Inductive Collapse - capture and use

[garrypm]

Hi,

I started a new thread because I wanted to use the correct term for it.

Below is a small self osc circuit that produces spikes.

On the scope, with respect to ground -

6 -10v above 0, going positive, and
200 - 250v below 0, going negative

I undertstand that I could take the positive going spike via a diode and pump
this into a battery (ala bedini).

Can someone please explain how to make use of the much larger, negative
going spike ?

I also have a small neon across the Collector/Emitter.

Thanks, Garry

[elias]

The positive spike is what provided by the battery, the negative spike can be captured by the diode.

Think of it like this:
When you charge an inductor it develops current, and when you remove the charge from it, it wants to maintain its current. That current is being captured by the diode in a Bedini style circuit.

[Joit]

That why i assume, that usual the Coils are at Collector Side, the Diode goes away there, where the negative Spikes appear.
But at a SG(Bedini Schoolgirl-motor)the Potential between C and Plus is used, so you may wanna use your probe at Collector and Minus to Plus-Source.

But i seriously dont know, if Scopes are not lying about the Potentials,
I followed the Pulse, and it did go through the Coils in direction Plus.

[Farmhand]

Any reverse spike of might automatically go back to the source.

The real question is. Does building the magnetic field in a coil consume power ?
Or in other words do we pay for it ?

If the power input and output of the coil are measured when the field collapse
energy is being removed, is there a difference to account for the power removed ?

One way to find out for sure. Experiment.

Maybe someone already tested that.

Cheers

[elias]

Any reverse spike of might automatically go back to the source.

The real question is. Does building the magnetic field in a coil consume power ?
Or in other words do we pay for it ?

If the power input and output of the coil are measured when the field collapse
energy is being removed, is there a difference to account for the power removed ?

One way to find out for sure. Experiment.

Maybe someone already tested that.

Cheers

Hi Farmhand
That was the idea of the Lindemann attraction motor, but it has failed to work to date, I have personally made such a motor, but was unable to attain a good amount of torque, simply put, the magnetic field attracts Iron much poorly than a magnet thus much lower torque, using a magnet in place of an Iron core will decrease the amount of back spike we can capture I think, As in Bedini motors the back spike "conventional energy" output was about 30%.

Even Jetijs, built really good stuff, but mechanical effciencies were about 25% at most as I recall correctly.

Although, I do believe that the back spike is really emitted from the vacuum after years of experimentation. But to get that energy you have to put more energy into the coil. Maybe someone will find a way to extract that energy from the coil without putting that much to it.


Elias

[mbrownn]

Hi,

I started a new thread because I wanted to use the correct term for it.

Below is a small self osc circuit that produces spikes.

On the scope, with respect to ground -

6 -10v above 0, going positive, and
200 - 250v below 0, going negative

I undertstand that I could take the positive going spike via a diode and pump
this into a battery (ala bedini).

Can someone please explain how to make use of the much larger, negative
going spike ?

I also have a small neon across the Collector/Emitter.

Thanks, Garry

Interesting, Negative spikes, where is your probe on the circuit?

Negative radiant is what is associated with high overunity effects with lead acid batteries, cold electricity etc although I never measured much on my circuits I got the effects. Including crystallizing a battery.

Be warned negative energy can render a battery useless.


My advice is to collect negative in a capacitor before discharging to a battery.

[garrypm]

@mbrown,

The scope probe is at the emitter and the ground is at battery negative.

Thanks, Garry

[mbrownn]

Hi Farmhand
That was the idea of the Lindemann attraction motor, but it has failed to work to date, I have personally made such a motor, but was unable to attain a good amount of torque, simply put, the magnetic field attracts Iron much poorly than a magnet thus much lower torque, using a magnet in place of an Iron core will decrease the amount of back spike we can capture I think, As in Bedini motors the back spike "conventional energy" output was about 30%.

Even Jetijs, built really good stuff, but mechanical effciencies were about 25% at most as I recall correctly.

Although, I do believe that the back spike is really emitted from the vacuum after years of experimentation. But to get that energy you have to put more energy into the coil. Maybe someone will find a way to extract that energy from the coil without putting that much to it.


Elias

I built a Lindemann attraction motor too and got poor recovery, worse than you mention. In an attraction motor, I believe much is lost in the rotor and eddy currents but I believe inductance may be lowered too causing lower than expected recovery.

I used a rewound induction motor with a re-machined stator and was able to get static torque at 71% of what I calculated but only around 16% motor efficiency when running. I'm sure there wasn't ideal timing but recovery was in line with the efficiency of 16% Friction could not explain the loss of torque so something else was happening. Splitting the stator case improved speed and torque but the case warped and jammed the rotor before I got any measurements. I concluded that eddy currents must be the problem due to the fact that I got increased speed with a split in the case.

If you take your Bedini SSG and close the magnetic loop on the coil the recovery drops too on the radiant spike but not the amps in the flyback. This is when your charging battery is connected to the negative of your source and not the positive.

From this I learned that your charging battery on a normal pulsed motor needs to be similar to the source in voltage and not above it as in a Bedini.

If your using a closed magnetic loop such as in a normal motor, you have to recover the kickback differently and this is "normal" electricity and not radiant. To do this the switching is different.

[elias]

The Newman Motor

I built a Lindemann attraction motor too and got poor recovery, worse than you mention. In an attraction motor, I believe much is lost in the rotor and eddy currents but I believe inductance may be lowered too causing lower than expected recovery.

I used a rewound induction motor with a re-machined stator and was able to get static torque at 71% of what I calculated but only around 16% motor efficiency when running. I'm sure there wasn't ideal timing but recovery was in line with the efficiency of 16% Friction could not explain the loss of torque so something else was happening. Splitting the stator case improved speed and torque but the case warped and jammed the rotor before I got any measurements. I concluded that eddy currents must be the problem due to the fact that I got increased speed with a split in the case.

If you take your Bedini SSG and close the magnetic loop on the coil the recovery drops too on the radiant spike but not the amps in the flyback. This is when your charging battery is connected to the negative of your source and not the positive.

From this I learned that your charging battery on a normal pulsed motor needs to be similar to the source in voltage and not above it as in a Bedini.

If your using a closed magnetic loop such as in a normal motor, you have to recover the kickback differently and this is "normal" electricity and not radiant. To do this the switching is different.

Yes I want to give some advice to all of those who want to build efficient motors,

The Newman motor is the most efficient beast I have built to date. It produced amazing torque. So anyone who wants to build a motor should go with that one, and also use hall effect + mosfets/igbts for switching high voltage. Its efficiency goes upto 95%, or maybe more than that, maybe more than 100% but I was unable to confirm more than unity. Maybe lower gauge wire was needed for over unity results.

Newman used the inductive collapse also to drive the rotor, so he had designed a commutator that fired, then shorted the coil, in consecutive steps, that made his motor really efficient.


For this purpose I built a special circuit using mosfets and hall effects and square wave generators, to repeatedly fire and short my coil so that it operates more efficiently.

If you want to build a Newman motor, follow the instruction of JNaudin: The Newman's Energy Machine tested by JL Naudin, and use hall effect for switching instead of a commutator, which is inefficient and noisy, unless you have means to develop a good commutator and avoid the LARGE SPARKING of 300V or so.

Don't expect overunity but if you get it you are lucky, then share it with us .

I suspect that it might get overunity but at the cost of so much copper, I used 14kg of copper. The more copper your system has you can produce the same amount of magnetic field with less current, at the cost of lowering the speed of your rotor, because of increasing the BEMF.

Good Luck

Edit: I noticed moments ago that Naudin has removed the link to Newman motor version 2 which shows results of 252% overunity: The Newman's Machine v2.0 - Towards Free Energy ?, That means you cannot access the page from his website, unless you google it.

Naudin's main page:
The Newman's Energy Machine tested by JL Naudin

Why? Is it because it is true, or because it is false, which one?

I am getting a bit serious to built a Newman motor again. But this time with finer wire. I was using about 2 Watts of energy and getting 1.8 watts out of it, Naudin uses about 100mW and gets 250mW out of it. It makes sense. The problem with the Newman motor has been always the price of copper, he has used 2 tons of copper for his large motor!

[barbosi]

Hi,

I started a new thread because I wanted to use the correct term for it.

Below is a small self osc circuit that produces spikes.

On the scope, with respect to ground -

6 -10v above 0, going positive, and
200 - 250v below 0, going negative

I undertstand that I could take the positive going spike via a diode and pump
this into a battery (ala bedini).

Can someone please explain how to make use of the much larger, negative
going spike ?

I also have a small neon across the Collector/Emitter.

Thanks, Garry

Garry,

Could you redraw the schematic... the way is shown it should not work (unless an undocumented feature of 3055).
It looks to me that inadvertently you may have flipped vertically the transistor's symbol; the coils are the load in collector circuit.

Regards.

[mbrownn]

Yes I want to give some advice to all of those who want to build efficient motors,

The Newman motor is the most efficient beast I have built to date. It produced amazing torque. So anyone who wants to build a motor should go with that one, and also use hall effect + mosfets/igbts for switching high voltage. Its efficiency goes upto 95%, or maybe more than that, maybe more than 100% but I was unable to confirm more than unity. Maybe lower gauge wire was needed for over unity results.

Newman used the inductive collapse also to drive the rotor, so he had designed a commutator that fired, then shorted the coil, in consecutive steps, that made his motor really efficient.


For this purpose I built a special circuit using mosfets and hall effects and square wave generators, to repeatedly fire and short my coil so that it operates more efficiently.

If you want to build a Newman motor, follow the instruction of JNaudin: The Newman's Energy Machine tested by JL Naudin, and use hall effect for switching instead of a commutator, which is inefficient and noisy, unless you have means to develop a good commutator and avoid the LARGE SPARKING of 300V or so.

Don't expect overunity but if you get it you are lucky, then share it with us .

I suspect that it might get overunity but at the cost of so much copper, I used 14kg of copper. The more copper your system has you can produce the same amount of magnetic field with less current, at the cost of lowering the speed of your rotor, because of increasing the BEMF.

Good Luck

Edit: I noticed moments ago that Naudin has removed the link to Newman motor version 2 which shows results of 252% overunity: The Newman's Machine v2.0 - Towards Free Energy ?, That means you cannot access the page from his website, unless you google it.

Naudin's main page:
The Newman's Energy Machine tested by JL Naudin

Why? Is it because it is true, or because it is false, which one?

I am getting a bit serious to built a Newman motor again. But this time with finer wire. I was using about 2 Watts of energy and getting 1.8 watts out of it, Naudin uses about 100mW and gets 250mW out of it. It makes sense. The problem with the Newman motor has been always the price of copper, he has used 2 tons of copper for his large motor!

I suspect your motor was around 50% efficient and its recovery took it close to 100%. There is much about the Newman motor that looks good, less iron means less losses, low speed means less BEMF and high supply voltage to BEMF ratio, but I suspect the circuit that people are using has something missing. The circuit used should give a theoretical 200% if there were no losses but in reality I think 140 is more reasonable. Notice with the Bedini SSG theoretical maximum efficiency is 200%, the best actual I got was a little over 100% but some of that was mechanical power and not electrical.

The real output in all these devices IS the mechanical.

Take a look at Aviso's car, It is PWM with coil shorting to generate high voltage; I wont give away his secret as he deserves to make something out of it, but he is able to maintain his battery charge and power a car. The output is mechanical. Its the same with the Gray motor. Pulsed DC, high input voltage to BEMF ratio (this is what give the motor power) recover the energy in the spike and use it to power the motor with a little top up from the battery. Its the same with the Lockridge device, They all use different techniques to do the same thing.

If I am right, I will be sharing it with you when I have a working unit.

[garrypm]

Garry,

Could you redraw the schematic... the way is shown it should not work (unless an undocumented feature of 3055).
It looks to me that inadvertently you may have flipped vertically the transistor's symbol; the coils are the load in collector circuit.

Regards.

Hi Barbosi,

The transistor in use is an MJE13007. The circuit is as drawn. The coil is one
winding over another. I swipe a magnet past the ferrite core and the circuit
begins to oscilate.

Thanks, Garry

[barbosi]

Hi Barbosi,

The transistor in use is an MJE13007. The circuit is as drawn. The coil is one
winding over another. I swipe a magnet past the ferrite core and the circuit
begins to oscilate.

Thanks, Garry

Hi Garry,

I redrawn your schematic. As it was cluttered with some tracks and connection dots, it made it confusing. Please confirm if it is what you have built.

My stupefaction comes from the polarity of battery which in your case looks that you reversed polarised the NPN transistor. I marked this in your schematic with the text "Battery_Minus" and "Battery_Plus".

I ask this because in my knowledge just a few transistors have been documented to work in the region of reverse polarity, entering into an undocumented region of negative resistance.

I hope you would understand my request to review my attached schematic.

Thanks.

[garrypm]

Hi Barbosi,

No, that is not correct.

I have the positive from the battey going to the collector. The negative is wired
directly to one side of the coil. From the emitter I connect to the other side
of the coil. The base is driven from the point where the two coils are joined.

Remember, the coil is 2 windings. The first layers (coil) are heavier
than the outer coil. This is a typical pinball machine flipper coil. Heavy winding
to pull in the plunger then, lighter coil to hold plunger in as heavy (power) coil
is released.

If you need, I can take a pic while metering for you.

Thanks, Garry.

[barbosi]

Hi Garry,

Hi Barbosi,

No, that is not correct.

I have the positive from the battey going to the collector. The negative is wired directly to one side of the coil. From the emitter I connect to the other side of the coil. The base is driven from the point where the two coils are joined.

That makes sense, thanks for clarification.

If you need, I can take a pic while metering for you.

Thanks, Garry.

That would be nice.

Regards.