Bedini RPX Sideband Generator



Monero XMR

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34

Thread: For Peter Lindemann and energenx "Zero Force Motor"

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    For Peter Lindemann and energenx "Zero Force Motor"

    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,

    Last edited by jackdaddy57; 12-13-2012 at 12:16 PM.

  2. #2
    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: post #19 and later in post #36

    regards, Gyula
    Last edited by Gyula; 07-18-2016 at 03:43 PM. Reason: correction on post #

  3. #3

  4. #4

    I've just made a post here: 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.

    zf motor.jpg

    Hope this helps!

  5. #5
    Hi all! I'm moving a conversation over here from: The conversation is about the zero force motor... :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by Gyula View Post
    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

    Last edited by emfimp; 02-03-2013 at 01:10 AM.

  6. #6
    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: 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
    Last edited by Gyula; 02-03-2013 at 04:21 PM. Reason: spelling

  7. #7
    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!

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by emfimp View Post
    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

  9. #9
    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!

    Last edited by emfimp; 02-06-2013 at 09:27 PM. Reason: Incorrect voltage addition

  10. #10
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by emfimp View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Gestalt; 02-05-2013 at 11:24 PM.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts