What are the Physics Behind the Equilibrium Motor Concept?

[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 dependence 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 transferred 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

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...ageNum=&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...ageNum=&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
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 beginning 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, that's 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.