Motor Generators

[BroMikey]

Tinman says matt minions are wrong

[Turion]

Matt's motor run the way it is shown in the video does nothing special. I would absolutely agree. The power generated by the motor fights the input from the source as CEMF, back EMF or whatever you want to call it. Probably LESS efficient than a whole LOT of motors because the efficiency to run the way it was run in the video was decreased when it was modified.

But the Matt motor was not DESIGNED to run directly on the positive and negative of a power source. If run BETWEEN THE POSITIVES as it was DESIGNED to do, it allows the CEMF as well as the coil collapse to travel A PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE, which is INTO THE CHARGE BATTERY on the 3 battery system. What this does is help to CHARGE the 3rd battery, and if the batteries are properly rotated, you get longer run times than if run in a standard configuration. Run on the 3 battery system, it is a winner. Run on a single battery or two batteries in series, it is inefficient. Hint: When you ground a motor to run it, BOTH COILS will create BEMF. This energy has to be disapated before current will flow. Reducing your actual flow time, and amount of flow. Also reducing the amount of energy actually doing work. When watching the OUTPUT side of the motor run between the positives, you'll see 2 occilations. One is clear and obviously an ON/OFF wave. The other rises then falls but has both positive and negative spikes indicating BEMF. Depending on what side of the motor is powered and what polarity of current is used, the wave changes.

The Matt modified motor is PART of a SYSTEM that allows you to build a COP>1 device, but it is not such a device in and of itself. There are losses in the motor and tremendous losses in charging a battery due to impedance. Unless a POWER GENERATION ELEMENT is added, you cannot achieve COP>1. So it does EXACTLY what it was designed to do, but hey, believe what you want.

Here is the data from Matt's build, not mine. I built a much smaller version back in the day when I was working away on Tesla Switches. Conclusions were, to produce SERIOUS POWER, it works, but Solar is CHEAPER:


4 batterries in Parrallel = 56 hours of runtime
Same 4 batteries in a Tesla switch = 432 hours of runtime 432 / 56 = 7.714 times longer runtime.
Motor runs at or up to 100 watts AND PROVIDES SHAFT POWER.
Under Tesla the same motor only cost you 12.96 watts to get the same work done. MUCH of the input energy is RECOVERED in the charge batteries. 80+%

$ Battery setup with motor.png






If you want an education on running between the positives you could go here: http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Ma...nesTeslaSwitch where some of Matt's info has been collected, or you could go to the "Use for the Tesla Switch" thread on THIS forum. It's a really long thread. Really long. So make plenty of popcorn, and get a haircut before you start. One thing I will be very clear about. Replicating someone else's work means replicating EVERY part of it. I watched guys on the forum run this stuff at the wrong switching speeds and it doesn't work worth a CRAP. Matt didn't give EVERYTHING away, but he showed enough that anyone with a SERIOUS INTENT who would stick with it, do some actual work on their own, and not whine like a baby that needs to be spoon fed, would see results eventually. I think he discusses frequency on the page I linked to above. Anybody watch Peter Lindemann's videos and presentation on the Benitez Tesla Switch? One of the things Peter states is that what is left out of the patent is an "interruptor". Something that breaks the circuit and allows for a voltage spike. Guess what the Matt modified motor DOES among other things? Since it has commutator sections that are NOT connected to the coils, I'll let YOU figure it out.

Anybody here ever built Matt's "simple motor"? Not the Matt modified Razor Scooter motor, but just his "simple motor". If you haven't, you SHOULD. Really should. Really, really should. It is the motor in the "motor" position on this schematic, and has some advantages that the Matt modified motor does NOT, while still having all of the advantages of THAT motor. And it is easier to build, although pricy if you don't have magnets lying around and a spool of the right wire.And rotors. Worth it though. I did NOT build the circuit shown here, so the performance claims are Matt's.

I DID build a very similar circuit Matt designed with TWO coils, TWO batteries, TWO rotors, as the motor, and kept the batteries charged. Bob French and I are building THAT particular setup again, just because a motor that runs all the time without running down the batteries might come in handy, even if it only turns at 2-3,000 rpm.

[BroMikey]

this is a dead link on my end
http://matthewcjones.com/power/TeslaSwitch_5_5.MPG

all dead links
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa....html#post7525

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/962-use-tesla-switch-7.html

and about 10 more dead links that make proving stuff laughable.



You don't need to convince me you need to help the people following Tinman who absolutely makes a wreck out of every free energy replication. Like John Bedini pointed out all the years of his existence here on this earth " sure if you took his machines apart they do not work"

Tinman always leaves out a part or he dismantles the idea. Here is Tinman making fun of the 3 battery systems. He has 4 video's but never uses the Matt modified motor in the circuit. Yet everyone quotes Tinman as gospel. What a shallow bunch who have small reasoning abilities.

The Matt motor will give a cop 1 as long as you work to tune it but you need a generator connected to it and to my knowledge there is no such setup on the internet. Just he said they said they thought we had it close to cop 1. In other words nothing conclusive to back it up.

So for now Tinman is the only one.

[BroMikey]

Here is the only modified Matt motor set in a 3 battery circuit on the internet. The batteries stay up better than a regular motor. Now whether that is the same as a Tesla switch, I have no idea. Some say it is a rotary Tesla switch.

The batteries are low resistance high dollar, $1200 for the set of 12. So far running the 3 battery circuit with inverters is not as good but the banks must be charged up as they go down low and begin deteriorating. It takes over nite to charge and then I can make runs taking measurements til the cows come home and it's back on the wall wart block transformer to get another drink of power. Cop 1 was not reached because I did not do what wantomake did. He installed a generator to collect the wasted mechanical coming from the modified motor. As soon as he got cop 1 he vanished. Up until then he begged for help everyday and showed us his machines.

As far as I know this is the only video on the subject.

[Turion]

all dead links
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa....html#post7525

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/962-use-tesla-switch-7.html

and about 10 more dead links that make proving stuff laughable.

Those links may be DEAD because this forum was changed all around a couple years back. They are ALL from the "USE FOR THE TESLA SWITCH" thread which is still here. The specific post number is in the "broken" link, so anyone who is serious could research it if they wanted. Only the links that go to Matt's Server are truly impossible to access at this time. There is PLEANTY of information on that page WITHOUT going to the old thread.

[BroMikey]

"USE FOR THE TESLA SWITCH"

There is PLEANTY of information on that page WITHOUT going to the old thread.

I thought we were talking about the 3 battery systems with modified motor? Please clarify how you suddenly bridge to tesla switch. most will see these posts and say something is fishy when the discussion of 3 battery to modified motor is proven by studying old tesla switch documents.

Why not just post a working version. Matt came on and showed us his motor but never connected it to 3 batteries. Most people will see a guy like Peter Lindemann that shows a picture of the circuits and a video of an actual working motor. Why would they spend the rest of their lives chasing unicorns when they can build the real thing?

I think Lindemann's attraction motor is a real working device and he has merit yet we are spending all of our time frantically looking for rainbows.

[Turion]

By all means, build the Lindemann motor. YOU are the one who showed the video of the 3 Battery System and the attempted debunking of it by Tinman. And the 3 Battery system is nothing but a poor man's Tesla Switch, for someone who only has THREE batteries instead of four, so ALL that information applies.

[BroMikey]

Nice theoretical test. Poor man's T switch, got it now. So ladies and gentleman what we have is a modified scooter motor that burns out brushes right and left that is a cheap poor man's T switch. Nevermind that the cop is 1. Nice. Who likes cop 8 better, raise your hand. Well then it's time to grow up biggy boy and build the Lindemann attraction motor or John boy's (zero force) zero lenz motor instead, connecting them to the 3 battery circuit.

That is why John B would not put Matt's motor in the books, it serves only to side track from the real motors that should be built. Now I could understand it if the mysterious mod motor could glow and levitate but it doesn't.

The mod motor did get hot when running more than 1 amp and then I had to replace the burned up brushes in about 150-200 hours of use. Now if you are really a serous experimenter you probably would not spend $1500 dollars to see a cop 1 if you spend long enough and get lucky enough to blindly shoot into the dark on mod motor timing plus load balancing. Any takers?

Hey Dave has a 1 battery circuit too, right Dave?

[BroMikey]

Zero force motor zero lenz motor lenz free motor to special recovery circuits just like the 3 battery gen stuff. That 3 battery is JB way of recovering or recycling joules. A scooter motor won't do.

These motors are in the books for a reason and not the mod motor. Unlike other contraptions these are high COP motors

[BroMikey]

Dave's zero force whatever

[BroMikey]

Zero force explained by the best

[BroMikey]

Zero force and dual circuit diagram

[BroMikey]

Everybody has a zero force motor except me but no one tells you the results of recycled power.

That is because something must keep COP to under one

[Turion]

The motors are just prototypes, as is the Matt motor. Each teaches us something. The Matt motor was a prototype to TEACH A CONCEPT, not to run your house. Take the best from EACH and combine it. The "Zero Force" motor is a perfect example. Bob French and I both built SEVERAL versions of that motor. In the video you posted, you see John run a rotor between two "poles" wrapped with wire. Bob and I saw that we could get it to work with a double rotor configuration as shown below. My "prototype" was built out of two of the original rotors from my generator, and one of my old generator coils. It wasn't built to look good, it was built to test a CONCEPT. That was the first build, and the only reason there is a video of it in existence is because I made it to show Bob that it would work. You don't see it in the video, but this thing just continued to speed up and up and up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXOu49oVhHs

THEN we took the coil out and replaced it with a circle of plastic about 1/4" thick (which allowed the rotors to move in VERY close to each other) that is shaped like a toroid, and wound coils around this FLAT piece of plastic that was as wide as the 2" wide magnets I had on these rotors. So between the coils the plastic was only 1/4" thick plus the wire wrapped around it. Because the coil was curved, the two coils went most the way around the circle. It gave INCREDIBLE torque, speed, and the amp draw went down. It doesn't take much to fire the coil between two North facing magnets and produce TREMENDOUS torque, because two N facing magnets compressed together magnify the magnetic field, and this "SUPER" magnet wants to follow the flux field in the coil just like a regular magnet. We called it the "Superpole motor" to distinguish it from the Zero Force Motor. It's really a "super rotor" motor, but Superpole sounded cooler, and we DID modify the way the coil was wound. THEN we put FOUR coils on the "toroid". We took what John gave us, which I have always said was his GREATEST GIFT to us, and used what we ALREADY KNEW to vastly IMPROVE on it. That is the purpose of prototypes. Test concepts, find something that works, and improve it. You should try it instead of making fun of the work I have done. But wait, you don't have one. Haven't built one. Don't know what is good or bad about it. It's strengths and weaknesses. Have NEVER modified one and tried to improve production. Are happy to sit there and put down the work of others when you know nothing about it.

Dave's zero force whatever

Then we ran THAT on the 3 battery system and recovered much of the energy because it is a pulse motor and works as an "interruptor" which lets the input voltage plus the coil collapse go into the charge battery. (which we learned is possible from the Matt Motor prototype.) Oh, and it does it BETTER than the Matt modified motor, so I haven't built a Matt modified motor in YEARS. But that doesn't mean it was not VALUABLE and didn't teach me anything, because it DID. There IS no CEMF in the ZFM as John explains in the video you posted.

Now, as good as the IMPROVED Zero Force motor was, we found something BETTER and moved on. Because that's what you DO when you are researching. The ONLY benefit of the Zero Force motor is it did not produce CEMF or back EMF, so ran on far less. Its torque was limited, but it was capable of high speeds.

But once you learn to harness the CEMF so that it is not fighting the input voltage, you want as MUCH of it as possible. And THAT is the step beyond the Superpole motor if you want a MOTOR.

Now start looking at the benefits and negatives of the Lindemann attraction motor. A coil will never put out MORE than is input + the CEMF+ the collapsing spike x the number of times it is fired, which is once per rotation on this machine. If you think his motor will "generate" more than that, you are living in Fantasy Land. And the machine HAS no CEMF (No Lenz, remember) and only ONE coil to produce power. So you LOSE the benefit of CEMF to gain 0 Lenz operation.
It has no LENZ. That is its only advantage, other than the TORQUE from the larger coil with a core that may produce more flux than what is used to do work in the Zero Force motor. I know how much MORE torque the Superpole motor has than the Zero Force motor, so I will stick with it. Which costs less and is simpler to build? The Zero Force motor or the Lindemann Attraction Motor? As far as I am concerned, it is a no brainer.

For those needing a high voltage and high amperage magnetic switch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRJRo2nENkk&t=8s

If you glue a magnet under the movable piece just below where it makes contact, you can use a magnet on the rotor of the same polarity to push it UP and make the contact. So this whole thing can be above the rotor instead of below it. Lots of options, limited only by your creativity and imagination.

[BroMikey]

You just admitted the you did not comprehend the Lindemann video and the cop 8.
You guys charged a battery like matt? No JB is the guy who used 1 source battery and 1 charge battery but you credit whoever you want. Just like you changed the names of your motor using the zero force principle. Then because you say it's all obsolete and time to move on. Same ole long winded dave. said very little, oh other than Lindemann's attraction motor can only do COP1. These statements are false, go listen to the video again.

All I see is 2 plastic rotor turning and the high speed of 50rpm in your video. These are not results. You have no data. Go back to the Lindemann motor secrets instructional and learn how to present data.

You can only get out as much as you put in to the coil is false. Of course you will deny you said it if boxed in. You think all of these ideas come from your group? Show me something other than your big ole mouth. Show me data like Peter does.