My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines

[JohnStone]

Hey UFO,

Here is a pic I drew of circuit, I am sure it is correct, I had two fets in parallel, and 8X2200uf (connected in parallel) across output. Neg from coil is at one end of cap, pos from coil at other end of caps, like John Stone recommended.



I'll draw a better one if thats not good.

Hi Machine,
watching your drawing I need to ask if you really have the cap connected exatly across the coil?
If yes:
- You have - initially a dead short circuit up to charging the cap )Battery, cap, FET, GND, battery). When pulse is off it will try to discharge throgh coil.
- Once your FET survived initial charge you enter at certain frequency in a tank circuit (cap / motor coils). This setup will pulse severe voltages onto your FETs. Kind of "asymmetric rotoverter"
- (speculation) Your pulse frequency and tank frequency produce bounce effects. Once adjusted well you have a synchronous resonnace setup. Your 300V FET will suffer on breakdown and avalanche effects -> it pulses along your tank circuit. Thus it might build an active relaxation oscillator being controlled by gate voltage - oscillating with genuine resonance frequency of your cap/coil setup. I suppose you will not be avle to repeat that effect if you use FETs rated with higher voltage.
- Scope shot of this condition will be enlighting. I expect pulse packets of higher grade frequency instead solid pulse packets.
JohnS

[arch chicken]

uploading documents

Hi guys, i am still in one piece....and yes, a 5kw proof ticker still pounding away!!!

a question, and i am seriuosly showing my low iq here...how do i upload documents and or is there a site where i can up load and link it to a post her?

i have promised the newbee's and all a document or two... and now i am swaeting!!!!

thanx for the help poeple!!!!

mr UFO it seems this left hand pointing finger of mine has undergone a "fryed" nerve and is now without anny and all feeling......AWESOME!!!!
and that was a fluke axident with generator hooked up to the prime mover.....aND PULSING IT FOR FIRST TIME.....

[arch chicken]

hope this does it...

my little nephew knows more than me!!!!

for the newbies out there

ASSYMETRIC_MOTORS_FOR_BEGINNERS.docx - download now for free. File sharing. Software file sharing. Free file hosting. File upload. FileFactory.com

this is not a final version, but if it is faulty, it would be apreciated if corrected and when you gyus update it to jyst give it a version number and to repost it....

thanX all

[Goodguy54_2000]

Work Calculation

Dear UFOpolitics,

Thanks for the welcome. I have to admit that, while I've been familiar with your work for some time due to my friend's passion for it, I haven't done anything myself other than to help him with several of his motors and consult with him from time to time.

I posted:

While the NORMAL force of friction is indeed the sum of the two scales you used, the counter-rotational force is the difference between the two scales, the smaller force pulling in the direction of rotation and not against it.

Then I went on about the coefficient of friction, which isn't exactly relevant.

The F1 scale pulls against the rotation while the F2 scale pulls WITH the rotation. The force against rotation is NOT the sum of both scales!


Could You explain to me...How do you get to that "150%" (above, of course I suppose) of "what they should be"?

Talking simple basic Math...If 0.6 is a 100% or the "accurate" standard parameter value (which is the given coefficient as per what you wrote)...for steel to steel ratio...then 1.2 is a 200%...and 150% would be a 0.9 ...ŋ?

It just so happens that the difference between adding the two scales and subtracting the scale pulling in the direction of rotation coincides with the coefficient of friction. The work calculation was a linear function of resistive force and if the average number I got from your numbers was .67 (or 2/3) of what you got, then what you got was (in my opinion) around 3/2 or 150% of the real work done.

So, even for the "highest reading" you have displayed above...0.685...let's "round it up" (against my favor) to 0.7...that is still a 117%...meaning 17% above coefficient...

How could we be missing each other on basic arithmetic? Your calculations were about 150% of my calculations for the work done using your setup and your numbers but subtracting the scale operating in the direction of rotation rather than adding it. If you put grease or oil on your pulley, it will move much more easily and the force on both scales would have to be increased to create the same counter-rotational force.

Don't take my word for it, put grease on the pulley and run your experiment! I guarantee your calculated "efficiencies" will be really high without changing anything else!

If you make the calculation with (F1-F2) rather than (F1+F2), you get an output that is 64.5-68.5% of what you calculated; roughly 2/3. The inverse of 2/3 is 3/2 or 150%.

Maybe I am wrong here...or maybe I misunderstood your numbers...if so, then...could you please "Enlighten Me"...

On the other hand...I do want to run other tests related to Torque-Efficiency levels...as also run same tests on Original-Non Modified Motor...and let's see then...

Quote:
If you're getting efficiencies over 100%, you ought to be suspicious because nobody in 300 years since Issac Newton has yet been able to do so. The foundation of everything in Physics except some theories not yet proven is that the sum of everything in = the sum of everything out. Even E=mc**2 is an equality. There are no proven inequalities except entropy.

By the way, I thought the setup was brilliant and, besides this rather large "nit", clear and informative.

I would not go that far as 300 years...maybe just a bit over 130 years will do...when James Clerk Maxwell, the Father of Magnetism...decided to divide them into Two Main Systems...Symmetric and Asymmetric...then came Lorentz...and "took away" the Asymmetry...erased...

I get the idea of more efficient motors; of using the back EMF rather than throwing it away. I just don't think you'll ever get over 100% efficiency because I consider that theoretically impossible. Of course I could be wrong, but your "proof" of efficiencies over 100% did not persuade me because I dispute that F1+F2 accurately represents the counter-rotational force! Because the counter-rotational force was incorrectly calculated, the output work calculation was flawed. And because the output work calculation was flawed, the "efficiency" calculation was flawed. I strongly insist that F1-F2 is the proper calculation of the counter-rotational force!

Sincerely,
Dave

[Goodguy54_2000]

Efficiencies over 100%

Dear UFOpolitics,

Every single one of Maxwell's equations is an equality. Not one is an inequality.

That means that the sum of everything in exactly equals the sum of everything out.

If we're contemplating efficiencies over 100%, we must find a hidden input to balance our equations and this hidden input (now revealed) once again equals the inputs and outputs of our total system.

Unused outputs such as heat from friction or the resistance of the commutator and bearings are what drop efficiency because the usable output is rarely the total output. But the total output is, I understand, ALWAYS equal to the total input.

For the purposes of this discussion, let's pretend we have frictionless bearings and commutators and that there are no energy losses of any kind.

Can we get better than that? Can we achieve energy gains from no source at all?

So if we have ALL equations being equalities and postulate (unrealistically) no energy losses, how does Maxwell support the notion of getting OUT more then we put IN? Where does this energy come from? And if it comes from somewhere, why isn't it included as an input?

How do we violate Maxwell's equations to get more than we give?

Sincerely,
Dave

[Ufopolitics]

Dear UFOpolitics,

Every single one of Maxwell's equations is an equality. Not one is an inequality.

That means that the sum of everything in exactly equals the sum of everything out.

If we're contemplating efficiencies over 100%, we must find a hidden input to balance our equations and this hidden input (now revealed) once again equals the inputs and outputs of our total system.

Unused outputs such as heat from friction or the resistance of the commutator and bearings are what drop efficiency because the usable output is rarely the total output. But the total output is, I understand, ALWAYS equal to the total input.

For the purposes of this discussion, let's pretend we have frictionless bearings and commutators and that there are no energy losses of any kind.

Can we get better than that? Can we achieve energy gains from no source at all?

So if we have ALL equations being equalities and postulate (unrealistically) no energy losses, how does Maxwell support the notion of getting OUT more then we put IN? Where does this energy come from? And if it comes from somewhere, why isn't it included as an input?

How do we violate Maxwell's equations to get more than we give?

Sincerely,
Dave

Hello Goodguy54,

I wrote before that I agree with an Equation "equality"...after all, that is the purpose of all Mathematical Equations we are all used to...solving the "problem" by taking them to an "Equality"...a "Balance" on both sides of the "Scale"...right?
And this concepts apply from pure Math...to Chemistry...and Electrical-Energy Equations...as all Physics calculations.

Maxwell stated the Quaternion Calculations...as He also Regarded the Input from the Atomic Vacuum as an Extra Energy surrounding our Space...later on this Concepts were fully proven by the Giant Electromagnetic Curl Effect from Heaviside...as also by the French Poynting in the Electromagnetic Factor.

Lorentz-Einstein Dis Regarded the Vacuum Energy into the Input of Electromagnetic-Atomic Equations...conveniently "Lorentz Transformation" lead Einstein to find solid bases to his Relativity Theory...that still up to now...have not been proven yet...

And the real FACT IS...that We are all using that External Energy at All Times...in ANY Electrical-Electronic-Electromagnetic Operation We ALL could ever perform.

The simplest way to demonstrate this fact...was done by Faraday a while back...That piece of copper conductor...slightly passing by an "apparently" inert permanent magnet..."Induced" a current flow into His Galvanometer...That "Induction Process" is nothing but a "BUFFER"...a "Negotiator" to Capture Energy from the Vacuum...

That Permanent Magnet did NOT suffer ANY "Evident" Physical or Energy "Losses"...
That Copper Wire did not suffer ANY Losses either...
They could be "Pumping" Energy endlessly as long as a mechanical rotation exist between just one of them...

That is the "Principle" of every single Generator in our Planet...must of them replacing that Permanent Magnet by an Electromagnet...

Now my question is...

Where do that Electrical Energy Flow came from?

Answering "That Energy "came" from Induction"...is NOT a complete satisfactory answer...what is "Induction"?...that Magical Process to "Invoke" Energy?

Induction is the Excitement Process to set the trap, to cast our "Bait" ...to conquer that Energy from the Vacuum...simple as that.

Tom Bearden words says it very clear...

All the hydrocarbons ever burned, nuclear fuel rods ever consumed, steam turbines turned, and generators rotated, have not directly added a single watt to the external power line and to the power grid. Nor has any windmill, nuclear power plant, battery, or hydroelectric generator or solar cell array. None ever will.

**Note the word "Directly" ...meaning that...all of them DID Contributed, BUT..."Indirectly"...all of them cited...were just merely Inductors of that process...negotiators..."middle man transaction", not "directly creating" absolutely NADA...

Now, Closed Symmetrical Systems..."Auto-Satisfy" themselves...No OPEN and DIRECT Relation to our Endless External Energy Allowed there at ALL, What we all do in Symmetry is Burn our Energy...to allow a VERY RESTRICTED portion of that Exterior Energy...to burn it, by crashing it into a Closed Loop..."Dual Burning of Two Different Energies"...and that same process repeats over and over again...delivering a very high consuming energy device on "Our Side"...that is what We all have been doing for 132 long years...which is a "Very Profitable Bu$ine$$..."very convenient" for Gas-Oil Companies...

So there...that "Equation" keeps balancing to a BIG ZERO...since In=Out

Asymmetrical Systems are ALL OPEN...And they DO Interact DIRECTLY and FREELY with that Outer Energy Input...That does NOT alter that Equation either...is just that We all must know, there is an outer Energy ALSO coming into our Input...then it is still balanced...However, IF We "excite" that Natural Outer Source with a Minimum spent from Our Side...then, considering only our Contribution side...that Equation WILL BE Unbalanced completely on "Our Favor"... because our Lady (Radiant Energy) will be adding that natural balance on both sides...and that is what we all are pursuing here Dave.

Now, regarding that "Torque Test"...you could "dis regard" it...I was NOT trying to Flaw nor Force anything...I was just going by the Typical Dynamo-meter explained in a previous video...but "no sweat"...I really could do much better than that set up...trust me...and I will...no more "Two Scales" there...to create ANY Contradictions...just one Torque Digital and Mechanical Tool (BOTH)...and a Brake Disc...and a Mechanical Caliper driven by those Tools through a Lever...braking steel with steel... (no brake pads there, no grease, no plastics...)

Also there is a "Parameter" in that Video that you have overseen by focusing "a bit too much" on the two scales adding or subtracting...and is a VERY Important one in this Calculations...that is the Input Amperage...it fluctuates too much...and from too wide ranges and that is also "Not Good"...but "no sweat"... that part would be taken care off also, Sir.


Thanks for your comments


Regards


Ufopolitics

[IndianaBoys]

Ufopolitics,

Where in the equation does it explain.....

Nassim Haramein Part 3 de 7.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...X9W_Vn4#t=354s

Continue on with your good works Ufopolitics, you are on it!

IndianaBoys

[Ufopolitics]

Nice Work Sampojo!!

Got my first motor outfitted for HV hi-rpm running, epoxied the windings, have run about 20v getting 15v radiant. Put an LED on the radiant, knocks it down to 12v. Just got my rpm gauge, no data there yet. Exploring using it as a generator. It re-used the original 30ga RS wire. 20' of wire per coil, 4 ohms and a double sized rotor. Radiant output seems very good.

Slapped motor 2 together real fast, single rotor, 28ga red wire. Had to restart winding once could not fit 50 turns per 1/2 coil, went to 40 turns. By the time I got to the last coil, I was down to 37 turns per half coil, as the end coils are larger, wrapping around the coils underneath. I just assembled the motor to completion, epoxying the windings right away, soldering the commutators with just a quick continuity test. 2 ohms per coil with this thicker wire, only 13'. With the rotor completely stuffed, I luckily gave myself an extra 1/16" gap on the commutator, sure needed it. But the original sizing of the motor body way short (again). used bearings.

It seems more powerful, but only got 4v radiant running on 12v.

Compared asymmetric and original windings, orig rotor so sad. The asym rotor looks ready for bear! Just a few finishing touches and I will couple them and see what happens. Trying to figure the best connections. Want to see how close I can get to a self-runner.

Planning a window motor induction generator combination, small scale imperial setup.

Hello Sampojo!


Great work My Friend!...I am very glad you made it through First Year already!!...

Seriously now...great work, perseverance is the Master in this Replications (as off everything in life...)...and You DO have it in great amounts my friend...never let the disappointment or failures stress you nor to depress you...

[IMG][/IMG]

Compared asymmetric and original windings, orig rotor so sad. The asym rotor looks ready for bear!

Made me Laugh Out Loud here...

Yes, that Symmetric Small little Rotor...seems like have not eaten for Months... while the Asymmetrical...well...all could see that...is a "Space Ball"...Full of Energy to give...

It seems more powerful, but only got 4v radiant running on 12v.

You should be getting at least somewhere in the 8V Range...so your output brushes may need some adjustment...but try not to touch the Input ones (if possible... and not a big project)


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Torquemaster...

Hi Ufopolitics & those that have constructed this particular machine,

Revisiting wire requirements for the Torqmaster 180.

Have you had a chance to figure gauge, length and turns for the Ufopolitics Asymetric 12P-12Comm Torqmaster 180 Brush-Comm 90 Degrees Displacement?

Any other construction advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

IndianaBoys

Hello IndianaBoys!

Believe it or not...I have not made that Torquemaster 180 as of now...

Now the suitable wire for that I believe would be 20 gauge (awg)...and you could calculate the amount of wires going on each slot...like I showed in my First Winding Video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bBL...asXXng&index=8


In that set up you will have a total of 24 coils (12 Pairs)...and it has 12 slots...so you need space to run in each slot Four "Half Coils" or cross section (thickness of all turns per coil)

Now watch Lester444 posts, as He is working on same type of armature embodiment...12 poles.


Did you see the 12 poles, four brush, four stators I did on this design?
You guys could make it...just a bit more of work...

Tip: Ceramic Magnets could be cut with Diamond Blades...keep adding a mix of water and lithium grease as coolant and to ease cut...or any other cooling grease...
First run a "not too deep" trace cut all around magnet...then start going deeper...do not press them in a vice grip, forcing the cut inwards!

[IMG][/IMG]

That in the Torque Master 180...would be a very robust Machine...


Warm Regards my Friends


Ufopolitics

[JohnStone]

Hi Machine and ALL,
for ease of using circuit diagrams I'd like to demonstrate on how to draw them for better understanding. Please do not understand this as offence!
Most of you draw it very clearly but it is better understandeble for you and others to preserve the main direction of (hot) current flowing from top to bottom.

Highest main voltage on top and lowest main voltage bottom. Auxillary voltage can be drawn from side. Same at voltage regulators.


The currents of interest flow in the primary coil and cap and FET as well. Thus they were drawn from top to bottom. And you easily can imagine the FET pumping a tank circuit.
Controls are drawn from left to right - mostly.
JohnS

[Ufopolitics]

Hello to all...

Hello to All,

I wanted to share with you a method to avoid the long attachment bolts that are on most motors and generators...

This Method will allow Us to Rotate the End Caps, independent from each others...PLUS...(Yes, a big plus) It will allow Us to turn brushes related to Stators where the long bolts will not allow Us to do so...like in the Torque Master Embodiment.

This Method I took it from the German Manufactured BOSCH 750 Watts Motor previously displayed here...and I have used it even on Radio Shack and other small Motors.

[IMG][/IMG]

So, You have to make square holes on upper - lower main frame...build a small "L" Bracket, drill a hole and tap a thread on it for the attach bolt.

They could be just two on each end...or three spaced at 120š...or Four...depending on application force.

I believe this Tip could be very useful to all of Us replicating here...


Regards to All


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Now...that Is A Drawing...lol

Hi Machine and ALL,
for ease of using circuit diagrams I'd like to demonstrate on how to draw them for better understanding. Please do not understand this as offence!
Most of you draw it very clearly but it is better understandeble for you and others to preserve the main direction of (hot) current flowing from top to bottom.

Highest main voltage on top and lowest main voltage bottom. Auxillary voltage can be drawn from side. Same at voltage regulators.


The currents of interest flow in the primary coil and cap and FET as well. Thus they were drawn from top to bottom. And you easily can imagine the FET pumping a tank circuit.
Controls are drawn from left to right - mostly.
JohnS

Hello My Dear Friend John Stone,


Now....THAT, ...IS A DRAWING!!!....and yes...no "offense intended"....


Just teasing You there Machine!!...

So...until Machine gets Home...and finally find out what went on there...is there an answer you could think off...as of why that Motor...reached the 9000 RPMīs (assuming no Tach Error)...only feeding One side...and only with 36 Volts as per that Diagram John?


Regards to all


Ufopolitics

[machinealive]

Yea, Yea , Yea, I'll have to work on my schematics, learn some new software. Promise:

My wife just told me that a package from digi-key just arrived. My parts are there.

I still have 2-3 of those fets left, to torture, when I get home. , I may buy some at 350, 400, 450, 500v, and see if I can get into avalance mode again, I hope that is what happened. When that happened, i heard an increase in speed, but the motor seemed to be running better, smoother, not a huge difference, but noticable, thats why I was so surprised when rpm was up there.

And yes John Stone, caps were directly across coil.

[Ufopolitics]

Whatever...

Yea, Yea , Yea, I'll have to work on my schematics, learn some new software. Promise:

My wife just told me that a package from digi-key just arrived. My parts are there.

I still have 2-3 of those fets left, to torture, when I get home. , I may buy some at 350, 400, 450, 500v, and see if I can get into avalance mode again, I hope that is what happened. When that happened, i heard an increase in speed, but the motor seemed to be running better, smoother, not a huge difference, but noticable, thats why I was so surprised when rpm was up there.

And yes John Stone, caps were directly across coil.

Machine,

You know you are "My Dearest Friend"!!


Ok, let's put it this way...Your drawing was very, very..."original"...

Now, seriously...whatever that effect was...we MUST make sure how to find it and be able to play with it...that will really make a HUGE difference on this operations.

@John Stone and Machine...

We have to realize those Coils were constantly changing positions...never connected like a steady LC Tank Circuit...PLUS, they were traveling within a magnetic field...PLUS...they are mounted on same laminated steel frame core (transformer effect)


Well You Guys get ready for this new experiment...here I will do have a steady LC Rotating parallel Tank Circuit......Plus all others I will add "externally"...

It is based on the Three Pole simple arrangement...each coil have 1.5 Ohms resistance, 110 Turns (55 T Inner + 55 T outer) of 23 awg...attached to a 5uF AC 250V Cap...

Get ready to "debunk" all the "effects" here...

[IMG][/IMG]


[IMG][/IMG]


[IMG][/IMG]

What do You think Machine?


Regards


Ufopolitics

[machinealive]