Garry Stanley Pulse Motor

[Sephiroth]

This motor looks eerily familiar

[garrys]

Hi Garry,

Im not sure if I understand you here. Are your coils in effect bifilar wound, and connected in series? Teslas patent describes how this effect can cancel the self induction which normally gives rise to "false currents." He also states that this effect can be used in a variety of different configurations, perhaps yours is another method, similar to the solenoidal arrangement. If I understand you correctly, the two wires arent wound side by side, but one is still in series with the other?

Regards

I have yet to fully understand tesla's writings but i can tell you he knew a lot more than he ever let on and while i dont recall ever hearing about what i did from tesla's work im pretty sure he will have it in there somewhere , but this is definately not bifilar as a bifilar coil is 2 wires wound together and so induced current flows in the same direction in them and they are then wired to oppose each other (from memory ) ...bedini uses this in his motors using one of the coils to run the motor and one to trigger the power pulse.

You all seem to still be looking for output either from this or using this as a drive unit so perhaps you can understand it using batteries ...take 2 1.5 volt penlight cells or whatever you have and place them in series ... this will show you 3 volts on your meter check each one to make sure its 1.5 and then put them back together with the 2 + heads touching and measure across the - ends and you get nothing yet both batteries still retain their 1.5 volts ...an interesting thing happens if you then add a third battery to this line ...no matter which way round you add it you still get 1.5 volts because you have now unbalanced the original 2 batteries...
this leads to something you might want to give a go and that is when charging batteries always start with 0 volts ...you do this by ...if you are using 3 x 12 volt cells ...you get another 3 and place them in the line but backwards so you have +-+-+--+-+-+ totaling to 0 volts this means every single volt you produce from your charging device in either direction is more than your battery pack has and therefore is collected as charge eg you now only need 1 volt to have enough to charge a 36 volt pack.

Put meters on both sets when charging and you will always see one set start to rise even with the smallest amount of output.

Hope this helps some of you.

Garry

[Ted Ewert]

Hi Garry,
Are you implying that you only need to add power equal to E x I (1.5v x I) instead of (37.5v x I)? I'd never thought of charging batteries this way, but I can't think why it wouldn't work. I'll have to test it.
Nevertheless, it smacks of free energy, which I doubt anyone around here would be interested in.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi garry, nice to see you again and thanks for the information. I saved your past comments similar to this idea, where you made an analogy of a crane for a building and also water behind a dam for this idea of not having to use such a high voltage from our charging source, but instead only need a low voltage to put it over the top and start charging. I'll have to revisit these tests again myself. Thanks garry, you definitely have a unique way of seeing things.
Hi Ted,

Nevertheless, it smacks of free energy, which I doubt anyone around here would be interested in.

lol, one wonders sometimes hey, no I'm definitely interested in that.
peace love light
Tyson

[gmeat]

Nice Thread

Hi Sky, Although I've never heard of the Garry Stanley motor it seems like an interesting build and not to hard to accomplish.I'm not really clear on how exactly it should be wired (and I have read this whole thread)it seems to me that it should have the magnets nsnsns on both rotors so that when a coil is energized you would be repelling from one set of magnets while at the same time it would be attracted to the next set of magnets.Anyways, Just my 2 cents for what it's worth.I might try replicating this in the near future.But in any event thx for posting your results.Best of luck with your build.Peace out-Gary

[garrys]

Hi folks, Hi garry, nice to see you again and thanks for the information. I saved your past comments similar to this idea, where you made an analogy of a crane for a building and also water behind a dam for this idea of not having to use such a high voltage from our charging source, but instead only need a low voltage to put it over the top and start charging. I'll have to revisit these tests again myself. Thanks garry, you definitely have a unique way of seeing things.
Hi Ted,

lol, one wonders sometimes hey, no I'm definitely interested in that.
peace love light
Tyson

This is not free energy its simply a different way of using what you already have at your disposal and like my motor just a different way of configuring the parts to get a better outcome.

Most of what ive done is only able to be done because i put asside "it can" or "cant be done" and decided i would test everything for myself since clearly my very first motor showed the same signs of additional output that everyone else who has tinkered in this field has found and so if there was clearly a line that was normally considered " cant be done" and it clearly could be done then there also had to be a legitamate reason for this line of thinking.

A little digging and you quickly realise that all the rules and laws were written in a time when todays technology simply didnt exist and while the laws and rules are probably equally as relavant and correct today as they were then , technology has moved on.

For instance you will notice most electric motors dont go fast in fact they were locked down to 1024 rpm til not so long ago and now most are 2048 rpm but you can get motors the run up to 10,000 rpm these days and this was something that was impossible 100 years ago ...of course it was only impossible because the technology wasnt there to keep the comutators in place and so at some speed they simply flew apart due to centrifugal force and the motor stopped working, after a while this becomes a rule of thumb and anyone trying to make a motor that goes over the speed that the commutator is known to fly apart at is considered a bit of a fool cause it simply "cant be done".
Free energy is a bit like this ...when you actually figure it out the first thing that comes to mind is not why hasnt someone figured this out before but more along the lines of what happened to all the people who must have figured this out before ...because it really is childs play that any 5 year old would understand.

[garrys]

Hi Sky, Although I've never heard of the Garry Stanley motor it seems like an interesting build and not to hard to accomplish.I'm not really clear on how exactly it should be wired (and I have read this whole thread)it seems to me that it should have the magnets nsnsns on both rotors so that when a coil is energized you would be repelling from one set of magnets while at the same time it would be attracted to the next set of magnets.Anyways, Just my 2 cents for what it's worth.I might try replicating this in the near future.But in any event thx for posting your results.Best of luck with your build.Peace out-Gary

This is my old pulse motor group .......Pulse_Motor_Group : Pulse Motor Experimentors Group

There is much info and discussion there and a few pix ...your thinking of north south could work on a single rotor setup but the twin rotor is better since it harnesses the energy at both ends of the coil at the same time and presents other interesting possibilities and in the twin rotor one rotor has all south and the other all north facing the coils, what is most imortant with this is the underlying mechanism that it works on and since this is sound it can be applied to almost any motor setup with a bit of thought.

Garry

[garrys]

Hi Garry,
Are you implying that you only need to add power equal to E x I (1.5v x I) instead of (37.5v x I)? I'd never thought of charging batteries this way, but I can't think why it wouldn't work. I'll have to test it.
Nevertheless, it smacks of free energy, which I doubt anyone around here would be interested in.

Hi Ted, i was just trying to show a method of charging a high voltage pack from a low voltage generator and of course this setup captures the kick back as well no matter which direction it is traveling in, you only need a voltage differential for amperage to flow and amperage is the charge while voltage is merely the charge carrier or conductor if you like and this method shows that it can move through a battery or battery set backwards.

This also shows that charging and running are seperate eg the motor and the generator because while this is perfect for charging you couldnt draw from it because the current will not flow in a ballanced system like this, however if you had a slightly flattened battery on one side you could draw from the set and the flow through the lower battery would be reversed and should charge it as the other is being depleted this should equal a longer run time from the set than you would get from a standard battery, but would require some switching since you would have to constantly break the set to reduce one side of it for flow.

Free Energy is of course a myth ...our planet must have some big motor running it somewhere and of course its held in place by a mythical skyhook made of invisable string in a giant planetarium .

When you have eliminated all other posible causes what ever is left no matter how improbable it may seem must be the answer and since there is no motor or string and the planet doesnt slow down of fall down, then perpetual motion or free energy become reality simply because everything else can be eliminated.....( just in case anyone thought i was being serious in the previous sentence )

Garry

[Ted Ewert]

I've been following this thread, so I decided to try out the concept. This is not a faithful replica, but it's close enough to be in the same ballpark. I have a bunch of thin coils from another motor project I was working on, so that was a good start
I first mounted two opposing coils.



They are both wound normally and wired to fire with a south pole on the right side, as you can see from the red tape.
I built a rotor with just two "poles", consisting of 4 magnetic positions each. The magnets are all pointing in towards the coil and the tape denotes their polarity (blue for north and red for south).



The magnets are mounted like this so that when one pair (the bottom set) are being repelled by the coil, the top set is being pulled in (as per Mark's suggestion ). The spacing is about a half of a coil width apart.
Here is the motor put together.



The top pair in the picture are being pulled towards the core, while the lower pair are being repelled away form the coil.
There is a strong magnetic field between each opposite set of magnets. This field acts in conjunction with the windings. Whichever polarity the coil is wired for, it will pull one set in and repel one set away. In this case as soon as the first set crosses the core, the coil fires and repels that set while pulling the other set in. One half of the coil is pushing and the other half is pulling.
The magnetic pairs also generate power as they both cross half the coil when it is not powered. This adds power back into the system.
I'm driving the rig with between 100 - 190 volts. My preliminary run yielded about 350 RPMs at a whopping 7 watts unloaded. Loading the rotor raised the power up to a max of 30 watts and, according to my calibrated grip, it had much better torque than my last motor.
Surprisingly, I don't need a recovery circuit with this motor, as I do with most pulse motors. The way the magnets charge the coil, it creates a low voltage trough right when the coil fires. There is little or no spike when the transistor shuts off.
Timing has a big effect on the power draw, but the sweet spot is easy to find. I still have to try a few different duty cycles, but the basic motor is evident.
I'll have to stick the prony break on it to see how efficient it is. Two poles is far from optimal for a smooth torque curve, but I can get an idea anyway.
This is an interesting motor. It's very efficient and has some decent torque. I especially like not having to deal with iron cores (which I tried BTW). Strong magnets and lots of steel are a nightmare to try and get close tolerances with.

Cheers,

Ted

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi garry, thanks for continuing to offer your thoughts to this thread, thanks. Hi Ted, nice setup your testing there, look forward to your prony brake tests. What gauge magnet wire is that on your coils. Do you have access to a scope, to see if you can identify what Ben reported with his scope findings, that of a highly reduced counter emf when pulsed. Great work, it is an efficient motor and take note of the lack of heat anywhere.
peace love light
Tyson

[gyula]

Hi Ted,

Fantastic build! thank you for showing it.

Would you tellI cannot figure out from the pictures if the two coils are connected directly in parallel and switched with a common one transistor or they are separately driven with two transistors?

Later whenever you have time for making oscilloscope shots on the coils pulses, please make one, it would be great to see. IF I recall correctly, Ben Thomas also found the generated power was added to the supply (he used a bicycle wheel also with two coils placed in 180 degree opposite (diametrically) to each other as stator coils (say at 9 and 3 o'clock positions) and fixed two big Neo discs on the outside perimeter of the wheel and he connected the coils in parallel as Garry did.)

Do you think that using two-two facing big ring magnets could further improve your output? (magnetized diametrically of course, though they are rather expensive in the big diameters involved here).

rgds, Gyula

[Ted Ewert]

I've looked at the waveform on the scope, but you have to remember that I have a different magnetic setup than you guys do. Nevertheless, if you think about what's happening it's fairly straightforward.
A coil only attracts (or repels) a magnet for half the width of the coil. The rest of the trip across the coil will be spent generating power or a charge.
If the coil is supplying a low impedance load, such as a generator would, a lot of flux is being drawn from the magnet. This is what creates the drag associated with the Lenz effect. If no current is drawn from the coil, then there is no drag on the magnet.
When one end of the coil is disconnected, as when the transistor shuts off, the coil can only accumulate a "charge" from a passing magnet. This is usually seen as a peak in voltage. As there is no ferrous core, and no significant current being drawn during the remainder of the trip across the coil, there is no force left to cause any sort of drag on the magnet.
You can see in the picture when the first set of magnets hits the coil. They generate a positive voltage hump on the upper half of the coil until they cross the centerline, then they start generating negative voltage. This is the same time the drive pulse is initiated.
After the pulse ends, the second set of magnets passes the centerline and starts generating another positive voltage hump across the bottom half of the coil.



The nice thing about this configuration is the high flux density between the opposing magnets. That flux field stretches right across the windings, which provides great coupling when the coil fires. I had a hard time mounting the two halves of the rotor because they wanted to snap together. There is so much pull between the two halves that it bends the thick pieces of steel that the magnets are mounted to. I had to use wooden blocks between the magnets.
I'm using 24 AWG wire in the coils. They have a resistance of about 45 ohms each and I have them wired in parallel.
I might add a couple of more coils to get the torque smoothed out a bit before I do a brake test. It's very difficult to read a significantly pulsing rotor on a digital scale.

Ted

[Ted Ewert]

Hi Ted,

Fantastic build! thank you for showing it.

Would you tellI cannot figure out from the pictures if the two coils are connected directly in parallel and switched with a common one transistor or they are separately driven with two transistors?

Later whenever you have time for making oscilloscope shots on the coils pulses, please make one, it would be great to see. IF I recall correctly, Ben Thomas also found the generated power was added to the supply (he used a bicycle wheel also with two coils placed in 180 degree opposite (diametrically) to each other as stator coils (say at 9 and 3 o'clock positions) and fixed two big Neo discs on the outside perimeter of the wheel and he connected the coils in parallel as Garry did.)

Do you think that using two-two facing big ring magnets could further improve your output? (magnetized diametrically of course, though they are rather expensive in the big diameters involved here).

rgds, Gyula

Hi Gyula,
Thanks, I'm glad you like the motor!
I may have answered some of your questions in the last post. Anyway, both the coils are driven off of one transistor. The motor only draws between 50 and 150 ma, so there isn't much of a load!
I don't think the ring magnets would work well. You want a sharply defined rectangular field sweeping across the windings so it doesn't interfere with the other half.
An air core coil acts more like two separate coils than one. These coils should actually be wound in a wedge shape, which would work better than round. The sides of the windings should also be far enough apart so each is treated separately by the passing magnet pairs.
This is more like how normal motors work. Windings are saturated within a flux field and current is pumped through them to create torque.
The only difference here is that I'm using high impedance coils to reduce the input power draw.

Ted

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi Ted, I can't seem to locate the scope pic of Ben Thomas right now, however he did make these claims as I posted previously. How can we come to terms with these statements.

Hi Stefan, George and all,
1 day ago I would have agreed with both of you totally.
Now I say, Build a motor, parallel the voltages, look
at what happens across the coil when you pulse it.
THE VOLTAGE ADDS TO THE POWER SUPPLY! It does NOT buck the supply ever! Damnedest thing I have ever seen. There is NO LENZ. Power
supply at ZERO, pure spin down, no drag even when pulsing the coils
into the supply still on but at zero volts. Yah, I know, short the
leads and it probably will spin down faster but then it is operating
in the PURE generator mode and not the MOTOR mode. Totally different
when in the motor mode as voltages are Additive. I have built lots of
pulse motors and this is NOT what I expected or theorized. The little
sucker will run on somewhere between 0.1 and 0.2 VDC on the coils! On 1.5 VDC, it runs several hundred RPM. I have to glue the magnets down before I can really rev it up as they are just held to the wheel with their own magnetic field. Got a little bug in the trigger circuitry,(double pulse) got to rewind the trigger coil, but it still runs like a champ.
Those coils are 100T #24, 1.5" X 1/4" ring air wound coils. The coils on the left and right are the motor coils. The coil on the back is the "sense/trigger" coil. It triggers both pairs of coils through a power fet via a op-amp. So you get a power pulse each 90 degrees. The voltage generated ADDS to the power supply voltage, that is NOT what I theorized or expected but you can see the anti-lentz voltage riding on TOP of the power supply voltage if you put a scope right across the coil. This thing is crude to the point of tears.
The coils are 1/8" from the 1.5" N38 Neo magnets as I didn't want to mess around with a magnet knocking a coil down if it flew off the wheel as the magnets are just held on by their own fields! Do not try to theorize this motor, you have to build it to understand it. And I will say I probably had 50-60 pages of doodles and theories and magnetic field drawings and schematics that all said it did not work before I built it. I finally built it out of sheer exasperation because Garry was so darn sure it worked the way it did and I .....wanted to prove him wrong....sort of my nature. My next version will be a heck of a lot prettier and a heck of a lot closer in tolerances. I am not going to do a web page about this as it is not my motor or my idea, I'll leave that to Gary. It all boils down now, if you don't believe it will work, you
probably won't build one. If you don't believe it will work and build one, you won't believe what your instruments are telling you and if you do believe it will work and build one you will look at your scope, etc and say "Holy @#@#$@#$" What am I missing here. Good luck Gary.
I'm about done posting about this, it works, there is a lot of things
more that can be done, Garry, its your baby, run with it.

Ben K4ZEP

Notice he is only speaking of when the coil is pulsed or energized, that is when he claims no bucking of the input power supply. Nice work so far.
peace love light
Tyson

[Ted Ewert]

Hi folks, Hi Ted, I can't seem to locate the scope pic of Ben Thomas right now, however he did make these claims as I posted previously. How can we come to terms with these statements.

Notice he is only speaking of when the coil is pulsed or energized, that is when he claims no bucking of the input power supply. Nice work so far.
peace love light
Tyson

Hi Tyson. If you look at my scope shot, you'll notice that the voltage takes a big dip right when the pulse fires. That voltage drop at the collector of the transistor means that the magnets have generated a counter EMF equal or to, or greater than the supply voltage. In other words, the coil is generating power back towards the dc source at the same time the transistor turns on. How this motor even works under those circumstances is a little unclear.
Nevertheless, I think this is why I'm only drawing a very small amount of current. If I move the timing either way, off dead center of the negative pulse, the motor draws more current.
It has a surprising amount of torque for so little current too. Torque has a direct relationship to current so this seems to be another anomaly. Interesting motor.

Ted