywhere and its field isn't going anywhere. Its always there and must be dealt with.

from your site: The electric energy introduced is not to be transformed into mechanical work, it's only a control signal to manage when the iron cores interact with the rotor magnet. Call it whatever you want, but you still have to factor it into your efficiency calculations.

[cala]

To get the work on the rotor magnet, you've got to create an specific H or B value with current.

To get that value of H, a current I must run through the coils, but what V you need? H is I dependent, but not V, so finally, the output work depends only on the electric current specifically needed by coils construction, but the V is not relevant.

So, to me, it seems that output work will be the same (by iron cores atraction) but the input power can be choosen (you only need a specific current value).

I'm sure you don't think so, so i wait your answers.

[russ_watters]

If you decrease voltage, you'll need a higher amperage to get the same amount of work. Of course, if you don't give it the voltage needed to produce the correct work, the power output of the motor will decrease accordingly.

Cala, one thing I've never understood about guys who come up with such ideas is the tenacious refusal to test the ideas. Some people spend years - decades even - developing an idea, while not spending the days or weeks required to test it. Its almost as if they subconsciously know the idea is flawed (though some are actual frauds, there are a lot who really seem to believe in their ideas).

[Jonathan]

Go to the patent office website and find #512,340 by Tesla. (I'd put a link, but the site is not working now and I don't know what to type, I usually just go to the site, find the page, and copy the URL.) It describes a coil that at resonance has a big self-capacitance and little or no self-inductance.

[cala]

Russ, you said:

"If you decrease voltage, you'll need a higher amperage to get the same amount of work. Of course, if you don't give it the voltage needed to produce the correct work, the power output of the motor will decrease accordingly."

When you said that you were thinking on a NORMAL MOTOR, where the input work is related with the output work. On the new device, the output work is done by the iron cores, and the input current (not work) modulates the timing.

The output work is not estracted from the electric energy input work (V and I) as on normal motors. It's stracted from the iron cores, and modulated by electric current (I) only. The voltage is not relevant, because the magnet will turn without opposition (no work) at the specific I needed.(At that specific current, you could use what V you want, because the magnet will turn almost without opposition, and then it needs no work to keep turning).

On normal motors, the input energy (V and I) is what causes the output work. Normal motors are only TRANSDUCERS.

The work on the new device is estracted from iron free magnetization, and the magnet is removed with no opposition, so no work, but a current is needed (output work depends only on the electric current). The elements that provides the output work are in some way "different" than the elements that "excite" the device.
The new device is a kind of "ELECTRIC TO MECHANICAL TRANSISTOR".

I think i've explained myself.

Why do you think the input work is related with the output work on the new device?

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I think he was reffering to the fact that that the work is voltage*current*time so if you decrease the voltage you'll need a higher current to do the same amount of work.

What do you mean work is extracted from the iron cores? Does and iron core produce work by itself and you need to extract the work from it?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by cala
When you said that you were thinking on a NORMAL MOTOR, where the input work is related with the output work. On the new device, the output work is done by the iron cores, and the input current (not work) modulates the timing.

The output work is not estracted from the electric energy input work (V and I) as on normal motors. It's stracted from the iron cores, and modulated by electric current (I) only. The voltage is not relevant, because the magnet will turn without opposition (no work) at the specific I needed.(At that specific current, you could use what V you want, because the magnet will turn almost without opposition, and then it needs no work to keep turning).
Sorry, no. Like I said before, you can call it whatever you want, but your "control signal" does work and must be included in calculations of work.

And coincidentally [sarcasm] if you calculate how much work is being done by that "control circuit" you will find it is slightly more than is being ouptut in mechanical work by the shaft. Why do you think the input work is related with the output work on the new device? It is by definition. If you didn't input any work, your motor would stop spinning.

Let me put it another way: you can call the input work whatever you want and even pull it out of your efficiency calculations if you want as long as you are clear about what you are doing (otherwise it would be fraud). But you won't ever sell a single motor because for anyone who would ever use an electric motor, the input work matters. Your motor offers those people no improvement over existing motors.

Another example: I work with air conditioners. The coils have a certain efficiency and work output. But the fan motor gives off heat that takes away from the capacity of the air conditioner (the air conditioner has to cool itself). Even though the cooling coils are outputing a certain amount of work, that work lost to cooling the motor has to be taken into account in the capacity and efficiency ratings of the entire SYSTEM. Your motor efficiency calcuations work the same way.

I recommend learning some thermodynamics. Thats where the rules for this sort of thing come from. And you must play by the rules if you want to be in the game.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
What do you mean work is extracted from the iron cores? Does and iron core produce work by itself and you need to extract the work from it? Yes, thats pretty much it. People have been trying for centuries how to extract work from magnets without any input (aka free energy/perpetual motion). And for centuries they have failed. This failure was named "the first law of thermodynamics" by one such failed inventor.

[cala]

Hello Guybrush.

When I say work is done by the iron cores i mean that a magnet near iron tends to magnetize it, and the magnet then feels atraction, this atraction goes higer meanwhile the iron goes magnetizing, and finally the magnet put itself in front of the iron core. There is work (W) due to the force of attraction (F) and the movement of the magnet (D), so W=F*D (in reality, we got to do this calculus with torque equation, i know).

And from the other hand, yes, you're right, russ was refering to this fact: W = V*I. This formula is also applicable to the new device, but he didn't see that once you've got the specific current needed, you get the output work, independently of the input work (or V*I ratio). It doesn't matter if you increase the voltage more, the output work will be the same, because the coils are not the source of the output work. The source of the work is the magnetization proccess of iron.

The input you need here to get the mechanical work is not electric WORK, but electric CURRENT only. If you input the specific electric current needed, it doesn't matter if you apply 5 V or 5.000 V, the torque will cancel in the same way, and then, the magnet will turn exactly with the same velocity, with 5 V or with 5.000 V.

The output work is limited by the material and geometry of the cores.

The input electric current value depends on this geometry, the number of windings and coil length...

The electric potential value has no influence in this working principle.

So you can choose the work output - electric current ratio you want (choosing the correct materials and dimensions), and also you can do this proccess at the V value you want.

That's why i think the output work could be greater than the input work, because the output work is given by the iron-magnet atraction (depending on the core's geometry), and the input work will be V*I (and you can take the V you want, only I is limited by the geometry that i talked before and the geometry of the coils).

I'm not saying that this law of nature (W=V*I) is not working on the new device. I'm telling that this electric input work could not be equal to the output work on this device configuration.

[cala]

RUSS:

When you say that the input work is related to the output work by definition, it's true to normal motors, because this normal motors uses the electric energy to impulse the rotor, and then the input work is the same (or more, counting the looses) as the output work, BY THE DEFINITION OF THIS PROCCESS,BUT IT COULD BE NOT LIKE THAT IF YOU CHANGE THE PROCCESS.

The new device doesn't use electric work to impulse the rotor, so the input is not directly related to the output by definition. Of course, the output work MUST become from another source, and i think that the gaining on power becomes from the magnet magnetic field.

Take the example of a transistor:

A transistor is an element of 3 conections: The input signal, the output signal, and another terminal, usually connected to a specific potential.

You can get an output signal with more power than the power the input signal carries. The input signal only has to activate the device (the transistor) to "launch" the proccess. The extra energy of the output signal comes from the source of potential.

I think the new motor is like a transistor, but uses an electric "input signal", a magnetic "potential source" to do the work, and a mechanical work is the result or "output signal".

On the new device, the magnet is acting like the potential source on a transistor, the electric current is the input signal that launch the proccess, and the output signal is the mechanical work.

On a transistor, if you take into acount the input and the output, there is a gain of power. If you take into acount the input, the output, and the source, no gain is taking place.

That's exactly what i think is happening here. If you take the input electric work, and the output mechanical work, there is a gain. If you take the electric input, the mechanical output and the magnetic field of the magnet as the source, then maybe there is no gain.

I think the gain on the output power comes from the modulation of the iron-magnet atraction phases.

I think you can remove the magnet from the iron cores without work, because you're not removing them in fact. The next cores and the inertia do the removing, you are only "hiding" some cores with the input power. You're not making repulsion, nor atraction, you are doing both (and that is to say you're doing none), so finally, that electric current is doing NO WORK.

If you have one man pulling from a rope, and another man pulling from the same rope exactly with the same force on opposite direction, Are they making work?. The answer is no.

[cala]

A transistor will follow the rules of thermodinamics: It will offer more output than input signal meanwhile it is connected to a power source on the 3º terminal. When the power source is empty, the transistor could not work.

I wonder how many times a magnet can be atracted by an iron rod if you put the magnet and the rod at the same distance again...

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by cala
When you say that the input work is related to the output work by definition, it's true to normal motors, because this normal motors uses the electric energy to impulse the rotor, and then the input work is the same (or more, counting the looses) as the output work, BY THE DEFINITION OF THIS PROCCESS,BUT IT COULD BE NOT LIKE THAT IF YOU CHANGE THE PROCCESS. Thats the definition of efficiency of ANYTHING, not just a motor, cala. Like I said, do it however you want, but you won't convince people that their power bill is irrelevant....so finally, that electric current is doing NO WORK. Again, call things whatever you want, but I doubt you will convince anyone anywhere that a voltage times an amperage doesn't equal a work/energy. Thats another definition and its an important one since thats what your electric bill is based on.

It would also appear that you don't understand what an inductor is and how it relates to your energy input.

It also appears that you don't understand how the motion of a metal core on each side of a magnet will be symmetrical - and from that you can deduce the mechanical work done on one side is exactly equal to the mechanical work done (or not done but cancelled out by the electrical work) on the other side. Thats a simple kinetic/potential energy transition. Magnetic potential energy is converted to kinetic energy (rotation of the motor) then the return of that kinetic to potential energy is blocked by your "control signal." By the symetry alone you can calculate the "control signal" must do as much electrical work as the magnets did mechanical work. I wonder how many times a magnet can be atracted by an iron rod if you put the magnet and the rod at the same distance again... Essentially unlimited of course. Try as you might though, you won't ever get them back to the starting point without an input work exactly the same as the energy gained when they came together.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by cala
The input you need here to get the mechanical work is not electric WORK, but electric CURRENT only. If you input the specific electric current needed, it doesn't matter if you apply 5 V or 5.000 V, the torque will cancel in the same way, and then, the magnet will turn exactly with the same velocity, with 5 V or with 5.000 V.


Cala, you can't have CURRENT without VOLTAGE. Use superconductors if you want but there's still gonna be a small VOLTAGE drop on the conductor. That means that you're doing WORK. Keeping those iron cores magnetized requires WORK, and if you ignore it you battery will run out eventually and you motor will stop.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by cala
A transistor will follow the rules of thermodinamics: It will offer more output than input signal meanwhile it is connected to a power source on the 3º terminal

although I'm not sure what a 3º terminal is (probably my english is not so good), I suppose you're refering to the fact that the transistor can amplify a input signal. This is done because the the transistor has a source and it takes energy to amplify the signal from there.

[cala]

I'll go point to point:

I agree with Russ about the definition of efficiency. It's the same to the new system. What i was trying to say was that the input power is equal or more than the output power on normal motors, but maybe not on other proccesses. So, normal motors can only have
efficiency < 1 BY DEFINITION OF THE PROCCESS. But other systems could have efficiency => 1, if the work is done by external causes, not by you directly.
Of course, the real energy or work balance will be the total input equal to the total output, but i talk about efficiency ratio between the work YOU should do to get the output (not counting external causes or sources).

I agree with Guybruh also, You need current and voltage, always, but the active element here is only the current. The new motor will work the same from one V value. Of course the interesting thing is use the fewer V and I we can get, given a specific geometry of the motor cores and magnet.

Once you've got the magnet and the cores design (that is to say the power output limit), you must create a specific value of H and B. To do that, you need to design the coils. You can choose the coils to waste little current (a lot of N/L ratio) or more current (little N/L ratio), and also, you can choose whatever V value you want, because working at the selected current, the magnet will no cause backEMF to the coils. The only work to take into acount here is the proccess of creating the fields from zero current to the specific current, but once you get them, no work must be done.

I agree with Guybrush again: the transistor need a potential source to amplify. That's what i think we are doing on this device. There is a source of work (the magnet-iron atraction) that can be modulated by electric current, not with the same electric work as we do on normal motors.

On normal motors, the electric work is the cause of the movement. On the new device, the electric energy opposes the forces that will stop that motion on certain positions, but without spending work. (Only the work to create that forces is needed, but we don't need this forces to do more work).

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by cala
The only work to take into acount here is the proccess of creating the fields from zero current to the specific current, but once you get them, no work must be done.


no, you see you're wrong here. You are saying that if the current is fixed and the voltage is also fixed you are not using energy anymore. It's not true... you are using energy to sustain the em field of the coils. You spend a certain quantity of energy when you go from no current to a fixed current (I believe this is called the transient period or something like his) and then you are using V*I where V and I are the stationary current/voltage through the circuit.
Think like this: if what you are saying is true you can plug in a battery to the coils to create the field and then you can take the battery out and the field will still exist. And that is not what's happening in the real life.[a)]

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
no, you see you're wrong here. You are saying that if the current is fixed and the voltage is also fixed you are not using energy anymore. It's not true... Yes, you may be right. It appears he doesn't understand how an inductor works or how to calculate electrical energy. His statements are confused enough though that I'm still not sure if thats it or if he does know it and is trying to hide the energy usage. It may be that he's arguing both - his statements on re-defining how you calculate efficency (a big no-no) make it also sound like he's trying to remove the input electrical energy from efficiency calcluations.

So, a direct question: How much electrical energy do you think will be input by your "control signal," cala? More, less, or the same as the output work of the motor?

[wimms]

The guy has reinvented permanent magnet stepper motor ("canstack"), just instead of make use of it, abuses it to reduce its electromechanical efficiency.

http://www.ams2000.com/stepping101.html#types

[Jonathan]

You all seem to be ignoring my previous post, maybe you all thought it was unrelated. Go to:

http://patimg1.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=00512340&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fn ph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DP ALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm%25 26r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D512,340.WKU. %2526OS%3DPN%2F512,340%2526RS%3DPN%2F512,340&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=8776AC8FA078

Tesla got a patent for an approximately inductionless coil (at resonance) a long time ago, the relevance here is that an inductionless coil has no back emf. Let's say one has a normal electromagnet. It takes X amount of work to change the strength of it's field. If one puts this special coil in front of it, and if the rate of the magnetic field's change is about equal to the resonant frequency of the special coil, a potential (and with a load connected, a current) will be induced with little or no increase in the X amount of work it takes to change the strength of the field of the electromagnet. If one was to make a simple air core transformer of three of these special coils, and one put an AC current on the primary coil, which then induced an AC current in the other two(which are secondaries), one would have more power out than in. Now it should be noted that if one was to combine both of the two secondary coils into one so as to make it a simple step-up transformer with a secondary that has say twice the number of turns as the primary, one would have a secondary with a different resonant frequency than the primary, so that will not work, it has to be at the coils' resonant frequency, so the secondaies have to be separate circuits all of their own who just happen to be near each other. The patent is only three pages long inculding the pictures, just read it and see. I personally doubt the likelyhood that both Tesla and the patent clerk checking Tesla's patent would be so wrong as to allow such an 'unworkable' device to be patented without merit. I will have you all know that I don't just blindly accept this and go on my way, I am currently conducting experiments and will attempt to verify this decrease in inductance at resonance claim the Tesla made. As of yet I have not had much time and nothing has really happened yet, it might be years before I get anything done (because I am going to have to buy some electronic meters and stuff, and don't have much spare money).

[Jonathan]

I should add that it is patented as an improvement for electromagnets, since if one makes this coil as an electromagnet and powers it with an AC current at the same frequency as this electromagnet's resonance, it will consume far less energy than a conventional coil making the same strength field. However, I think that if the device does work as claimed, that its use for a transformer like power source is obvious and that Tesla, for whatever reason ([a. didn't notice or b. didn't want it noticed {by patent clerk}]?) that it could be used that way.

[cala]

Well, hello everybody again.

Guybrush is right again: we have to crete the fields (spending work) and also, we have to maintain this fileds meanwhile the magnet moves freely (spending more work).

Also, Russ ask me if i think the work that we have to do is more, less or equal. Well, i spect it to be less than obtained, but i don't know. Why i think it could be less?

I think the work to create and maintain the fields will be less than on normal motors, because on normal motors, you have to create the fields, maintain them, and also use them to impulse the rotor magnet. It's also done like that on the stepper motor (canstak) that Wimms comment.

The design is similar, but the proccess is not to atract or repel, but to produce no effect, and that should cost less work than to impulse.

Think about this: on normal motors, the iron cores poles will also atract the rotor magnet, but you have to overcome this atraction, and impulse the rotor activating the coils.

On the new device, we use that atraction of the iron poles. the coils only have to "remove" some of the poles (only annuling the atraction effect, not overcoming it). Also, the coils have not to impulse the rotor, and also, the movement of the rotor doesn't produce backEMF. So to me, it could be more efficient than the normal motors, but Russ, I DON'T KNOW, that's why i'm asking the problems you see.

[russ_watters]

Also, Russ ask me if i think the work that we have to do is more, less or equal. Well, i spect it to be less than obtained, but i don't know. Why i think it could be less? So LESS then. Thanks. You should build it and find out for sure. On the new device, we use that atraction of the iron poles. the coils only have to "remove" some of the poles (only annuling the atraction effect, not overcoming it).... So to me, it could be more efficient than the normal motors, but Russ, I DON'T KNOW, that's why i'm asking the problems you see. And thats the problem. The exact quantity that you "remove" is how much work you get out of the motor. The more you "remove," the more work you get.
Originally posted by wimms
The guy has reinvented permanent magnet stepper motor ("canstack"), just instead of make use of it, abuses it to reduce its electromechanical efficiency.

http://www.ams2000.com/stepping101.html#types Thanks, I'd used them before but never knew how they worked.

And Johnathan, that patent isn't coming up for me.

[wimms]

Originally posted by cala
I think the work to create and maintain the fields will be less than on normal motors, because on normal motors, you have to create the fields, maintain them, and also use them to impulse the rotor magnet. It's also done like that on the stepper motor (canstak) that Wimms comment.

The design is similar, but the proccess is not to atract or repel, but to produce no effect, and that should cost less work than to impulse.

Think about this: on normal motors, the iron cores poles will also atract the rotor magnet, but you have to overcome this atraction, and impulse the rotor activating the coils.

On the new device, we use that atraction of the iron poles. the coils only have to "remove" some of the poles (only annuling the atraction effect, not overcoming it). Also, the coils have not to impulse the rotor, and also, the movement of the rotor doesn't produce backEMF. So to me, it could be more efficient than the normal motors, but Ok, I'll try. First, normal motors have rotor free. it has no attraction without input energy. And that input energy is used all for attraction between optimal cores, that is there is no "overcome of this attraction" as there is no rotor magnet. Both rotor and cores are magnets "ondemand".

Stepper ("canstack") motors have a distinct property: they are not free. The static magnet attraction to cores makes them "click" into place. When turned by hand, you feel the clicks as rotor magnets align with next cores. To make motor work, you give it an impulse such that next core becomes strongly attractive and current core repelling or neutral. Motor clicks into next position. When cores are energized, there is no "overcome" of natural attraction to iron, because cores become magnets that either attract or repel.

Output torque of the motor comes from two things, first, the impulss that forces rotor to click into next position (goes beyond halfway at least), and after that magnetic attraction to the next pole. So stepper motor with permanent magnets is specifically utilising "free energy" of permanent magnets that increases its efficiency. Besides, it needs no constant energy input, it "works" only during instants when steps are made, after that its in the "hold" mode that can be made stronger if needed by energy input that makes attraction with rotor stronger.

I'm not sure why you consider backEMF as something major. Its nuissance to deal with, but avoiding it doesn't give you anything.
Besides, backEMF comes from inductivity of pole coil, that fact when there is no magnetic torque with rotor magnet doesn't change. Fact that moving magnet induces voltage into the coil remains also. All that achieved with such switching of pole coils is that rotor becomes free to freewheel. That means that the only rotational torque this motor generates is that of rotor magnet attraction to next pole alone. In addition to that, opposite side of rotor attracts to current core, thus opposes movement. The only reason why it moves at all is that uncentered rotor magnet that together with initial spinup momentum "wins" its opposite end and goes to attract the next core. That difference is pretty small, and so is output mechanical torque.

In real motors, both pairs of coils are used. When one repels, other attracts. This creates double of the magnetic torque, and thus more mechanical torque. There are no counterforces that would neutralise the rotor magnet. In this "new" motor, by neutralising attraction to closest core neutralises the magnet itself, so there's very little left to attract to the next core.

In addition, moving magnet approaching next core induces current into it. If its not energised with energy input to do work, it acts like a brake. No PM.

So I guess this motor could spin, but will consume much more energy that claimed, and will be extremely weak in terms of mechanical torque. In effect, all it does is to sustain rotor's own rotation by overcoming all losses. no free energy.

[cala]

Wimms, i see you know very well the working of the normal motors.

You said the canstack rotor is not free. You say you have not to overcome the atraction of poles when activating the coils, and that is true to that pole, but you have to overcome the atraction of the rest of the inactive poles. I was refering to that. I don't know if all the poles are active at the same time, but if not, the input you give to a coil must overcome the atraction of the inactive poles.

What is the importance of the backEMF? think about this:

You have to create a H or B field with a coil. Then, this H or B field creation depends on 2 factors: The inductance (related with geometry) and the electric current. If you have a very very inductive coil, you should enter less energy to get the same H or B field. But on normal motors, the more the inductive coil, the bigger the backEMF you have to overcome from the moving rotor, so inductance on normal motors affect the input and the backEMF amount.

On the new device, it doesn't matter how inductive the coils are, there is no backEMF in any case, so you can use higly inductive coils to input less electric energy to obtain stronger H or B fields, and also, the rotor movement will not affect the coils, so the inductance is only important to reduce the input power, but doesn't create backEMF amount or opposition, that's the important point.

I think that is where Jonathan patent came into play. He said it was something like a non inductive coil to create high fields without opposition. On the new device the inductance counts on the action (input energy to create the fields), but not on reaction (backEMF from the movement of the rotor).

When you say the normal motors use two poles to impulse creating double magnetic torque, they also have double backEMF.

On the new device, the two poles that should work to impulse the rotor magnet work together (one impulsing, one making a breaking function) to finally make nothing to the rotor magnet, and then, the magnet does nothing into the coils working, and the iron atraction of the next cores can take place freely.

I repeat it again, because i think is something important: The induction of the coils making this proccess only is important to create the fields (the more induction, the less electric energy input). The rotor magnet movement will not affect the coils when working like that (there will be no high induction backEMF opposition).

[Jonathan]

Oh good, so you all are not just skipping my posts! I think it would more correctly be called the Tesla patent, #512,340. As I see it, either Tesla was wrong, or he really did have a coil (very simple to make, I just don't know a good way to find it's resonant frequency yet) that had little or no self inductance. I am surprised there are not more posts about this, I think that the possibilities are awesome and that some one here might be able to tell me if there is something in the design that would obviously show it did have the usual self-inductance or if it would indeed have little or none at resonance. If the second, then the use for perpetual motion and free energy would be obvious. I will be sure to tell you all if I succeed in that! (It'll be awhile, maybe never though.)

[russ_watters]

Johnathan, do you know offhand if there is a special viewer for that patent file? I get a little icon representing a picture and not the picture itself.

[Jonathan]

You need quicktime, but I will post an attachment in a minute for you.

[Jonathan]

Okay, I'm sorry that it's so crude, but I made the picture in paint and there is no way for me to have the computer draw spirals, so I have to do it by hand.

[Jonathan]

I just looked at it and it looks even more pitiful than I thought, again I'm sorry and I hope you can tell what the basic idea is. It might be easier to get quicktime, if that was the problem you were having, though it could be the patent office, their site has a lot of problems.

[cala]

Hello Jonathan. Finally i can see the coil you talk about.

I have made an analysis with the rule of the hand to see the current flux and the magnetic field created, and it seems not to create magnetic flux, because the lines of flux that one turn creates seem to be compensed by the return flux lines of the surrounding turns, so the flux density doesn't change, or keeps very low (at least, near the center of the coils, around the external edges, there is magnetic flux not compensed).

So you could put the current you want, the flux density will not change near the center.

What will happen if we change the strength of the field near that coil?

I have done some simulations, and the flux lines of a changing element near the coil doesn't seem to be affected, but sure the coil sees this changes, but i can't say if this variation creates a current or voltage. If it does, the fact that it will not create backEMF (because the current running through the coil will not change magnetic flux state) could be true.

[wimms]

Seems there is some confusion about induction and self-induction, counter-EMF and back-EMF.
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/EddyCurrents/Physics/selfinductance.htm

The coil you posted is simply 2 coils wired in series by using parallel wires during winding.
http://www.play-hookey.com/dc_theory/series_inductors.html
What it could do, is to reduce perceived self-induction, that becomes a nuisance in some situations. Telsa perhaps stumped across the issue because he built HUGE coils with huge inductions, that worked at relatively high frequencies and where selfinduction became notable source of losses. This has nothing to do with free energy though, it has only to do with avoiding losses and high impedance.

Basic idea as I see it is that when current changes fast enough, then mutual induction between the coils cancels out self-induction that input terminals perceive. That does not mean self-induction is gone, or that inductance of coils is reduced. Effect is interesting and quite complex though.

Self-inductance is source of impedance, resistence to AC current. When you apply voltage to inputs, current doesn't flow instantly, but takes time to increase. When input voltage alternates fast, current doesn't go up at all. Thats measured as impedance, and needs high voltage to be overcome and force current flow. When current goes into one coil, it induces opposite current to other coil. But because they are wired in series, and equal in all regards, voltages across both coils are opposite and same value, or, at input terminals voltage difference is ~zero. In effect, it seems like impedance of the circuit is zero, because current flows with very little voltage difference. Voltage difference is produced at point where two coils are connected, it alternates relative to both input terminals.
Its no difference how you drive the coil, with high voltage AC and low current onto high impedance, or low voltage and high current onto low impedance. Power is about the same. Perhaps its easier to produce high current than to deal with very high voltages.
I'm not sure what the magnetic flux does, seems that mutual induction of coils is aiding each other, thus flux is additive by both coils. But its important to realise that its no sense in thinking that because there is little voltage input and alot of voltage output, that there is any free energy. What matters is power, product of voltage AND current.

[wimms]

Originally posted by cala
You have to create a H or B field with a coil. Then, this H or B field creation depends on 2 factors: The inductance (related with geometry) and the electric current. If you have a very very inductive coil, you should enter less energy to get the same H or B field. But on normal motors, the more the inductive coil, the bigger the backEMF you have to overcome from the moving rotor, so inductance on normal motors affect the input and the backEMF amount. How to say it, .. you are .. wrong. Electric current is not input energy. Input energy is product of current and voltage (power) over time. Inductance is factor, but together with higher inductance, higher voltage is involved, thus more power, or time. There is no more free force in magnetism than there is with water barrels or ropes.
Keep in mind that there is difference between creating field and maintaining it. Think of it as difference between accelerating a car and maintaining its speed. You can accelerate car with little energy, but it will take more time.

On the new device, it doesn't matter how inductive the coils are, there is no backEMF in any case, so you can use higly inductive coils to input less electric energy to obtain stronger H or B fields, and also, the rotor movement will not affect the coils, so the inductance is only important to reduce the input power, but doesn't create backEMF amount or opposition Here is key to your confusion. "input less electric energy to obtain stronger H or B fields" is as heretic as it can get. It has red flags all over it and you rely on this as if it was true.
"BackEMF" is actually counterEMF in coils here, and is not you main enemy. It is not consuming energy, it just is reluctance to consume energy. Can be dealt with higher voltages. Its only nuisance as said before. BackEMF occurs when you switch off your coils, much like when your hands slip while you compressed a spring and it makes a "boink". Also occurs when moving magnet passes coils. If you oppose it, it works like brakes. So, while you don't have attraction between rotor and coils, because you oppose backEMF (by neutralising attraction), its braking your rotor. Heard of eddy-current braking? http://www.cwru.edu/artsci/phys/courses/demos/eddy.htm

And I don't think you would get rid of counterEMF. Whether your power source feels it or not, it happens inside coils. Its the very essence of induction.

Rotor movement WILL affect the coils, probably causing nonlinear and jumping impedance, thus your energy consumption while "neutralising" will be variable.

Overall, its quite complex to analyse, but it boils down to few simple truths: to create any force, you spend energy. To neutralise any force, you spend energy. If amount of "free force" you have is all that does the work, then amount of energy you spend to neutralise it equals amount of work it can do.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by wimms
Overall, its quite complex to analyse, but it boils down to few simple truths: to create any force, you spend energy. To neutralise any force, you spend energy. If amount of "free force" you have is all that does the work, then amount of energy you spend to neutralise it equals amount of work it can do. Worth repeating.

[Jonathan]

I can't tell if some of you are replying to cala or to me, because I agree when you all say cala is wrong, he/she uses the terminology wrong a lot, though I'm not perfect either. I just wanted to put this device out there, I'm not interested in arguing how/if it works, I will do the experiments and see for myself. All I know about it is what the patent says, and it says it is an improvement for AC electromagnets. IF one can reduce the self-inductance, as the patent claims, then you can reduce the back-emf (or 'false currents' as Tesla called them). If one can even slightly reduce the back-emf, then one has slightly broken Lenz's law and probably Newton's 3rd law, which would then tells us that it might be possible to increase the load on the 'transformer' I mentioned a few posts ago without having to increase the input power.
Granted, that is a big IF, and it is highly unlikely, but i think the experiment would be worth it. All one needs to do is make a 'transformer' like I described and hook up the primary to a variable frequency power source, and vary the frequency until the power out of the secondaries is the highest you can get (indictating you've found the resonant frequency) and then you compare power in and out. Of course, one is going to want a volatge/amp meter for power measurements. And lets not forget that since we can't be sure we're doing this right, the ultimate test is the self and load powering one.

[cala]

"Overall, its quite complex to analyse, but it boils down to few simple truths: to create any force, you spend energy. To neutralise any force, you spend energy. If amount of "free force" you have is all that does the work, then amount of energy you spend to neutralise it equals amount of work it can do."

A magnet fixed on a fridge neutralise the force of gravity, but it's doing no work, nor spending energy. Neutralise the effect of a force can be done without spending energy or doing work.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by cala
A magnet fixed on a fridge neutralise the force of gravity

[?] [?] [?] [?]

[cala]

I mean, the magnet will fall if no magnetic force were exerted.

But if you let the magnet fix on the fridge, the friction will happen.

If you let the magnet there, it will not fall on many years (maybe forever?).

If the gravity force were not neutralised, the magnet will fall, so there is neutralization of gravity force... but is the magnet doing work? the answer is no, there is no displacement, so no work is done, and also, no energy waste, but you are opposing the gravity force, and making the gravity not to take effect on the magnet.

[wimms]

Originally posted by cala
A magnet fixed on a fridge neutralise the force of gravity, but it's doing no work, nor spending energy. Neutralise the effect of a force can be done without spending energy or doing work. Well, why magnet, why on fridge? Take a rock, on the floor. Opposes gravity without spending energy.

If the gravity force were not neutralised, the magnet will fall, so there is neutralization of gravity force... but is the magnet doing work? no You misuse term "neutralise" here, or misunderstand what I meant. To neutralise gravity, your only option is create antigravity field. To neutralise magnetic field, you can create opposing magnetic field. And that creation needs work. Switching coils on and off is doing work.

[wimms]

Originally posted by Jonathan
I'm not interested in arguing how/if it works, I will do the experiments and see for myself. All I know about it is what the patent says, and it says it is an improvement for AC electromagnets. I'd not trust patent filed 100yrs ago by Tesla. As you've seen, even 100 yrs later their patent office has all sorts of problems [;)]

I am actually quite interested to get a "second opinion" on how this device works/fails. I recall there are ways to abuse transformers in such a way that magnetic "short circtuit" is formed, complete loss of inductance and magnetic flux. I wonder if this one falls into that category.

If one can even slightly reduce the back-emf, then one has slightly broken Lenz's law and probably Newton's 3rd law, which would then tells us that it might be possible to increase the load on the 'transformer' I mentioned a few posts ago without having to increase the input power.Why on earth do you think that some energy will pop up from thin air? Do you think energy conservation is broken? If not, then were would that additional energy come from??

All one needs to do is make a 'transformer' like I described and hook up the primary to a variable frequency power source, and vary the frequency until the power out of the secondaries is the highest you can get (indictating you've found the resonant frequency) and then you compare power in and out. Of course, one is going to want a volatge/amp meter for power measurements. This isn't trivial. As this device isn't linear, you can't use ordinary volt/amp meters, or you'll measure whatever you "want". On the other hand, as such paired winding offers most effective mutual inductance between coils, it is THE typical winding type, so you might not even need to make it yourself. Just pick a transformer with 2 primary and 1-N secondary coils and rewire. Only, don't test it under any notable power (ie. mains) or you can get hurt. Also note that any sort of resonances depend very heavily on characteristics of load and power transfered. So you might not ever find a resonance frequency.

[cala]

Wimms, i was only saying that to overcome or anul, or neutralise the effect of a force, sometimes you do not need to do work or waste energy, as you said.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by wimms
Well, why magnet, why on fridge? Take a rock, on the floor. Opposes gravity without spending energy.

You misuse term "neutralise" here, or misunderstand what I meant. To neutralise gravity, your only option is create antigravity field. To neutralise magnetic field, you can create opposing magnetic field. And that creation needs work. Switching coils on and off is doing work. He just plain doesn't understand the difference between/relationship between force/work/energy. A refrigerator magnet is holding itself on a refrigerator with a force. A magnetic field opposing motion (or a coil cancelling out that opposing field) is doing work. A specific amount of work in a specific amount of time is energy. Understanding the relationship between those concepts is CRITICAL to analyzing the utility of your device, cala.

For the record, I sometimes use work and energy interchangeably. Though not technically correct, it usually works out ok. Using force in place of work or energy doesn't.

Anyway, another example: pushups. Do half a pushup and hold your chest an inch off the ground for as long as you can. Mechanically, you are doing no work/energy, just applying some forces. Does that mean you are not burning any calories (energy) to keep your body in that position?Wimms, i was only saying that to overcome or anul, or neutralise the effect of a force, sometimes you do not need to do work or waste energy, as you said. That is correct. But in this case you do.
This isn't trivial. As this device isn't linear, you can't use ordinary volt/amp meters, or you'll measure whatever you "want". To expand, you need a wattmeter, a single device which couples amperage and voltage to give you power. And with inductors, power isn't a stand-alone concet. You need to look at active/reactive power, power factor, etc.

Johnathan, I also am highly skeptical of that transformer claim. On the face of it, it violates conservation of energy. But I haven't looked at it yet (hopefully tonight) and even then, I'm not an electrical engineer.

[russ_watters]

Cala, enigma and I have been kicking around whether we should move this thread to Theory Development. What is your goal here? It doesn't seem like you are truly interested in learning anything. Do you want to build this device? Get a patent? Sell something?

If you are just here to argue against the laws of physics (or say they just don't apply to you), this isn't the place for it.

[Jonathan]

I do agree that cala can't use the terms correctly and so this should go into TD.
Several people have asked me the same question, and I've already told you all that my plan is to just test the device. I have not made any claims of free energy, only a logical deduction based on patent info.
Wimms, if you are willing to dismiss Tesla's 'testimony' that this device reduces it's inducance at resonance, then you might as well call one of the greastest geniuses of all time an idiot. Given that I have no real info though, just speculation and ideas based on the 100 year old claims of Tesla's patent, I do not intend to continue my part of this disscussion, as I have nothing more to add. Thank you all for taking this research seriously.

[cala]

I posted this topic here to comment on what failures you see, and i'll try to explain myself the best i can, but also, i've got to see if there is an error, and try to understand why.

The most important thing this topic show me is about the energy-work when the coils are active. That's the point were I must look to completely understand.

I have two questions i want to ask:

Imagine an equilibrium situation of a force field. Now, imagine you go against one of that forces, and de-equilibrates. You are working against one of the forces, but can't this de-equilibrium (the rest of the forces) create more work on a device than the needed to go against one of that forces?.

Another question:
Imagine a bifilar coil (current run on both senses, so no B field is created). An iron core is inside this coil. Will the iron core behave magnetically the same as if the bifilar coil where not there? i mean... Will another magnetic field affect the iron like if no coil were there? will the magnetic field penetrate the iron in the same way?

[cala]

Well, this link comes from another search, but in some way, it's related to my first question. Read the last part (at the end of the page). It's about "motion cancellers":

http://members.dancris.com/~bfraser/4v4a/ADVPROP.html

That's what i was talking about equilibrium and cancellation of it to get movement.

Another example: A moving electron under a perpendicular E and B field will describe a movement on a preferred direction and sense, and the E and B field must do no work (only energy presence is required).

I think E and B create forces on perpendicular to the motion of the electron, but as the paper claims, this creation of forces "cancells" an equilibrium, and then, another forces can move the electron and do the work.

[wimms]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Wimms, if you are willing to dismiss Tesla's 'testimony' that this device reduces it's inducance at resonance, then you might as well call one of the greastest geniuses of all time an idiot. Being cautious and calling idiot is a long step. What Tesla knew at his time has transformed hugely. He was experimentator who didn't often understand what he saw.

What confuses me is talks about resonance of inductance. I'm not pro but I've dealt with electronics, and I can't think of reason why pure inductive circuit would have any resonance. We could build inductive circuits with no measurable inductance, but all of them would be useless. Knowing that Tesla was obsessed with his Tesla coil, I can imagine number of factors that all together could result in resonance, but these apply to huge coils and interactions with environment over large distances.

Also, you must understand resonance better before you bet on its miraculous features. Simplest example is perhaps a swing, you don't spend awful lot of energy to get a good amplitude swinging. BUT, it takes TIME. Thats the nature of resonance, you feed energy back and forth and it cumulates. If you do it at right moments, you get huge amplitude. But energy you can extract is exactly that which you entered there. It just takes more time to enter it than extract it. Alot of PM ideas fail to see that, and compare input amplitude with output amplitude, ignoring the time factor.

[wimms]

Originally posted by cala
Imagine an equilibrium situation of a force field. Now, imagine you go against one of that forces, and de-equilibrates. You are working against one of the forces, but can't this de-equilibrium (the rest of the forces) create more work on a device than the needed to go against one of that forces?Depends. Imagine stepping onto icy rock and balance. Now, imagine you "de-equilibrate". Woops, you go down. So yes, when you are on top of potential, droping down can do more work than you hope. But when you're down, "de-equilibrating" doesn't help you. With slight trembling you won't get up on that rock again. To create a potential (climb the rock) you need to spend energy.

Imagine a bifilar coil (current run on both senses, so no B field is created). An iron core is inside this coil. Will the iron core behave magnetically the same as if the bifilar coil where not there? i mean... Will another magnetic field affect the iron like if no coil were there? will the magnetic field penetrate the iron in the same way?Thats a difficult one. I'd guess not. Core is under stress, it participates in mutual inductance. It will have Eddy currents. Some degree of "shielding" will occur. With coils, you speak of AC currents, but another magnetic field could be from permanent magnet (magnetic DC analogue). That field is biasing iron core to one direction. If AC current is suitably high frequency, then it can actually "open" iron core for easier realignment. I wonder if they create permanent magnets in that way.

[cala]

Wimms, your answers to my questions sound very interesting!. Thanks a lot. Also, i've got to think and search more about that two points, because i have them not quite clear. Thanks again for your well-founded opinions.

[Jonathan]

Wimms, since I have no experience with the coil, I have no idea. All I know is that he claimed that when you powered the coil with its resonant frequency, it had little or no inducance.
I disagree with you that he might not have understood what he was seeing. All of physics is coming to conclusions based on what you see and logic, and I imagine that he fiddled with it long enough before patenting it that he understood it pretty well. I have to admit a shaky understanding of ED in general, I think I can say better than most though, and I see no reason why it can't just have a resonant frequency independent of any circuit it is attached to. Galloping Gurdy (Tacoma Narrows Bridge) had a resonant frequency, but in the absence of wind it didn't matter.
As to resonance, I understand, I have taken the usual classes, I know how it works. This is evidenced by the fact that I can tell that cala doesn't know the correct terminology to allow easy conversations here.
Cala, I wish you good luck in your researches.

[wimms]

Jonathan, while I've got the "momentum", I'll elaborate why I'm so suspicious about this coil.
All transformer coil endpoints are marked. When you apply 2 AC sources to 2 separate coils on same core, it becomes vital. AC power source depends on transformer to have some specific inductance, this causes impedance (analog to resistence in DC domain), and that defines how much current can go into coils. When you connect power to coils wrong (opposing) way, there happens so to say magnetic short circuit, coils cancel each others flux and inductance goes to nada, this results in impedance collapse and nearly unrestricted current flow between power inputs. Basically, it is very similar to short-circuiting the AC power source. This happens occasionally when careless, and can (literally) blow out equipment and cause fire.
And this patent coil reminds this mishap enormously.

Inductance alone has linear dependance of impedance to frequency, all the way from DC to infinite frequency. Linear. There is no resonance. Resonance occurs when there is phase shift large enough to cause delayed output to coincide with input. In circuits this requires capacitance, or quite long delaylines. For eg, if you have 200,000km wire, then it takes 1 second to reach the end. If your input AC is 1 Hz frequency, and its other end is brought back to your power source, you can get resonance. For shorter distance, frequency needed is higher, waay higher. Incidently, impedance goes up with frequency and inductance, and that requires ever higher input voltage to get same power transfer.

Tesla needed several things, very huge inductance, normal accessible input voltage levels, quite high frequency. This is quite conflicting set of requirements. So he came up with this coil. Its basically short circuit. imo. But currents inside aren't perfectly balanced. Transient magnetic fluxes have time differences. With sufficiently huge coil and inductance that can be brought down to manageable delays and thus frequencies. When that happens, we maybe could even talk about some resonance. But it depends heavily on material then and is nonlinear. Tesla's goal was to transfer energy over distance, and he basically used Earths capacitance for resonance. So his coil had resonance when interacting with environment.

This all is very different on the table and in small setup. After inductance collapse occurs, there is a short period of time when currents inside coils and iron core fluctuate wildly at random. That can cause heavy RF interference, while benefits are questionable. There are other winding methods to produce even better magnetic fields. For Tesla, it was a sort of energy pump. While inductance collapses, power source is detached from the coil's output. With capacitance behind it, the energy that got into the coil was transfered out at that combined resonant frequency.

When it comes to electromagnets, then shorting power source is a bad thing, wastes energy. RF intererence is illegal thing, and wastes energy too. High frequency currents is unwanted thing, core efficiency goes down. Inductance of coils is friend actually. It can be managed and brought to optimal levels differently. Thats why I think this coil isn't used widely.

[Jonathan]

What are you talking about? Tesla had nothing to do with the transformer idea, it was mine. The transformer has an air core, because iron creates higher impedance. The field of the coils do not cancel out, all turns and all cureent are in the same direction. The topology of the coil described in the patent is supposedly novel in such a way as to cause an interaction between self-capacitance and self-inductance, resulting at a decrease in self-inductance at resonance. What does that mean? And how? I have no idea, that was just my interpretation of the patent, but I could have vastly misunderstood something. It is my understanding that the self-capacitance is what is modified by the topology, and I think I have a good grasp on why, but it is beyond me to express it. As to the equations, I think the idea is that the topology causes the coil to follow different equations than usual, but that is just an assumption, I have no experience with it nor does the patent say.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Jonathan
The topology of the coil described in the patent is supposedly novel in such a way as to cause an interaction between self-capacitance and self-inductance, resulting at a decrease in self-inductance at resonance.

ok people I'm so confused about your coil talk....
let me start with what I know abaout coils and please help me understand [t)]

The coil is an inductor right? The coil is characterized by the formula:
u(t) = L\frac{di(t)}{dt}.
As far as I know L (the inductance of the coil) is a constant value dependent of the geometry of the coil.
Now moving to AC, the complex impedance of a ideal inductor is
Z = j \omega L
However there are no ideal inductors so for a real coil we have
z = R_L + j \omega L + \frac{1}{j \omega C_L}
where R_L is the resistence of the coil and C_L is the parasite capacitance of the coil.
Am I right so far?

so what are you trying to say? That for the Tesla coil both L and C_L are frequncy dependent?

[Jonathan]

I have already explained that I have no idea what I'm trying to say, I'm just parroting and reinterpreting the info on this patent:
http://patimg1.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=00512340&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fn ph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DP ALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm%25 26r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D512,340.WKU. %2526OS%3DPN%2F512,340%2526RS%3DPN%2F512,340&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=87768B96A046
As to the last question, I guess so. But we shouldn't call it a Tesla coil to avoid confusion with the high-voltage generator of the same name. I think it is more correctly called Tesla's bifilar coil.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Jonathan
I have already explained that I have no idea what I'm trying to say, I'm just parroting and reinterpreting the info on this patent:
http://patimg1.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=00512340&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fn ph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DP ALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm%25 26r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D512,340.WKU. %2526OS%3DPN%2F512,340%2526RS%3DPN%2F512,340&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=87768B96A046


the damn page still doesn't work.....

[Jonathan]

Oh! I'm sorry! It didn't occur to me that the link wouldn't work! Okay go here:
http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html
And click Patent Number Search on the left. Then enter 512,340 and click enter. (I think you need to include the comma.) It should pop right up, but they don't have it transcribed, they only have pictures of the actual patent papers. So click on the Images button, and you should see the picture of the usual coil and the coil described in the patent. By clicking the buttons to the side of the page you can read the whole patent, it is only three pages.
This explains the questions, I thought you all had read it by now, it didn't occur to me to try the link myself and see if it was the problem. Sorry!

[sheldon]

I tried to look at this coil and could not see it; I must not have the right viewer. Anyway, the beginning of the thread was about a special motor. I would like to start by saying that a regular motor is just as efficient as the motor described. I personally don’t think that motor described will even work. Knowing you people on this site, I need to explain so here it is, iron cores will store magnetic field, this may look like a benefit at first but it actually isn’t it will become nothing but a coagulated mess and eventually take a great amount of power to even turn the stator in order to break this stored magnetic field. A regular motor doesn’t use much power until it’s loaded, that’s the real test “under load”. As far as your inductance and capacitance and resonance and Tesla coils. I can say that under resonance of any energy flow through a medium is more efficient than going through a given material that is not resonant. Common sense really, any thing else is reactance to the energy flow. Now to agree with your views a little, If you are resonant with another energy source then you should be able to transmit or transform it into something else. For example if there is a stored energy held within the atmosphere and you make a devise that is resonant with the atmosphere it is possible to use such devise to drain that energy source for utilization. Why? because at resonance reactance is practicaly zero and alows for a path of energy flow.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I could see the patent, after trying with all the available browsers and installing some plugins. I guess they wanted to keep it secret because of it's importance [:D]
Anyway, if anybody's interested I can do a pdf or something and post it here.
Jonathan I'll read the patent carefull and than come back....

[Jonathan]

Guyetc., I tried to do something with the patent, but couldn't get it to let me copy it.
sheldon, I think you are reading more into this resonance thing than necessary. I very much doubt that the coil's supposed properties need have anything to do with the resonant frequencies of its environment, ie the atmosphere, because one can build the coil to work at any reasonable frequency, what is important is that the AC in is at the resonant frequency of the coil.
As far as I can tell, the idea is that at the resonant frequency, self-inductance is minimized or eliminated, at which point there is little or no back-emf. With little or no back-emf, one can make it be an AC electromagnet and pay only for the energy to create and sustain the field, but not the energy to alternate it against itself. #It seems to me that additionally, if one applied the right frequency of alternating magnetic field to the coil, one would get little or no current induced in it, which occurs to me now would negate the working of the aforementioned transformer, requiring the design change of having the secondaries be normal coils, and only the primary be a special bifilar one.# I can't be sure, it is late here and I might just be very confused. To make this clear in case of future reference, I will put number signs at the begining and end of what I'm unsure of.
Well, regardless, I think the coil might indeed have odd properties and when I get around to it I will do both versions of the transformer and see what happens.

[cala]

Well, Jonathan, that's were your special coil has the meeting point with my device. I think the no-work-motor works as I claim once the fields are created on the coils. The point is that to get that situation, you've got a transient, and you have to do work on that transient. That is something i did not see, and i've got to thank you all make me see this point. The explanation is under clasical physics. Now, the question if this work is less, more or the same is not quite clear, because in the transient (when creating the fields) we're doing work against the polarization of ONE iron core (the other active coil core remains almost in the same B field, althogh the H filed is increasing), but we are getting the rotational impulse of TWO iron cores. What do you think about this point?

[Jonathan]

If you are asking me specifically, I have no idea. I really don't understand how it was supposed to work in the first place.

[wimms]

I found a decent copy of the patent.
http://www.tfcbooks.com/patents/coil.htm

Indeed, its clever setup. It puts parasitic capacitance to use. Two coils closely together form capacitor. Voltage drop over both coils defines the voltage on the cap, and the more it is, the more effective capacitance.
In effect, its purely LC resonant circuit, where impedance drops at resonant frequency, not inductance. Any deviation from resonant frequency, and you face reactive impedance. Any deviation includes switch on or off power, resonance changes due to loading, surrounding magnetic fields, etc.
And it resonates only with AC, where magnets can't be made. If you try to use it for halfsine period, you aren't at resonance.
At resonance, its swinging energy between capacitance and inductance, thats why its easy to keep it going (its like inertial motion). But to put the energy in there, you do all the work (start the swing). I.e. from off to on, you face reactance. After you switch it off, IT wouldn't. You can't control it as freely as you need. Resonance can be your worst enemy sometimes. Think of your car with missing shocks.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

yes, what wimms said......

from the patent I understood that the main objective of Tesla was

My present invention has for its object to avoid the employment of condensers, which are expensive, cumbersome and difficult to maintain in perfect condition, and to so construct the coils themselves as to accomplish the same ultimate object.


nowdays you'll find condensers are not what they were on Tesla's time. You can use them easily and get the same effect without complicated coil geometries...

[sheldon]

Now that I can see the patent, I have to agree with wimms very well put. Can you explain the theory of the motor the thread started from better for me?

[Bluelite]

I must admit, I was skeptical, so I just closed the forum and went home. It would be like a rock rolling down a hill with no bottom: it just keeps falling forever.

Then, I found the patent! Yes, this "perpetual motion" machine has been patented. I now have renewed faith in the idea, and plan to "build-it". It is called the "Permanent Magnet Motor"; patented by Howard R. Johnson on April 24, 1979 (US Patent Number 4,151,431).

Here is a link with pictures and articles:
http://www.newebmasters.com/freeenergy/4151431-pg1.html

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Bluelite
Then, I found the patent! Yes, this "perpetual motion" machine has been patented. I now have renewed faith in the idea, and plan to "build-it". It is called the "Permanent Magnet Motor"; patented by Howard R. Johnson on April 24, 1979 (US Patent Number 4,151,431).


ever wondered why nobody managed to "build-it" by now? I mean the patent is 24 years old...

[pallidin]

Standard patents mean nothing more than granting the "ownership" right of the patent to the patent submissor(s).
That is, the device DOESN'T have to work at all! A patent IS NOT a government stamp of approval with regards to efficacy. It is a stamp of concept ownership, nothing more!
I have often heard people say "well, it's patented, so it must work"
Not true.
A patent is merely a legal document that describes "claims" which, when afforded the patentee, lawfully excludes others from asserting those same claims on a similar frame without permission from the patent holder. A standard patent has NOTHING to do with whether the device actually works; it is simply a legal recognition of IDEA ownership.