Garry Stanley Pulse Motor

[wings]

original pages:



http://web.archive.org/web/20070614070723/http://www.cable.net.nz/ou/$

[woopy]

thank's wings for the remaining of this drawing

but i am afraid ,as per Garry's words, earlyer in this thread, that this drawing is not originally made by himself.

what we are trying to do is :

2 coils working together with ???wiring and working in sandwitch (or not but in this case how) with 2 magnets with ???poles

and not 2 coils sandwitching 1 magnet as discribed in the drawing.

Sorry to be crude but i would like that Garry takes a clear position on this matter.

or we will be in 10 years at the same point discussing in thin air.

regards

Laurent

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi woopy, I think this motor idea with air-core coils being sandwiched is worthy enough for a thread and using it as a motor or generator as well. Your series coil tests should show you that a motor's production efficiency can be made higher. There are different ways to skin a cat. So woopy, do you think it is significant that you were able to reduce your input by 50% and maintain the same work output, I do. Have you ever seen the output wok done by one of Joseph Newman's motors run by small input currents and input wattage. Reducing counter emf is definitely desirable, however it is not completely needed to achieve high production efficiency.
peace love light
Tyson

[Turion]

Arrrrrrrggggggg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have read through this entire thread trying to understand exactly how to wire the coils I have been wrapping, and I thought the drawing Wings showed was correct! Gary, is there a drawing someplace as detailed as the one Wings just showed that is correct if that one is NOT? Or is it correct? I am way confused at this point.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi Turion, the coil setup that garry prescribes is to have at least one pair of coils wired in parallel, now it doesn't matter whether you have the 2 coils separate or they are virtually back to back as garry made his motor. So, from there you can add more coil pairs that are paralleled and then put all the paralleled coil pairs in series as garry did and as my motor is wired, which raises resistance so huge rated transistors are not needed. I still have to get my tachometer going, a little slow on getting things done lately, though my motor with 24 volt input and coils are almost 4 ohm total resistance in series/parallel just like garrys, each coil is about 2.5 ohms. With that input and when grasping the threaded 5/8" shaft, it takes just about all my strength to stop the shaft at about 1.4A on meter. Hope that helps.
peace love light
Tyson

[bolt1]

if you are going to use a motor on a bike you need 250watts will just about move it on a flat. 350 watts will do about 10mph on flat but the slightest hill will kill it. 500 watts is just about enough to make it worth while putting all the extra weight and batteries on a bike and will assist on some moderate hills but only if you are prepared to peddle hard also up hills.

Down hill with 500 watts you can do 35mph. With 600 watts+ now you are getting into a low power moped engine ability to cruise around at a good 20mph cope with most slight hills not too much problem.

Rather than making special motors its better to look at pulse recovery systems and regenerative power savings and dump this to second battery and alternate the batteries like a Bedini charger.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi bolt1, your numbers may be correct with certain setups, however realize garry's motor moved his bike with all extras around 300lbs. at about 12.5mph for 100 watt input. Now that was on flat ground, though if one were to attach this or any motor to the crank set on a bike, the gearing can be used and would increase overall practicality for hills and such.
Hi gyula, I also would like to thank you for your contributions to this thread, this quote and link are especially helpful.

But it gets better. :-)
If we have just the one coil hitting a magnet, the force repelling the magnet will be the sum of the strength of both B fields. So in case one with one coil and one magnet, and let us say the magnet has the same B field of 2,500 gauss, then the repelling force will be 5,000 gauss. Now in our third case with the series parallel circuit, with 4 coils repelling 4 magnets, the total repelling B field against 4 magnets of 2,500 gauss each plus the electromagnet B field strength of 1,250 gauss for 3,750 gauss times 4 coil permanent magnet & electromagnet pairs for a TOTAL B field repelling strength of 15,000 gauss. This is THREE times the field strength of the single coil alone. This is with the same input of five amps as in case. Input watts is totally irrelevant to output.

YouTube - Electromagnet Testing
And here's a quote from ian who made this previous video link, it's about his motor tests.

This uses the same amount of power running with one coils as the other motor with eight coils. Yet this one I can stop with two fingers, and the other I could not stop with all of my strength in my hand without burning my fingers The single coil motor here runs at 2325 rpm and the one with eight coils at 2400 rpm. So they run at virtually the same speed and power input (~7 watts), yet the torque and hp on the eight coil unit is much greater for sure. Sorry I don't have prony brake numbers for you all. I put on on the eight coil model and it bounced to much to get a good reading. The four to five times power mechanical power output is my best guess by comparing with trying to stop the eight coil motor from spinning with that of an AC fan that was rated at 45 watts...

Folks, I agree with this statement "Input watts is totally irrelevant to output".
how many experimental proofs do we need. I think there is a mind block occurring here, where people are focused on comparing input/output of one setup, without realizing as these people are pointing out that we just gained 4 or 5 times more work output for the same input. Something about the way we are measuring one context verse another context is clouding reality it seems. Would like to hear your thoughts.
peace love light
Tyson

[Ted Ewert]

Folks, I agree with this statement "Input watts is totally irrelevant to output".
how many experimental proofs do we need. I think there is a mind block occurring here, where people are focused on comparing input/output of one setup, without realizing as these people are pointing out that we just gained 4 or 5 times more work output for the same input. Something about the way we are measuring one context verse another context is clouding reality it seems. Would like to hear your thoughts.
peace love light
Tyson

Grabbing the shaft is not a valid way of determining a motor's efficiency. We need to use testing procedures that accurately illustrate input power and output power.
Even if a motor "feels" stronger as you grip the shaft, you have no idea how much more power you're drawing as a result of the load you are putting on it (and you will be drawing more power).
Without cold, hard numbers you're lost. I spent a lot of time thinking I was perfecting a great motor design until I actually tested the damn thing. I didn't waste any more time on it after that.
How much time, energy and money do you want to spend on an unknown quantity? How can you really improve what you have without knowing exactly what it can do? You have to test it.

Ted

[SkyWatcher]

Hi Ted, I understand all you are speaking of and I have made and tested other motors with a prony brake. I understand the value of that kind of testing, though it is interesting to note that as we expand this motor with more coils and magnets, that it is providing more and more work for the same input. Ian's tests with his motor's show the same things mine have, the motor outputs more work for the same input when we add more copper and magnets, maintaining the same total coil resistance. I know all the arguments against this simple observation. I think Joseph Newman's motors, clearly highlight this observation and of course I know all the arguments against Newman's work.
I guess my question to you Ted or anyone else is. Do you think that this observation has any practical value? Again as in Ian's motor examples, he used one coil on a motor with 7watt input and easily stopped shaft with fingers, then another motor with 8 coils and same 7watt input and had to use almost all his strength with same fingers to stop the motor. I think this concept can be carried much further for much greater outputs for that same 7watt input. Ian pointed out that both motors he tested had the same total coil resistance, so they had the same input. This to me is just another example of the fact that the magnetic field comes from the coil, not the battery.
peace love light
Tyson

[Ted Ewert]

Hi Tyson,
I think what you're seeing with more coils, and the same input impedance, is more surface area coming into play. Torque is a function of not only flux density, but equally important is a large surface area between the rotor pole and the stator. With more coils there is more surface area for the same amount of input current.
I agree that a lot of the gain is in good coil design. If you want to get more efficiency out of your coils, I would suggest going up in both impedance and voltage. At higher pulse rates, higher impedance coils are much more efficient. There is a balance there too.
BTW, I found some 1/4" thick steel discs on ebay. I ordered two 12" discs for $14.00 ea, which I thought was a great deal. The vendor is ccracesupply if you're interested. My local hardware store wants $34.00 for a 12" x 12" plate of 1/4" mild steel!
I also ordered some steel from a place called Speedy Metals Speedy Metals Online Industrial Metal Supply
They have good prices and will sell small quantities for the same low price. Even with shipping they're a lot cheaper than my local suppliers.
I'm going to build a motor with the same general design as yours except that the cores will be steel. It will work in the repulsion mode for the magnet (after the magnet has been attracted to the core), and the attraction mode for a piece of steel coming right after the magnet. This will generate both push and pull on the same pulse, plus the added torque of the magnet being attracted to the core in the first place.
The trick will be to make the whole thing rigid enough so that the cores don't get pulled into the rotor magnets. If I can pull it off, I think this concept might have some torque.

Cheers,

Ted

[woopy]

Hi all

always trying to understand what is going on here.

so my estimations for now

1- one advantage of the Garry motor is to use both side of the coil.

2 - Garry uses pairs of parallel coils and these pair are connected in series.

3- the position and wiring of these pairs is not determined by Garry himself.

And so far i have tried , if i oppose the induction pair , that is to say that one coil flux is regarding in opposite to her sister's flux , there is absolute no BEMF but also absolute no MOTION, and no torque.
So the pairs must be connected as per Wings recently posted shematic. But this shematic does not show opposite flux between the coils. And so far i have tested in this config, there is a very beautifull and important generative wave on the scope. See pix

4- The generative wave seems not to brake the rotor, AS LONG AS NO LOAD IS CONNECTED on the coils. That is to say that this generative wave does not disturb the torque , but can not be used for annex work.

Is this generation used by the coil ? I mean is it possible that this energy generation can contribute to the power of the coil ? Or is it lost ?

5 -on this type of pulse motor (pix 4 ) there is a sharp but very very thin (very weak) kick bak spike associated with a very high generative wave.

for comparison i post here (pix 1 and 2 ) of another pulse motor concept which also uses both side of the coil with a U shape laminated core. As you can see the wave scope trace is fondamentely different. (pix 5 )and (see the video i made some days ago and the results )

resumee

A- on Garry's or Ossie 's motor there is a nice and great , but unusefull generative wave trace almost as big as the pulse's trace. And also a very weak kick back spike,
but potentially big torque for a very light weight,

B- on the U shape cored with big (a lot of very thin copper wire ) coil , there is almost no generative trace , only a very squared impulse trace with at the end , a very deep and large enough to be efficient and usable kick back trace.
But weak torque and big weight.


YouTube - motor with kickback spike-generator.wmv

hope this helps

good luck at all

Laurent

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, thanks for your thoughts Ted, look forward to seeing your progress on that super motor your building. Hi woopy, thanks for making all those tests, any test is a good test. Ok folks, I know this isn't the Joseph Newman thread, however since gyula posted his information and Ians and woopy's results are a corroboration of Newman's work, I think it has a place here.

RELEASE (May 17, 1999)
THE "AMP-TURN" SO-CALLED "LAW" IS NOT A LAW OF NATURE!
This past week a caring physicist from the Department of Energy of a foreign country invested several days with myself and my life's work for humanity. I do not provide his name in this news release due to the scum-cowards and "mouthpieces for the power brokers" who would seek to unjustly attack him. For all honest and truly caring individuals, the following is his personal testimonial which he prepared following our meeting:
"NEW SOURCE OF ENERGY FROM E = mc^2 --- SAFE, INEXPENSIVE,
AND NON-POLLUTING
"Enrico Fermi, utilizing 400 tons of radioactive material, produced a tiny 0.5 watts energy output which has startedthe nuclear race with all its misery - the threat of humanannihilation, worldwide nuclear waste disposal problems,etc. With no fancy equipment, Joseph Newman --- as witnessed and verified by me --- is now producing with his Newman Energy Machine, for everyone to come and witness, a 1.2 horsepower (890 W) output when a 40 lb. shaft force is applied and with only a power input of a mere 477W (1.2 A, 389 V). That is a power conversion efficiency of more than 100%. The extra 413 W generated could thus only come from a similar mass energy conversion, but thousands of times more efficient than Fermi's nuclear reactor (Fermi 0.5 W from 400 tons vs. Newman 413 W from 400 lbs. of material). In comparison, a 400-ton Newman Energy Machine should then be able to sustain a force of 80,000 lbs on its shaft with
a power input of less than 477 Watts. "Joseph Newman also clearly demonstrated to me that the so-called "Amp Turn Law" was not a law. I witnessed 0.2 A drawn by the Newman Energy Machine motor coil and the motor would not rotate (12 Volts applied, 2.4 W). When the current drawn by the Newman Energy Machine motor coil was 20 times less (0.01 A) (coil turns the same), the Newman Energy Machine starts to rotate (50 Volts applied, 0.5 W). The power output was significantly more when 50 Volts was applied. This demonstration clearly convinced me that the Newman Energy Machine runs on Volts and not on Amps as taught and told by Joseph Newman; not Amps, but Mass (mc^2), and the greater the Mass, the greater the power output. "Applying 6.75 W (4.5 A, 1.5 V) to a conventional modern electric motor rated at an efficiency of 80% and more, and geared down for max torque, I could easily with one hand stop its rotation while the power (6.75 W) was being applied. By contrast, when applying only 0.5 W (50 V, 0.01 A) to the 400 lb. Newman Energy Machine, I could not --- even with both hands -- stop the Newman Energy Machine from rotating. "This was all witnessed and verified by me, and yet no one, not even Joseph Newman's neighbors, are rushing to witness this technology. People knowing this and not doing something about it are simply guilty of a crime of humanity. The Newman Energy Machine utilizes mass and voltage pressure to produce this nearly 100% mass to
energy conversion. Amps -- for which we pay -- are of no significance to the operation of the Energy Machine. "The Newman Energy Machine can easily be constructed from inexpensive materials (waste iron, aluminum) which makes it affordable for all people of the earth. The electricity produced by the Newman Energy Machine is also cheap as it does not run on amps (for which we now pay), but on mass and voltage.

http://a.imageshack.us/img816/3468/newmanpage1.jpg
http://a.imageshack.us/img816/9431/newmanpage2.jpg
http://a.imageshack.us/img816/9411/newmanpage3.jpg
http://a.imageshack.us/img816/8281/newmanpage4.jpg
http://a.imageshack.us/img816/1728/newmanpage5.jpg
http://a.imageshack.us/img816/919/newmanpage6.jpg
peace love light
Tyson

[gyula]

Hi Garry,

I have made a drawing to illustrate your pulse motor setup as I remember and understand it, please take a look at it and tell if anything is wrong, I will correct the drawing accordingly.

Once we make your setup a 100% understandable for all the Folks here, then hopefully more people are encouraged to test it. Feel free to supply further details like magnets type, transistor type, etc.

rgds, Gyula

[gyula]

I have read through this entire thread trying to understand exactly how to wire the coils I have been wrapping, and I thought the drawing Wings showed was correct! Gary, is there a drawing someplace as detailed as the one Wings just showed that is correct if that one is NOT? Or is it correct? I am way confused at this point.

Hi Turion,

See my previous post with the drawing, hopefully Garry will find it ok and then all the setup is clear.
The drawing Wings showed was an earlier setup but it had only one magnet rotating between two facing coils, it gives good results too but Garry developed it further to use a second rotor magnet, facing the first one and the two flat coils are sandwiched between the facing NS rotor magnets, thus he got more torque.

Probably somewhere in computer repair shops/services one can still find those old 5 1/4" floppy disk drives in which the flat coils were used. Such flat coils are also used in video tape recorders' so called capstain motors, maybe their mechanical size is a bit different but it would not be a problem here.

rgds, Gyula

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, thanks for the diagram and information gyula, hope it helps anyone. I ran some more tests with my motor to verify Newman's principle and that which woopy and Ian discovered as well. I wired all 6 coils in series and started with 2 coils connected in series with 24 volt input, with a draw of 1amp for 24 watts @ 5 ohms total coil resistance, the motor had little torque and could not maintain much load at a particular speed. Then I wired 4 coils in series with 36 volt input, with a draw of around 700milliamps for around 24 watts @ 10 ohms total coil resistance, the motor had much greater torque and could maintain a higher load at a particular speed. Then I wired all 6 coils in series with 48 volt input, with a draw of around .5amps for around 24 watts @ 15 ohms total coil resistance, the motor again had even greater torque and could now burn my hands at a particular speed. I think this is very significant and by increasing amount of coils and magnets the motor would supply even greater and greater shaft work with the same input watts. I'd like to hear your thoughts about this.
peace love light
Tyson