Electric Motor Secrets

[Peter Lindemann]

Correct

Peter,
I watched your video about the dynamo meter again and a question arised. Why do we need the wheel? Why can't we just load the shaft with that leather strip? I mean if we know the shaft diameter, we can calculate the circumference. If my shaft is 8mm in diameter then the circumference would be 2 x phi x R, or 2X3.14X4=25.12mm. Right? and we can easily convert this to foots.
Of course I will build the wheel, but it is not as easy as I thought and it will take more time.


Jetijs

Jetijs,

You are correct. The wheel is not necessary. You just need a "known circumference" to do the calculations. The major benefits of the wheel are to save one step in the math, and to lower the amount of side force on the shaft. Try what you have, and see if you can develop consistent results over a series of test. If you run three tests, and the measurements are all within 2% of each other, then you can be pretty confident of the lowest number.

Also, if you rig up a hinged frame to hold the scales, then one person can hold both scales quite still, and you can get the rpm reading and other inputs reliably.

Good luck.

Peter

[Jetijs]

The problems keep on coming.
Today I wanted to measure the efficiency. I started the motor and let it run for a while till the bearings warm up. I have not run this motor for longer periods of time before. After 5-6 minutes I noticed, that the speed is slowly dropping and the current consumption is rising slowly. The motor became slower and slower till it reached about 1000RPM and I stopped the test. I noticed that the bearing holder on the commutator side has become hot, I could barely hold my finger on it. At the same time the other bearing holder was only moderately warm. This indicates that the heat might come from the friction in the bearings. When I started the motor some minutes later, it started with high RPMs but then started to slow down again. This is weird. Also I now have a bolt on each bearing holder so that I can tighten it so that the outer part of the bearing can not rotate inside of the bearing holder:



If I tighten it too much, the speed drops, if I tighten it not enough, the outer part of the bearing starts to rotate inside the bearing holder and the motor becomes very loud and amp draw increased.

So far the only solution I see is to replace the bearings with ones that can handle a little axis shift.
This is frustrating

[lighty]

So far the only solution I see is to replace the bearings with ones that can handle a little axis shift.

Something like self-adjusting ones?

[Jetijs]

I mean such ones:


They are self aligning. I think that this could solve my problems

[lighty]

Ah yes, self-aligning is the proper term. It will probably help a lot judging from my own bitter experience.

[elias]

So Wierd!

Jetijs

The motor I built did not have any heating problems, although it could run at speeds as high as 7000 RPM. My motor even had pretty worn out bearings. I am going to measure the efficiency of my motor in the coming weeks as I have finished my military training, I will also post some videos.

I have found a guy who is working on maximizing the efficiency of a 40KW motor!!! I am going to meet him next week. I hope I could convince him to help me build a 40KW Lindemann motor! I don't think that mentioning the fact that COP > 1 is possible with this motor is a wise thing, because they won't believe it anyway. I recently talked about this motor with one of my friends in the electrical engineering department, and he certainly could not believe that the mechanical output + recovery could be more than the supplied input. Their mind is trained to work in a certain way and is very difficult for them to accept otherwise.

Don't give up! Keep up the great work of yours!

Elias

[lighty]

I recently talked about this motor with one of my friends in the electrical engineering department, and he certainly could not believe that the mechanical output + recovery could be more than the supplied input. Their mind is trained to work in a certain way and is very difficult for them to accept otherwise.

Your friends are correct in their line of thought. Why should they accept your assertions without any material proof? I personally don't have problem accepting the fact that Peter's approach to energy recovery is sound and possible, especially in the light of the fact that I personally tested various systems that use fundamental paradigm as his recovery system does. However, I still hold my final thought on the subject to a moment when I see exact measurement of net electrical input vs net mechanical output that Jetijs will soon provide. Reasonably skeptical mind is something one has to cherish if one is to filter out all the garbage found on net. Some of the theories people put out are well intended and theoretically sound but they don't work as intended.

That being said I do think that Peter's system is well on it's way to show predicted results. I just like to see concrete measurements. No offense Peter.

[Peter Lindemann]

No offense taken

Your friends are correct in their line of thought. Why should they accept your assertions without any material proof? I personally don't have problem accepting the fact that Peter's approach to energy recovery is sound and possible, especially in the light of the fact that I personally tested various systems that use fundamental paradigm as his recovery system does. However, I still hold my final thought on the subject to a moment when I see exact measurement of net electrical input vs net mechanical output that Jetijs will soon provide. Reasonably skeptical mind is something one has to cherish if one is to filter out all the garbage found on net. Some of the theories people put out are well intended and theoretically sound but they don't work as intended.

That being said I do think that Peter's system is well on it's way to show predicted results. I just like to see concrete measurements. No offense Peter.

Lighty,

I'm with you! There is no substitute for concrete measurements. Also, reasonable skepticism is necessary if you are not to be taken in by all manner of wild claims. I have "believed" in this motor since I first thought it up in 1983. I have a friend who has modeled this motor in a special computer program and the results of this analysis are positive and support COP>1 operation. So, my confidence is very high, but like you, I will be glad to "know" it works after Jetijs tests his model.

Thank you for helping make this project a GLOBAL, cooperative effort! I could not have done it all here, by myself.

Peter

[lighty]

Peter,

Is that idea so old? I mean I was going to elementary school and burning fuses all around the house (early "experiments" with electricity) at the time you thought of it. Indeed, one has to admire your patience.

Jetijs also had knowledge and determination to make it reality. Although he made some hastily mistakes he also found a way to correct them in an elegant way. He deserves a lot of beer for his efforts. In fact you both do.


@Jetijs

Could you contact your wire supplier and see if he has flat wire of the adequate cross-section (I don't remember the cross section of the wire you're currently using)? Flat wire will allow for even more magnetic flux being transferred to the core or if you wish it will reduce stray flux to a minimum. Of course it's not necessary at this point and you shouldn't bother yourself with it but once you have some spare time and if you'll be still interested you could try to drain every last bit of performance from your motor using several tricks. Also, you could use different voltage regulator (or two of them in succession) to connect even more batteries if needed. I'll be glad to help as much as I can from across the Europe.

[elias]

Your friends are correct in their line of thought. Why should they accept your assertions without any material proof? I personally don't have problem accepting the fact that Peter's approach to energy recovery is sound and possible, especially in the light of the fact that I personally tested various systems that use fundamental paradigm as his recovery system does. However, I still hold my final thought on the subject to a moment when I see exact measurement of net electrical input vs net mechanical output that Jetijs will soon provide. Reasonably skeptical mind is something one has to cherish if one is to filter out all the garbage found on net. Some of the theories people put out are well intended and theoretically sound but they don't work as intended.

That being said I do think that Peter's system is well on it's way to show predicted results. I just like to see concrete measurements. No offense Peter.

That's right, I hope Jetijs could show us COP > 1 is possible with this system.
To be honest my skepticism has made me ponder a lot about this system and on why can it achieve COP > 1. One conclusion i have made is the fact that magnetism is not consumed in this motor and it only is used and gets converted back to electrical power again at the end. just a crude model.

[theremart]

Minor question.

Is the energy put off by the modified DC motor as Peter suggests the same as conventional charging, or is it radiant energy as Bedini would define it?

Was wondering how one would treat the batteries after they were charged with this method.

thanks

[Jetijs]

Hi Mart
In this case we are re capturing the BEMF spike, this is exactly the same as in Bedini systems, so the batteries also should be treated accordingly

[elias]

Hi Mart
In this case we are re capturing the BEMF spike, this is exactly the same as in Bedini systems, so the batteries also should be treated accordingly

Yes, I think I can feel the strong aether current when touching the terminals of the charging battery in the output section of my Lindemann motor. Also the neon bulb lights up when touching the collector of the transistor with one terminal only, which is an indication of aetheric current I suppose.

BTW I think you mean the Radiant Spike by BEMF Spike, Don't you?

[Jetijs]

Ok, I replaced the bearings with self aligning ones and got the motor running.
Everything seems fine now and I can run the motor for as long as I want with no change in speed. So I went on to measure the efficiency.
After gathering some data and calculations, the numbers seemed bad. I loaded the motor 8mm shaft several times and each time with different force, but all the calculations showed efficiencies 31% and below
For example, here is data from one of the tests:

Input power: 25.5V, 2.47A.
RPM's 4146
Scale deflection: 1.28Lbs on one scales and 0.71Lbs on other scales.

So the input power is 25.5v x 2.47a = 62.99W or 0.0844 Hp

The shaft diameter is 8mm so the circumference is 8xphi or 8x3.1416=25.13mm or 0.0824 Ft

RPM x Ft / 60 = 4146x0.0824/60=5.69 Ft/s

5.69Ft/s x (1.28Lbs+0.71Lbs)= 11.32 Ft-Lbs/s or 0.0205 Hp

So Efficiency is output/input or 0.0205/0.0844=0.242 or 24% efficiency.
Is this right? Seems too bad. The other results are similar.

Maybe I measured the deflection on scales wrong? I did this the following way. I put the motor so that the shaft end is reaching past the table top, then I attached a piece of thin cloth sheet to the scales. I turned the scales ON and just let them hang on the shaft using the cloth sheet. To the load was just the weight of the scales. This way I could get steadier results, because it is difficult to load the motor evenly if you hold the scales above the motor in your hands. Maybe this is the wrong way to do this?
I am a bit confused about these results

[theremart]

RE: scales

Soft leather is what Peter suggested for the strap.

Also, do you have a wheel of know diameter on the shaft?

I would suggest getting the help of a friend to either hold the scales or do one of the tasks, not everyone has 6 hands as Peter does