For Peter Lindemann and energenx "Zero Force Motor"

[jackdaddy57]

On you Tube recently I saw a video on a "zero Force Motor". Energenx mentioned Peter Lindemann made it with a bedini-cole ciruit. Can I get any specifics on how this was made??? I would apreciate any info.

Thank You,

Jack

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TICXxP1jI4

[Gyula]

Yes, I would also be interested in learning about the zero force motor, why it has no Lenz law effect, thanks for asking this. John already mentioned it in the Window motor thread:
http://www.energyscienceforum.com/sh...full=1#post454 post #19 and later in post #36

regards, Gyula

[jackdaddy57]

Thank you for the info.

[emfimp]

Hi,

I've just made a post here: http://www.energyscienceforum.com/pe...nal-coils.html It is post #3, and I've given a couple good resources on how to create a no back emf motor.

My personal belief is that there is some Lenz effect in the zero force motor, but it is highly limited compared to conventional designs. Paul Babcock clearly mentions in his presentation (referenced in post #3), something to the effect that he takes ten percent of the conventional calculation for the Lenz effect, and applies that to his motor calculation. This suggests that there is still some BEMF, just a very small percent. Also, if you look at the description of this device: The Mini-Romag explanation ? - there are some scope shots there - this device has a coil orientation very similar to the zero force motor, and the scope shots clearly show a very different waveform from a conventional orientation. I have observed the same waveform on my scope when I oriented a normal energizer coil in the same direction as John did in his simple zero force motor, pictured below. This waveform suggests that if you fire your coil at the right time, ie when the generated voltage is at a low point, it will still generate a motoring effect, but of course have a highly mitigated BEMF to deal with. Peter may be firing his at a different spot - haven't figured that out yet...

Here is a couple pics - one is the Bedini - Cole circuit that I believe Peter is using to power the coils, the other is another zero force motor that John made. This is simpler, and would be a great starting point to experiment with.




Hope this helps!
Daniel

[emfimp]

Hi all! I'm moving a conversation over here from: http://www.energyscienceforum.com/pe...nal-coils.html. The conversation is about the zero force motor... :-)
Daniel

Hi Daniel,

I have gone through the Mini Romag mot/gen setup, still the foggiest things are why the copper covered steel wires are needed to be wound onto the permanent magnets (if this is indeed the case) and where are these series coil ends are connected to? (I know in the part list the components numbered as #8, #9, #10, #13 deal with these steel wires.)
Well, nevermind, the info on how the induction happens in the tangentially positioned coil is of real value, namely a diode placed in parallel with the coil to cut down the bemf positive peak did not affect rotor speed and when the coil is connected to a power supply (up to 1.37A in that setup), Naudin did not notice significant change in rotor speed. Also, the lack of magnetic flux connection between the rotor magnet and the coil during the positive part of the bemf voltage is an advantage too.
So far I was thinking of somehow utilizing the positive part of this bemf voltage and this is why I wrote pulsing the coil to pull the magnet in and then repel it out with short pulses so that most of the time while the magnet passes the coil you do not force any current into it because at long ON time the low inner impedance of your power supply with a switch in series with it would greatly shunt that positive part of the bemf anyway (what is more, the supply current (as bad luck may have it) should work against this positive amplitude first).
However, it is also possible that not utilizing the positive bemf is not a big loss and what you think to fire the coil for most of the time the magnet sweeps past the coil is also a possible opportunity and your switching sequence with the alternating pole rotor magnets also makes sense in that case.

Regarding Peter's build, I think he positioned 4 rotor magnets right on the horizontal and vertical but there might be 4 additional magnets at 45 degrees to horizontal, too (these latter might be shorter ones than the first 4 at horizontal and vertical).
I can also see 2 different colours of windings and I can see 4 + 4 wire ends coming out from the stator box on the left and 4 + 4 wire ends on the right but these must be connected together in a certain logic of course because much less wires go towards the switching circuits. I tend to think that one such 4+4 group on the left is all paralleled so that there remained 2 wires to connect to one Bedini-Cole switching circuit and also the other 4+4 group on the right is also paralleled and the resulting 2 wires are connected to the other Bedini-Cole switching circuit, for I believe the 4 power transistors represent two such (independent) switches. And because these switches are controlled by reed switches I do not suppose there are kind of trigger coils in the stator box. The 4+4 wire ends twice may represent 8 coils alltogether, of which four are maybe made of the green colour wire. I believe one Bedini-Cole switch drives one of the 4 coil groups, the other one drives the other 4 coil group. (If there are indeed 8 coils, then possibly there are 8 magnets in the rotor.) Within a 4 coil group the coils could be also in series, above I supposed them in parallel, they are not shown clearly. The magnets can be also all N out but can be NSNS too, these are possibilities. It would be good to learn.

rgds, Gyula

lol - I know what you mean about the copper covered steel wires & etc - I haven't gone through the full build of the Mini Romag lately, but I remember it to be complex! I never did figure it out fully before...

I found a lot of value in the BEMF interpretation also! There are things I agree with, and things I have questions about. If there is no magnetic coupling between rotor & stator during the voltage spike in the middle, and the spike is created by the collapsing field, then that raises some questions. For example, we know from Bedini energizers that when a coil is pulsed, and the pulse is suddenly cut off, the collapsing field creates a high voltage pulse. The current associated with this pulse (assuming you have a load hooked to it) travels in the same direction as the current we applied to the coil originally, during the transistor-on cycle. This is evident from the diode direction in all the schematics, and proves out in experimentation also. The voltage across the coil changes in this instance because the coil is a load for the circuit when we apply battery voltage, and when the transistor switches off the coil now becomes a source, and another battery becomes the load.

The difference with the experiment that JLN did is that with his setup - a magnet on a disc spinning by the coil - now the coil is always acting as a source. So does that not mean that if the coil always is producing a N pole on the left side, and always producing a S pole on the right side, then it should always have the same voltage polarity? In my estimation the electrons should always come out the same wire end of the coil, and so always produce the same polarity on that wire, even when the coil magnetic field is collapsing, and so if the oscilloscope is hooked up one way, we would see all generation & pulse activity as being negative. If hooked up the other way, all pulses & generation should be positive.

We see that this is not the case in the waveform generated. Likewise, if the current always flows in the same direction, it should be impossible to place a single diode inline with the coil wire to short out the large central pulse or spike that represents the collapsing field. This is because a diode is a one-way valve - if the current always flows in the same direction, you either short out everything, and the scope shows a flat line, or you short out nothing, and the scope shows the full waveform unmodified.

I'm not saying that the large central spike is not created by a collapsing field - I'm saying that if it is, I do not understand the processes involved, as they do not correspond with what I've learned from Bedini's energizers. Perhaps I need to study magneto theory to understand what is happening. What is clear out of JLN's analysis is that the magnetic field appears to not only collapse, but also reverse orientation. In doing this, it appears to generate a voltage and current that is opposite to the other two generated voltages, which appear as negative in his pictures.

Hope that came out clear!

Besides all that - the important thing is that shorting the central pulse does not affect the rotor speed - does not require mechanical horsepower to overcome. Sounds like when he applied power to the coil, there was no pulsing involved - just continuous current. The lack of change in speed may indicate that the rotor gained as much momentum as it lost?

Anyways, if JLN is correct in that the central spike is just collapsing field, here are my thoughts. If one is using this coil setup as a motor coil, then you are applying current. If you are applying current, then the field is no longer collapsing during the "central spike" period! So there is no central spike anymore - no counter emf to waste the power that you are inputting, and you should be creating a magnetic coupling through that central area - you will create motoring effect where there was just collapsing field before. If there is something else going on during this period, then I feel you are correct - better to attract in, then repel out to get your motor function. (less wasted power) Also – that is a great idea, to capture the central spike, and use it to charge something, or perform work! After all, you aren’t paying for it – it costs you no rotor torque, so why not? A little more complexity in switching – that is all it really should cost.

As to magnets - John Bedini says in the video that there are just 4 magnets. The reason I think they are NSNS is that if you draw it out, the geometry works perfectly. As the magnet on the LHS passes through the coil (clockwise), it is travelling from the N pole to the S pole on the LH stator coil. At the same time, the next magnet in line (which is the next one counterclockwise to the original) is a S pole, and is being repelled by the S pole on the far stator coil. It is also being attracted by the N pole of the LH stator coil. Then when this S pole magnet enters the LH coil, both coils need to reverse polarity so that this magnet can travel from the (now) S pole to the N pole on the stator coil. All the other magnets are travelling in the appropriate directions if you draw it out.

Finally, if the rotor were all N poles facing out, there would never be any need to reverse the polarity of the stator coils. This would mean you only need 2 power transistors to switch the coils, and would only need one reed switch with 4 switching magnets, all staggered at 90 degrees to each other. This is not the case. There are 4 power transistors, in sets of 2. Each set looks like it is only fired at 180 degrees, and they are 90 degrees out of phase with each other. This is seen by the 2 main sets of switching magnets, set at 180 degrees from each other. The reeds are then set 90 degrees apart, ensuring that each reed fires every 180 degrees, with a 90 degree difference in phase between reeds. Perfect for firing the two main coils, which are probably wired in series with each other, every 90 degrees in a reversed polarity from the previous pulse. (I agree - 4 transistors making 2 independent switches)

The dots seen at the 45 degree points kind of look like they may be screws to hold the 2 rotor halves together. (???)

Phew! Our weather must be rubbing off on me - that was pretty long winded! lol

:-)
Daniel

[Gyula]

Hi Daniel,

From your description of the Naudin test on the 'tangent' coil, you sound to speak about the positive part of bemf voltage as if it were indeed a voltage 'spike' which is created across any coil when the current is cut in it. The induced voltage waveform shown across the tangent coil is an unloaded case, see the upper half of this scope dump: http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/asympsht.gif and the word "collapse" for the flux may be misleading (Naudin used it, unfortunately), a better word would be flux change as the magnet passes by the coil. This way you could separate much better the phenomena happening to the tangent coil from the case when a coil is pulsed. I am not saying you mixed up the two but you sound comparing them. The voltage waveform shown across the tangent coil (with no load and not pulsed) I think is an induced voltage all the way and to attempt to explain it, here is my take:

As the magnet N pole comes closer to the edge of the tangent coil from sideways, from left side of the coil to the right in Naudin setup, the voltages induced in the individual number of turns near to the coil edge are small because flux 'lines' can only 'see' a very small projection of the cross section areas of the individual turns, the thin cross sections come one after the other like sandwich layers (cf. this with the conventional position of the coil where almost the full cross section is 'seen' by the magnet for almost all of the number of turns behind each other). And the induced voltage is negative due to Lenz law (albeit there is no load there must be a tiny current flow in the coil because of the scope probe's unavoidable "load", however big impedance it is).

Now as the magnet passes about 1/4 or 1/3 of the full coil length, more and more number of turns are involved in the induction but there will be already an increasing number of turns from which the magnet actually starts moving away so that the polarity of the induced voltage must be changing.

Where exactly the negative and positive voltages tend to cancel depends on the shape factor of the coil and the ratio of the magnet length to the coil length I believe, so the negative voltage minimum may come about anywhere between say the 15% to 35% of the full coil length, considered from coil edges at both sides.

Then the magnet reaches the center of the coil, as it goes, and as per Naudin, "the orthogonal flux density becomes less and less and drops to zero" in the middle, and this is the 'collapse' which induces the most voltage. Why is the voltage positive here? Because a flux decrease happens from about the 1/3 part of the full coil length from the left to the center and remember as the magnet approached the coil from sideways a flux increase happened in the first 1/4 to 1/3 part of the coil length and this flux increase induced a negative voltage.
Then the magnet passes the center of the coil and the flux starts increasing again, reducing the positive voltage and turning it again negative as it leaves the other end of the coil.

Notice that in case the magnet approaches the same tangent coil from the right and moves to the left, the induced voltage first is a small positive and then becomes a bigger negative, then small positive again, exactly in the opposite way with respect to moving from left to right (I have just tested this single thing by handmoving a magnet forward and backwards sideways to a coil.)

From my take on all this, I think there is magnetic coupling between the tangent coil and the passing magnet all the time (Naudin says differently) but this coupling is much less (due to the much less active cross section areas of the turns) than in conventionally positioned coils, this means that tangentially positioned coils are not so efficient for generating power but better for motors.

Regarding the diode test in parallel with the coil, if its direction is correct then it shunts the induced positive voltage across the coil and I do think this goes together with some Lenz effect BUT it is less noticable because only one half of the waveform is shunted...

Regarding the connection of the coil to a power supply (up to 1.37A): (yes, there was no pulsing involved but DC), Naudin did not notice significant change in rotor speed (so there was some change). Not trying nit-picking with him (LOL) just trying to get to the core...

Regarding your reasonings on using this coil setup as a motor coil, I quote: "if JLN is correct in that the central 'spike' is just collapsing field" etc.: I would like to notice that as per my above take on the flux connection, the induced central positive voltage will turn into a (small) Lenz current when the power supply creates a closed circuit for the coil and current flows. Otherwise I agree with your reasoning here.

Okay on the 4 rotor magnets in NSNS (and not 8 as I tended to consider 8 coils (i.e. the 4+4 wires twice). By the way, how many wires (enamelled) can you see coming out of the stator box I wonder?

Hopefully we are getting close... LOL

Greetings, Gyula

[emfimp]

I like that description, Gyula! That explanation makes sense, and I agree that it is probably induced voltage all the way.

I think my next move is to try shorting the positive spike with a diode, as JLN did, and see what results I get. I have a small 3 pole monopole that I'm going to modify for this, and I think it should be sensitive enough to give good results. I have an optical tach that I'll use, as measuring running speed should give a good idea of whether the positive emf causes any torque reaction to the rotor.

How many wires is definitely hard to see! I think there are 8 wires also, but hard to tell. They only form 2 coils though - the # of wires does not need to equal the number of rotor magnets. (I may have mistaken you - it seemed you were connecting those two #'s?) Each coil probably has 8 wires, all wired parallel to each other. Then the two coil sets are probably wired in series with each other. May be wrong, though.

Onward experimenting!
:-)
Daniel

[emfimp]

Some preliminary specs for y'all to mull over... I modified my 3 pole monopole by putting my coil in the top generator coil location, but in the zero force direction. (not typical energizer orientation) Also, I used a coil ripped from a microwave oven fan motor, and it has a laminated iron core. JLN specifically used an air core, so this may have made a difference. I will try that this week also. I did these measurements twice, and I'm posting the raw data here for your consideration...

Open coil - 2883 rpm
Large, central (positive) spike short (with diode) - 2838 rpm
Small negative pulse short (two pulses, using diode) - 2858 rpm
Dead short (all short) - 2843 rpm

Open coil - 2894 rpm
Large, central spike short (pos) - 2843 rpm
Small neg pulse short (x2) - 2860 rpm
All short - 2844 rpm

The open coil voltages were measured as follows: central pos peak - about 6 volts positive, Negative pulses (2) - about 2.4 volts negative. (for a 8.4 volt peak to peak measurement)

The second set of measurements were taken immediately after the first - bearings were probably still warming up, but you can see that from my test, shorting the central spike has a large effect on the rpm - in fact shorting the whole wave doesn't have any larger effect than does shorting just the positive peak.

From this, I would tend to fire the coils as Paul Babcock says in his presentation - fire to draw the rotor magnet in, fire to push it out, and don't touch the middle!

Also, I tried tonight to short the coil using a reed switch, and I was hoping that an automotive timing light would have enough of a pulse to cause it to fire. Was hoping to be able to see where the magnet is during different parts of the waveform. Couldn't get any strobing though. Plenty of high voltage in the spike... Any thoughts on how one could do this? The radiant pulse coming off the 3 monopole coils is definitely enough to trigger the timing light - even shorted it still fires the light!

:-)
Daniel

[Gyula]

I like that description, Gyula! That explanation makes sense, and I agree that it is probably induced voltage all the way.

Hi Daniel,

Thanks. Referring back a little bit to my explanation the only problem I still have is that I have not figured out why there is no flux in the center area of such a coil? Naudin wrote: "the orthogonal flux density becomes less and less and drops to zero" (measured with a gauss meter) and I simply accepted it. But I do not guess the why yet.

Regarding the number of wires I have always meant the pieces of wire coming out of the (stator) box (never the number of turns of the coils) and those ends of pieces of wire "disappear" behind the terminal straps. It is ok that the number of wires does not need to equal the number of rotor magnets (I never meant that): albeit I am not sure you meant the number of turns or the number of the out-coming wires... From the total number of the out-coming wires I wanted to get an answer how many coils are involved on the stator alltogether and I think there are 8 coils...

You have done nice tests, and it is interesting that shorting the positive center part of the induced voltage causes more "harm" than shorting the negative parts, what is more its effect is in pair or even worse than a dead short. I wonder what could explain that but nevertheless this "harm" is much less than using the coil in the conventional position and load it with diode or shorting it.
To explain the stronger "harm" of the shorting of the positive part of the induced voltage versus that of the two negative parts: you measured about 6V for the positive peak on an open coil and about 2.4V for the negatives, this means that the 6V part of the induced voltage drives a higher shorting current via the coil when shorted by diode, this surely causes a higher Lenz effect than the 2.4V is able to. You wanted to type 8.4V peak to peak, right (6+2.4)?

Regarding your wish to see where the magnet is during the different parts of the waveform, sorry but from your description I do not get how you wished to do it with a reed switch shorting the coil and a timing light? I will ponder on how to do it simply.

I do not know how well insulated electrically such iron wire but maybe worth buying it for youself if you still need iron wire for some tests? see here:

Florist Floral Spool Iron Wires Craft Jewelry 26 Gauge 25 yrd Red Wreaths flower | eBay

rgds, Gyula

[Gestalt]

In regards to the original JL Naudin experiment, the problem is he doesn't mention his prime mover (the motor driving his disc armature) and what it is consuming power wise. For all we know the motor spinning the disc with the attached magnet consumes more current to overcome lenz, like a normal motor to maintain speed would when a load is applied. Therefore his supposed no-lenz results are potentially meaningless, invalidating the entire experiment.

I modified my 3 pole monopole by putting my coil in the top generator coil location, but in the zero force direction. (not typical energizer orientation)

Can you re-run the experiment with with the coil in the conventional orientation for comparison purposes?
Also do an open circuit Voltage measurement in conventional mode.
I am curious if the zero-force orientation has any benefits over conventional mode.

Also if you could post pics of your test setup, that would be great.

[emfimp]

@Gyula

I think there are 8 coils per side, for a total of 16. (?)

Thanks for the voltage correction - you are right - 8.4 volts peak to peak. (I've changed it - in red)

With the reed switch shorting the coil, there is a large radiant spike created, much like the one created during transistor cut-off in an energizer. I was hoping this spike would be enough that the automotive timing light would detect it, and flash the lamp. Not so.

However, I did come up with a mod that did work. I pulled one of the coils off the monopole, and placed the zero force coil in that general area. Since the circuit is firing all 3 coils simultaneously, I could see by the magnet position (as compared to my zero force coil), when the particular parts of the waveform are actually being generated. There is one caveat to this - I think my timing light was somehow picking up the transistor on pulse rather than the transistor off one that I was expecting. If I am wrong, and it was actually picking up the transistor off pulse, then all the waveforms that I've drawn up here are actually way, way advanced to what I show. I do not believe this is the case, though - I think that these drawings are reasonably accurate. More on this at the end of the post.

@Gestalt - There is actually no prime mover, as such. The Mini Romag is a motor and generator - supposedly capable of self sustaining, plus powering a small load.

Here are a couple pics of the 3 pole setup I have - the darker pic with the super bright light shining through it is actually the timing light - the rotor is turning around 2800 rpm here - frozen quite nicely! You can see the zero force coil taped to the 3 pole @ the very top.



So I had time to do a lot more experimenting tonight - I tried a few different configurations, & learned some things...

With an air core, and open circuited coil, (zero force orientation) I saw 0.5 volt negative peak, and a 1.1 volt positive peak. (1.6v p-p) So if my diode is turning on at 0.7 volts, that leaves me with 0.4 volts to potentialize the coil. My results with shorting the positive peak were stunningly mediocre... lol

Open coil - 2850 rpm
Central positive peak shorted - 2848 rpm

These #'s are so close that it could have been error - I don't have a coil with enough winds to get a decent voltage to do an air core test right now.

For the normal energizer orientation with this coil, I found accurate results. The coil was slightly offside, so I saw a 9 volt positive peak, and a 10 volt negative peak. (19v p-p)

Open - 2854 rpm
Negative peak short - 2715 rpm
Positive peak short - 2764 rpm
All shorted - 2736 rpm

The positive peak short saw some crazy coil ringing too - must be from the collapsing field.

I also moved this coil away from the rotor until I saw approximately 8 volts peak to peak for this energizer orientation, just to make it as close of a comparison as possible to the zero force results. In doing so, I found:

Open - 2860 rpm
All shorted - 2831 rpm

I'm thinking that less rpm is lost in the energizer configuration (as compared to the zero force original test) because of magnetic losses in the core. The zero force orientation has much more iron exposed to the rotor magnet than does the energizer configuration.

BTW, the last 2 results (above) were done with an iron core.

So for me, the highlight of this evening was strobing this setup, and trying to figure out what waveforms were happening at what rotor position. I believe that the drawing below is reasonably correct, however I am not entirely satisfied with this yet, and would like to find a more accurate timing method.




I find the whole sequence interesting, and worth contemplating. It appears that the negative voltage peak occurs when the rotor magnet is approximately 1 magnet diameter away from the beginning of the core. This totally fits with Paul Babcock's presentation, in that it shows there is a decent inductive coupling between rotor & stator at this point, yet not an overwhelming one. In my mind - terrible for power generation, but perfect for motor function. (Paul says this is where he pulses his motor coil.)

The zero voltage point appears to occur just as the complete magnet is now 'on the core', with the rear edge of the magnet in line with the edge of the core.
The positive peak appears as the magnet is around the center of the core, or in the center of the coil.

I did not draw the rest of the sequence - the magnet exiting the coil - since it is a mirror image of the entrance.

It appears that the rotor magnet is inductively coupled with the coil & core the entire distance, and looking at the coil induced magnetic field is quite interesting also. You'll notice in the drawing that I've marked the magnetic field of the coil, as it would be from the currents induced into it. It seems that the entire time the voltage is negative, the coil will produce a North pole on the left, and a South on the right.

As the voltage switches to the positive, now the South is on the left, and the North pole on the right. These two do seem to fit into Lenz's Law. Hopefully when the voltage is negative, and the rotor is not able to induce a high emf into the coil, the coil will still be able to create a strong motoring effect on the rotor as it's magnetic field expands and interacts with the rotor. The zero force motor vid certainly seems to show this as true.

Also, just to point out a couple differences between my experimenting and JLN's - It appears in his pictures that his magnet is larger than his coil. This probably has an effect on the coupling, including what he mentions of the orthogonal flux density dropping to zero, and there being no magnetic coupling between rotor & stator during the central positive pulse. May be worth looking into? In my setup - the coil is definitely very much larger than the magnet.

He also is running an air core, which I was not able to do in my experiments - I did not have enough voltage to properly conduct shorting tests & more.

At the same time, my waveforms look the same as his, and this makes me wonder if his coil was just too small to collect accurate results from. My setup was barely adequate, and ultimately probably needs a lot of revising to collect some real, hard data.

For your reference, in the 3 pole monopole, there are only 3 neo magnets. In both pictures, they are lining up with the coils. The large circles you see in between them are aluminum weights to give the rotor more of a flywheel effect.

Happy contemplation!
Daniel

[Gyula]

Hi Daniel,

I took a small snapshot from the video to show: I can see 2 bunches of wires coming out from the stator coils on the left side to the terminal connections and also 2 bunches of wires on the right hand side, and I think each such wire-bunch consists of 4 wires (not number of turns as I indicated them with yellow lines. This may mean 8 wire endings on the left and 8 on the right so alltogether there may be 8 stator coils.

Quote: "There is one caveat to this - I think my timing light was somehow picking up the transistor on pulse rather than the transistor off one that I was expecting."
Maybe you are right but normally the ON pulse 'kick' to the coil is smaller in its near field effect than the one created by the OFF pulse so chances are the timing light responded to the OFF pulse? (I base this on the bigger voltage spike at switch-off can make a stronger near field effect.) Or I misunderstand something? It all may have depended on the position of the sensor of the timing light if there is such sensor for it, I suppose, in a pick-up coil form?

You have done very interesting tests and I tend to agree with their possible 'messages', they sound to quasi verify my explanation how induction in this sideway positioned coil may happen.

Regarding a better timing of a test to explore the waveform-magnet position, perhaps an optical interrupter could be used with a code-disk fastened to the rotor and positioned 'correctly' with respect to the magnet, say in-line of one of the edges of the magnet or say in-line of the center line of the magnet. The gap between the 'fingers' of the code-disk could be arranged to be (say) 5mm away from each other so any 5mm advancement for the magnet would fire the output of the interrupter and calibration could be done, for instance, with respect to the exact center position of the magnet to that of the coil. Here is a link for such circuit: Circuit - OPTICAL INTERRUPTER DRAWS MICROAMPS- Circuits designed by David A. Johnson, P.E.

Here I show a possible code-disk that has slots at the edges but 'fingers' left at the edges can also be used of course to mask out or cover the emitter LED's light beam in the gap towards the receiver sensor: http://todbot.com/blog/wp-content/up...up-300x221.jpg from this site: Get on the BlinkM Bus with a BlinkM Cylon » todbot blog Of course there is no need for using two quantities from an opto interrupter placed next to each other as shown with the code-disk in the link, a single device is enough. And here is a seller found by a search at random on the web: Optical Interrupter Switch (the first cheapest type there is just ok). What do you think?

Regarding the drop of the orthogonal flux density to quasi zero (as per Naudin) I think there is now a possible explanation that came to me by watching the coil core's polarity in your drawing and accepting that it changes polarity as the magnet passes by the core i.e. from NS to SN in that moments. In both state of these polarizations the center (narrow) area of the core (or coil) must remain weak in flux density just because the center area must behave as the Bloch wall area would in magnets: if you probe such center area of a magnet with a very small soft ferromagnetic metal piece, you find very low if any attraction at or the narrow vicinity of this center area, right? This must be the case for a such positioned coil.

Regarding your core in you sideway positioned coil, I wonder what material is it from? I ask because you mention it possibly has more losses in that orientation than in the energizer one.
By the way, it is good that you tried to make comparable measurements (having 8Vpp in the energizer position for instance) but still there may be small "issues" in comparison due to the assymetric waveform for the sideway coil position (the positive and negative amplitude difference there, while this is not the case for the energizer position) but I do not think this can question your conclusions.

Thanks,
Gyula

[emfimp]

Hey Gyula,

I figured it to be 8 wire endings on the left, and 8 on the right also. Then taking into account that there seem to be 2 main coil sections (left side, right side), they probably each contain 8 strands, and are probably wired in series with each other. That's how I came up with the number of 16 coils.

The sensor for my timing light is across the wires that collect the radiant collapse from the coil, so technically you are right - it should be sensing the transistor off cycle. However, that did not make sense looking at where the timing light was firing. That would mean that the whole waveform is very advanced compared to what I showed in the drawing. The drawing logically seems correct when I think about it, and the drawing would correspond to the timing light firing during the transistor on cycle. More testing required here...

Thanks for the timing info! Those are some great resources, which I will definitely need! I'm trying to go very simple, so what I might try is this: I am going to take a reed switch, and use it to fire an MSD 6A CDI ignition box (which I have). The box will hook up to a standard automotive coil, firing a spark plug. (all of which i have) This will give a large enough pulse that my automotive strobe light will fire. I can hook up my oscilloscope with channel 1 picking up the coil waveform, and channel 2 picking up the reed switch. Comparing the 2 on the scope, along with viewing the actual strobed position, should give a fairly accurate indication of position.

Regarding the drop of orthogonal flux density, I like your bloch wall explanation - it very well may be true. I believe it would tie into what I've been thinking about - that maximum positive voltage peak indicates to me that there is the maximum change in magnetic flux at that point. I've been thinking about the orthogonal flux density a lot over the last few days, and am not sure I believe that it "drops to zero" with the rotor magnet in the centered position. The only way this makes any sense to me is in the condition we see in the pictures. With the magnet in the center of the coil, also notice that the magnet is physically larger than the coil. He mentions that it is an air core - hence nothing to deflect or change the magnetic flux lines. Lastly, the only way I can see this being true is if the orthogonal flux density was measured in a static condition, not a dynamic one. (no rotation of the rotor magnet) If all of the above are present, then JLN's analysis makes perfect sense to me.

Not to in any way take away from JLN - after all, he has done some great experimenting & research, and his work has sparked this discussion! :-)

Ultimately, from my testing, it just does not appear true that there is no magnetic coupling between rotor & stator during the positive pulse. It appears there is definitely coupling there, although again, I have not had a proper air core to test his specific setup. For the motoring effect, John Bedini appears to recommend an iron core, as does Paul Babcock, so I'm not really interested in testing the air core much further anyways... BTW, John Bedini has a great vid of another zero force motor - I think it is on the energetic forum. I haven't been able to find it recently, but if I do I will link it for sure.

The coil core is laminated iron shims - the reason I say it seems to have more magnetic losses is because more core area is exposed to the passing magnet. If you look at most coils in the energizer orientation, the area of iron that is exposed at the end of the coil is usually quite small. Now lay that coil on it's side, in the zero force orientation, and the whole length of the core is now interacting with the magnet. Significantly more area in that orientation.

Regards,
Daniel

[emfimp]

Paul Babcock's Magnet Configuration

Hi all!

Just wanted to share some interesting scope shots that I made this last weekend, with the help of my friends Gestalt, & D.

I was trying to find out why Paul Babcock uses a horseshoe magnet configuration in his low lenz motor, and the scope shots reveal more than I thought at first glance. Below is a couple pics of his horseshoe design, which I believe he calls something like a "toroid-on-toroid" configuration in the video. We only did a few tests, but I feel these are real numbers...





So I sat down & analyzed these closely tonight, and found some results that were surprising to me. I had thought that there was little difference between the horseshoe config, and the single magnet, but the differences are great! These are the generated waveforms as different magnet configurations pass by on a pendulum.


Numbers on Horseshoe Config:
- Neg initial, Pos final peaks (each) - 0.3 volts
- Main central peaks (each) - 1.4 volts
- avg time for initial neg, pos final peaks (each) - 22.5 ms
- total wave time - 78 ms

- initial voltage/central peak voltage - 21.4%
- initial peak/main peaks (time scale) - 28.8%


Numbers on the large single magnet:
- avg neg peaks (each) - 0.86 volt
- central pos peak - 2.0 volt
- avg time for neg peaks (each) - 32 ms
- total wave time - 85 ms

- neg voltage/main peak voltage - 43%
- neg peak/main peak (time scale) - 37.6%


Numbers on the small magnet config:
- avg neg peaks (each) - 0.45 volts
- central pos peak - 1.15 volts
- avg time for neg peaks (each) - 30 ms
- total wave time - 100 ms

- neg voltage/main peak voltage - 39.1%
- neg peak/main peak (time scale) - 30%


Most fascinating!!! The Babcock config reveals some tricks of the horseshoe magnet configuration - that it is probably the way to go, and goes even further towards reducing Lenz effect. This is seen in time and voltage - the % time spent generating voltage while in the firing area (initial & final pulse) is reduced - 28.8% per pulse compared to 30 to 37.6%. You could possibly spend the same amount of time firing the electromagnet as you would with a single magnet, and gain a little more torque out of it. This thought is because even though the rotor magnet field doesn't appear to extend as far out towards the electromagnet, when the electromagnet field expands, it may still interact well with the rotor magnet.

Also the voltage difference is significant - 21.4% compared to 39.1 to 43% - this may be where the real magic is - in reducing the Lenz effect. That is a huge percentage difference!!! I'm using percentages so as to hopefully create a fair comparison between different configurations - the pendulum may have swung a little faster here & there, the magnet in one test was significantly stronger, etc... A note on this - percentages may be a poor comparison because voltage increases as time (period) decreases, and with the horseshoe config - you can see there is a greater flux change in the central area, as there is also a polarity change. (more flux change packed into the same time) This may be boosting the central peaks, which makes the percentage look better. The last scope shot (small magnet config) is using 2 out of the 4 same magnets that the horseshoe config was using, so we should be able to compare those numbers directly at least.

In comparing those numbers, we still see that the voltage generated with the single magnet is greater in the firing area. Note also by the time of passage that the single magnet appears to be travelling slower in this particular scope shot, since the period is longer. So I believe we are still ahead using the horseshoe config, even if the percentages may be skewed.

The downside to the horseshoe config is that you need to fire the electromagnet both ways to get the most power out, whereas with the single magnet, you can fire the same way to draw the rotor magnet in as you do to repel it out. (seen by analyzing the initial and final voltages generated.)

Interesting to note the Mini Romag page again - the magnet configuration is very similar to Paul's configuration. Hmmm...

I'm thinking the benefits are there because the magnetic field is folded inward more as compared to a single magnet - thoughts?
:-)
Daniel

[Gyula]

Hi Daniel,

Very good tests you have been doing. One thing I wish to mention is you say it is a horse magnet configuration Babcock uses and indeed this is shown also as illustration in his patent application (US20110156522) but you can see circularly positioned magnets fixed in the perimeter of a ring in the figures too. BUT those circularly fixed row of magnets face the coil/core uniformly with only one pole while in a horseshoe setup (as shown in your excellent quality photo) the magnets (albeit they are covered, the form of the yokes making up for a horseshoe shape can be figured out) actually have two poles at the yokes' ends so what you wrote about the firing differences is valid.

Now that circularly positioned row of magnets with one pole may be another possibility (besides the horseshoe shape), you could fire the coil the same way like I mentioned earlier for the single orthogonally positioned magnet: attract in on approach, switch off for the center passing time (maybe utilize the induced 'positive hunch' in the center) and then (towards the other end) switch on again with the same polarity to repel the magnets out.

Wrapping up the rotor magnets in a circular fashion may seem to be the best arrangement to utilize the most of the flux of a solenoid coil, which appears in the near space everywhere around the coil, to have the biggest torque from the input. "Normal" pulse motors utilize coil flux from either one end of the core or better designs use both ends, and there is the orthogonally positioned coil like in the Mini-Romag but the coils (made of copper wire) facing to the outside cannot 'see' the inner magnets' flux (albeit the steel wire coils are wound directly onto the magnets). A horseshoe magnet uses two sides and some more of a coil flux but they have the Bloch wall in the center part with small interacting flux, still not the most possible flux utilization.


When you have time, have a look at this thread here http://www.energyscienceforum.com/al...generator.html and also the videos referred to. Albeit those setups are intended for generators, the mechanical arrangement is the same as the motor with circularly fixed magnets, the coils are just not pulsed but loaded.

Thanks for showing your scope shots and the excellent quality picture on the Babcock prototype, (where did you get it I wonder).

Greetings, Gyula