The 'back spike' you refer to with the Adams motor exists in all motors that
use a similar arrangement and 'sharp' switching to the coils. When power is
disconnected to the motor coil, or any coil for that matter, the collapsing
field can self induce high reverse voltage on the windings. It is true that
this back spike can be harnessed to further aid rotor rotation, with correct
timing. If back EMF is efficiently delivered back into the system, aiding
rotation, we can still not achieve greater than unity gain. If it was that
easy, everyone would be doing it <g>.
On the point of decreased rotor drag with applied load to the generator
winding: This can arise when a large inductance is weakly coupled to the
rotor magnets, all the more so when the rotor magnets are weak and the pole
gap is large. Flux coupling between the magnets and the iron coil core slips
under load, allowing the rotor to speed up when load is applied to the
output coil. A voltage can still be measured on the output coil, however,
the coils capacity to deliver current will be greatly reduced as the
coupling is reduced.
An interesting experiment is to apply a relatively high value cap across the
output coil windings, without the load connected. This creates a tank
circuit that is sensitive to rotor speed/frequency. It will be found that
driving the rotor above the resonant peak of the output coil tank circuit
will result in a sudden release of the flux coupling between magnets and
coil core - the rotor will break through this 'coupling barrier' and
increase in speed. The reduction in drag on the rotor is proportional to a
decrease in flux coupling, which is proportional to a decrease in available
output power.
I can not agree that the motor drive windings in the Bedini circuit diagram
are 'bifilar'. These are two SEPARATE windings on the same core. One winding
(big) acts as the motor drive coil and the other winding acts as the
feedback coil to activate the transistor switch. Battery current 'flows
through' only ONE motor drive winding when the switch is activated. No
bifilar here - I think what John was referring to was the way in which both
windings are applied to the same coil form at the same time.
Your idea with the reed switch is a good one, I've used it a lot in the
past. Really efficient, simple, and very sharp switching. Just what the
batteries need <g>. Good luck!
Regards, Bill.
----- Original Message -----
From: Juan de la Cruz Barrios <jdelac@sinectis.com.ar>
To: <interact@keelynet.com>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 6:39 AM
Subject: Re: Bedini hand drawn motor plan
Hi,
Bill McMurtry escribió:
> Hi Jerry,
>
> I know you've got a lot to chew on at the moment, but I
find myself
> irresistably drawn on the topic of these little motors
<g>.
>
> The Adams motor is almost exactly the same as John's
motor. In fact the
> things that John talked about in his Bedini free-energy
motor booklet were
> exactly the same as the things Old Adams talked to me
about, back in '92 -
> '93. The whole point of the excercise back then was to
create a condition in
> the BATTERY that caused it to remain charged - the
motor/generator was just
> a means to accomplish that task. Remember in John's
little book where he
> could'nt stress enough the importance of achieving
electric shock
> oscillation (ringing) of the battery terminals? The
battery was the whole
> point of the excercise, I tell you! <g>.
Really, the Adams motor do use of the back spike to double the impulse,
switching
the coil in attractive mode and, when the magnet of the rotor is almost
in line
with the coil, turn off the coil to do use of the back spike for
repulsive impulse.
I can't see that effect in the Bedini motor. And Bedini used bifilar
coils in
your motors and Adams not.
You are right with the battery thing, though. The same John say to
Bearden
(at least Bearden wrote that in his new online book) what the motor is
really
only a load and the battery and the switching time are the nucleus of
your
generators, adding an intricate explanation on the internal functioning
of
the batteries.
> What's happened since then? Not a lot... a) It can be
proved that torque
> output power is never greater than input power, unless
by measurement error;
> b) Everyone has trouble replicating the 'battery charge
effect'.
>
> Point a) is kind of self evident, based on present
knowledge, experience,
> and lack of a single demonstration to prove otherwise.
>
> The battery charge effect is obviously difficult to
achieve. Why? Why is no
> one discussing it, instead of this distraction with the
magnets, coils,
> rotors, etc? Sure, a 10 year old kid can build a very
low input power motor
> that runs for 5 days straight on a 9 volt battery, and
she'll probably learn
> heaps about electric motors and generators in the
process, great. I've done
> that too, but what about free-energy or over-unity?
I think the thing here is the lower consumption when you put a load in
that motor.
If the load are not reflexed in the rotor as back torque then you can
put a lot
of gen coils to get more power than what is consumed in the power
supply, as Jerry say.
> Years ago Bedini produced another booklet involving
experiments with
> batteries, switches and loads. The Brandt/Tesla switch
appeared to drive a
> load while maintaining, and even elevating, its battery
voltage. It was very
> exciting at the time <g>. The same problems with
replication were
> encountered. Battery problems again.
>
> Fact: Only certain batteries will work in these systems,
due to some unknown
> variable.
>
> Question: What is the variable?
>
> IMO, it is somewhat misleading for John to suggest that
the difficulties
> encountered with replication are because enthusiasts do
not follow the
> provided construction details. Then adding insult to
injury, complain that
> we must be lacking because a 10 year old girl can do it!
I agree with John
> on one point, if a 10 year old can do it, so can anyone.
But what's a low
> power motor got to do with Free-energy and over-unity
and efficiency?
> Without the 'battery charge effect' in the picture -
Nothing!
Obviously, the motor build by the girl is not the case. It's the load
not
reflexed as back torque, I think.
Greetings, Juan.
-------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
with the body text: leave Interact
list archives and on line subscription forms are at
http://keelynet.com/interact/
-------------------------------------------------------------