New electric motor principle

  • Thread starter cala
  • Start date
  • #1
cala
194
0
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.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Integral
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,224
63
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.
 
  • #3
cala
194
0
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?
 
  • #4
Integral
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,224
63
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.
 
  • #5
russ_watters
Mentor
21,627
8,745
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.
 
  • #6
cala
194
0
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?.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
russ_watters
Mentor
21,627
8,745
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
cala
194
0
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.
 
  • #9
russ_watters
Mentor
21,627
8,745
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).
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Jonathan
365
0
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.
 
  • #11
cala
194
0
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Guybrush Threepwood
517
1
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?
 
  • #13
russ_watters
Mentor
21,627
8,745
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
russ_watters
Mentor
21,627
8,745
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.
 
  • #15
cala
194
0
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
cala
194
0
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.
 
  • #17
cala
194
0
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...
 
  • #18
russ_watters
Mentor
21,627
8,745
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.
 
  • #19
Guybrush Threepwood
517
1
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.
 
  • #20
Guybrush Threepwood
517
1
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.
 
  • #21
cala
194
0
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).
 
  • #22
Guybrush Threepwood
517
1
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.
 
  • #23
russ_watters
Mentor
21,627
8,745
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?
 
  • #24
wimms
496
0
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 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
Jonathan
365
0
You all seem to be ignoring my previous post, maybe you all thought it was unrelated. Go to:

http://patimg1.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid...ageNum=&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).
 
Last edited:
  • #26
Jonathan
365
0
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.
 
  • #27
cala
194
0
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.
 
  • #28
russ_watters
Mentor
21,627
8,745
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 [Broken]
Thanks, I'd used them before but never knew how they worked.

And Johnathan, that patent isn't coming up for me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
wimms
496
0
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.
 
  • #30
cala
194
0
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).
 
Last edited:
  • #31
Jonathan
365
0
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.)
 
  • #32
russ_watters
Mentor
21,627
8,745
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.
 
  • #33
Jonathan
365
0
You need quicktime, but I will post an attachment in a minute for you.
 
  • #34
Jonathan
365
0
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.
 

Attachments

  • extremelycrudecoil.jpg
    extremelycrudecoil.jpg
    11.9 KB · Views: 423
  • #35
Jonathan
365
0
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.
 

Suggested for: New electric motor principle

  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
12K
Top