Peg Motor

[Armagdn03]

John Bedini gave me this wonderful endorsement for some work I did several years ago, but did not know I never made it public domain.

@Armagdn03
I just wanted to say I was reading A post you made on another group about the Peg motor and it is the best Analysis I have ever seen on a motor of that type. Not that I'm into that but I just wanted to complement you on your work. When you right no one can defeat you epically Ted.
But I guess they never tried to make it. If I had a way you could use my machines but your far away. The work is excellent and I mean that.
John B

*Universe Engine*
A long time back I posted this at the beginning of Dr. Lindemann's thread "electric motor secrets"

I rarely, post..... and Personally im no motor builder, but I think something is being missed by most on this thread.

I have read several people ask about generators, however the motor in its present incarnation is not all it could be, this is most likely to get the home experimenter comfortable with the basics before moving on.

Take for example an AC generator, with field windings, and permanent magnets on the rotor. The field windings could easily be wound into an LC circuit making the motor supposedly run on reactive power. However, what is not immediately obvious is that the rotation of the rotor will impart upon the filed windings an EMF from the magnets directly related to its rotational speed and the number of poles on the rotor. This counter emf per lenz law will create a frequency within the LC at varying speeds (depending on rev-up, down, loading, etc) which will not match its resonant frequency, hence hindering the resonant rise, Q, and overal efficiency of the motor. However if you had a lenz less motor, the result would be a rotation caused by the driving circuit independent of a generated EMF due to the rotation of the rotor. Such a motor could be run by a resonant circuit, returning all power given to it back to the source, in this case, the source might locally constitute a capacitor with an impedance matching the drive coils for a particular frequency. This tank circuit would be allowed to oscillate freely, without having to worry about any stray emf frequencies created by the rotor.

This cannot be easily applied in its present form to the current motor as it stands. The rotation of the current model is dependent on the position of the rotor with respect to the pole projections of the stator. This means that frequency of operation within the drive coils is dependent on rotor speed, meaning it too is tied down to rev-ups, downs, variable loading etc. In order to reach a reactive state at a particular frequency, the rotor would have to spin at a very specific speed.

Also noted, is that the inductive properties of this motor change constantly! which is terrible for such a design. Hence the fact that it is a variable reluctance motor. This property too is detrimental to reactive conditions.

BUT! it has one of the problems solved, and clever geometries and tricks can solve other problems. Such as reactive rotors (Tesla has patented them) constant reluctance rotors (would need a simulated rotating field, where poles switch at a phase less than 180 degrees) and other ideas come to mind.

What you were all given is gold, but it is far from where it could be, and I get a sneaking suspicion that the only thing that is holding Dr Lindeman back from advancing ideas publicly at this point is the overall comprehension, i.e. no point in leaving people behind at this point.

Get clever with similar concepts and you can apply it all to solid state as well, leaving behind the need for kinetic power supplies.
(like I said im no motor builder........ )

And thank you Dr. Lindeman for your work teaching, and taking the time help people out. I have given you an unfair shake in the past.

This thread will discuss the embodiment I was discussing. Below is Lindemanns response.

[Armagdn03]

Here was Dr. Lindemann's telling response....

Originally Posted by Peter Lindemann View Post
Dear Armagdn03,

Thank you for your kind and insightful remarks. With regard to your post about the Jim Murray Generator design, I have known Jim Murray for 20 years and we published this patent in Borderland Magazine back in the 1980's. All of the people I worked with in Santa Barbara, including Mike Knox, Eric Dollard, and Chris Carson, met with Jim Murray a number of times after I moved away in 1992. Jim and Eric subsequently solved the solid-state method for converting reactive power back to real power using Jim's methods applied to Eric's FOUR QUADRANT THEORY of electric waves. All of these things you mention have already been accomplished.

While Jim has built working models of this generator, getting all of the electrical and physical resonances in phase is tricky. The machine does NOT exhibit drag free operation until these conditions are all balanced and synchronized. Still and all, it does PROVE that electric motors and generators are NOT converting mechanical energy into electrical energy. The First Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to properly built motors and generators. For those of us who know the truth, this is not a problem.

As you have correctly stated, there is little purpose showing more precise theory in a forum like this when the model building difficulty only gets worse than what has already been shown. I will tell you plainly, however, that the CONSTANT RELUCTANCE MOTOR is the ticket and special geometries are the method of accomplishment. When the reluctance does not change at all during the power stroke, then the inductance of the circuit remains relatively constant as well. This allows for the design of a true, constant speed, synchronous motor that produces maximum mechanical power on 95% reactive power and about 5% real power. This allows a COP=20 operation as technically feasible.

For those who are interested, here is a link to a rare film of Jim Murray speaking on the history of his work. Most of the concepts are quite beyond the beginner level, and the cinematography is D-, but the information is A+++.

Enjoy.

Jim Murray

Peter

How do we accomplish???? Stay tuned! This is fun.

[Armagdn03]

The concept is loosely modeled after my understanding of our solar system.



This is a birds eye view of the rotor (with four poles) and rotor (with four poles).

The poles are simply ferromagnetic cylinders much like you get with ferrite Antenna found in old AM radios. The only job of the rotor is to spin these poles into and out of alignment with the stator poles.

Now imagine that above this setup, (and below) we place a ferromagnetic toroids which covers all the poles simultaneously.

Here the toroid is shown semi transparent so you can view the setup.

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...3/Picture1.jpg

Connecting the top and bottom toroid is an inductor.



Inductor shown in red. As you can see, the pegs of the rotor and stator complete the magnetic path of the inductor.

The same polarity will be induced on both the stator and rotor pegs.

Fact: when two bar magnets are aligned with poles in the same orientation (such as the rotor and stator) they will repel. Hence, when the rotor pegs, and the stator pegs are aligned, they want to move apart. Obviously they will move till the rotor pegs are directly inbetween two stator pegs, and then there will be equal repulsion from both sides. The firing circuit of the solenoid needs to take this into account. This is the mechanism through which rotation is induced..

What is so special about this design? It nearly constant reluctance and inductance. Imagine hooking up an inductance meter to the solenoid. Now spin the rotor, will the inductance change much? Through out the full rotation, there is always the same amount of ferromagnetic material in the magnetic path, hence very little change. Also, rotation will cause NO EMF, you can spin this guy all you want, and you will never get an iota of power out the inductor, like in conventional motor systems.

The constant inductance and reluctance mean up to 95 percent of the input to the inductor can be recovered (unlike peters motor, and conventional motors)

If I were to use a recovery circuit, it would probably look something like this....



Optically switched, this can charge the inductor at the correct moment, causing rotation, then recover the pulse for the next pulse. This solves all the problems Peters motor had. It can act reactively at all speeds.

I put the answer plain as day in the first few pages of that thread, I just left out how to do it. Other ways are possible as well, the key ingredient is

Constant reluctance, constant inductance,

[Armagdn03]

Response from TED

There will be very little torque developed by this design. An open ring will dissipate at least half of the magnetic field before it even reaches the pegs. The gaps will also provide a high impedance path for the B field, and torque is all about the B field.
I don't mean to throw a wet blanket on this concept, because the concept is unique and interesting, but in this form it simply can't develop any serious power.
The only gain this motor has is in the magnetization of the pegs, everything else is a loss. Forget about BEMF and changing inductances, they're irrelevant. To make this OU, the geometry would have to be completely different and it would have to be huge in size.
Making a motor efficient is relatively easy. I can build you a motor that turns on almost nothing. But who cares?
Building a motor with a large COP is what we need. To do that you need a constant source of "free" energy, such as a magnet.
Without a magnet in a motor, you only have the input power to develop torque from, which will always result in a COP<1.
Peter Lindeman is [wrong] about his theory on motors and BEMF. I will be more than happy to explain exactly what BEMF is and what it does in a motor if anyone is confused about it. BEMF is NOT a problem, in fact it is vitally necessary to the proper and efficient operation of a motor.
Sorry about the rant, but I've been down this road many times and know it quite well.

Ted
__________________
Learn to build, build to learn.

[Armagdn03]

Second Response from TED

Hi Eric,
No, I haven't. My opinion is based solely on all the similar motors I've built.
There is nothing mysterious or magical about the way electromagnetic motors operate. I've built many and studied them in great detail. IMHO, this particular design will probably turn, but it will be very inefficient and will develop very little power.
For one thing, the strength of a magnetic field decreases exponentially with distance. The "torque" range of two round steel pegs, which radiate their magnetic field a full 360 degrees, will be about 1 mm. After that the force between the two pegs will decrease dramatically.
An attracting magnetic field will have a tendency to focus itself between two ferromagnetic objects. A repelling field, which this motor uses, does just the opposite and fans out and away from the two sources, further decreasing the interaction.
How can you gain any efficiency under those conditions?
Again, I don't want to discourage new and innovative ideas, and I like the thinking behind this idea too. But it's difficult to change the way magnetic fields behave, and we have to play by their rules. I'm only relaying information here I've learned the hard way.
I welcome an alternative explanation that proves me absolutely wrong.

Ted

For a more detailed explanation of my theory of motor operation, see this post

[Armagdn03]

double post

[Armagdn03]

Originally Posted by Ted View Post (my response in red)
There will be very little torque developed by this design. An open ring will dissipate at least half of the magnetic field before it even reaches the pegs. The gaps will also provide a high impedance path for the B field, and torque is all about the B field.

I have a problem with this statement. Mainly it is that an "open ring" will not dissipate anything really. What it does is create a large impedance for the pole to pole connection of flux lines. This causes a drop n inductance, which means that Less energy total will be stored within the structure. however this is a trade off, the decreased inductance causes a decrease in time constants, and the inductor can reach its max value faster.

If it were true that the open design dissipates half of the stored energy, then LC circuits made with open inductors would have a coefficient of restitution (bounce back factor or Q) of less than .5, which means that each cycle looses at least 50% energy, and this is not the case.



I don't mean to throw a wet blanket on this concept, because the concept is unique and interesting, but in this form it simply can't develop any serious power.
The only gain this motor has is in the magnetization of the pegs, everything else is a loss. Forget about BEMF and changing inductances, they're irrelevant. To make this OU, the geometry would have to be completely different and it would have to be huge in size.

I have to really disagree here, The gain this motor has is due to the magnetization of the pegs, while through separation of time, returning all energy that was imparted to the pegs. It gains a power stroke, while returning the energy imparted to cause this condition. If you have a tank circuit, and you have 95 percent reactive power, you are loosing 5% to loss, if you get a mechanical movement to boot, and there is no difference in the reactive state, then you are on to something.

I definitely contend that BEMF and changing inductance play a rather large role within a motor designed to run on reactive power. I can back this up with a mathematical analysis if you like.

Making a motor efficient is relatively easy. I can build you a motor that turns on almost nothing. But who cares?
Building a motor with a large COP is what we need. To do that you need a constant source of "free" energy, such as a magnet.
Without a magnet in a motor, you only have the input power to develop torque from, which will always result in a COP<1.

Again, I am sorry I cannot buy this, mainly because I have built several machines without a permanent field source, which output more than in. This is accomplished through a separation in time between action and reaction. This is how Winsonali's solid state generator worked when he was still around, had a few conversations with him on the subject. The last statement there is not technically correct either, the input power develops the torque then is returned virtually unaltered. Therefore you have input power in = 1unit electrical, torque may equal say .5unit mechanical, with a return of .9 units electrical this speaks for itself.

If you were calculating using input 1, output mechanical .5, then you are discounting the reactive component, which is all too relevant.

Peter Lindeman is [wrong] about his theory on motors and BEMF. I will be more than happy to explain exactly what BEMF is and what it does in a motor if anyone is confused about it. BEMF is NOT a problem, in fact it is vitally necessary to the proper and efficient operation of a motor.
Sorry about the rant, but I've been down this road many times and know it quite well.




Ted

[Armagdn03]

Here is a macroscopic analysis using whole numbers for ease of calculation and interpretation.

Imagine the pegs as having a radius of 1. Each radius moving away from this experiances a decrease in field strength intensity of x/r^2, thus an inverse square relationship. (note: traditionally a dipole has an inverse cube relationship as shown here proof, however, since we are dealing with pole to pole calculations in close proximity, the influence of the other poles will be omitted as they serve as a fractional change to the overall results)


The calculations were done with a separation of distance equal to 8 radii between the stator pegs. The rotor peg in question (for whom we are calculating the resultant force) thus moves between these 8 radii distance. At 4, it will be halfway between the right peg, and half way between the left peg and therefore should feel nothing.

For sake of ease, the poles have a field strength of 64units which remains constant, and the equation used for force is the standard newtonian equation of K*(Q*q)/r^2 for force between two field emitting point sources.

The first graph shows what the rotor peg feels as it starts out close to the left peg, then moves towards the right peg.



As you can see, starting at the left, it feels a push from the left peg primarily, as it moves towards the right it enters an area of little push from either side, then as it moves on it sees push from the peg on the right.

This graph is a summation of the two plots, so the negative push of one side added to the positive push of the other at each point along the path of travel for the rotor.



As you can see there, it would be optimal to pulse the coil within the first few raddii from the stator peg we want to push away from, in this example the left stator peg. Then there is a large dead area we can dissengage our application of current to the inductor and recover our pulse. This time allows it to freewheel past the next peg into firing position once again. If timed correctly and this would not be hard, the push from the oncoming peg will play little role,

Know the variables, manage them. Next on the list...increase in surface area of pegs while keeping material quantity constant yields increase in torque.

[Armagdn03]

@ all
I was reading a few of Ted’s posts, and noticed he was a proponent of viewing magnetic flux loops as a magnetic current. I would agree with this analogy, if the concept of electrical current is advanced, so should it be here. To that effect, there is an “ohms law” for magnetism and it most definitely applies.
Quote:
“In electronic circuits, Ohm's law is an empirical relation between the EMF applied across an element and the current I it generates through that element. It is written as:”

Quote:
“where is the magnetomotive force (MMF) across a magnetic element, φ is the magnetic flux through the magnetic element, and is the magnetic reluctance of that element.”
If you consider the magnetic path to be through the loop involving the rotor and stator pegs, one can see that the two gaps above and below each peg represent a large “resistors” which have low permeability, meaning they restrict the magnetic path. This being said, many poles together constitute many resistors in parallel. The more we have the less magnetic resistance there is. Also, when the magnetic energy passes through these high resistance regions, it must spread out and occupy more space, the more are present the more the magnetic field is allowed to “spread its wings” and the more we can take advantage of the force it has to offer. These are two arguments for many pegs.
I was also wanted to clarify a concept which Ted brought up. The fact that there will be magnetic leakage which normally constitutes loss. Normally this would be the case, because any magnetism created by the inductor, which does not reach the rotor, is essentially not causing motion, and so is considered a loss. For example, in a traditional motor, if you input 100units of electrical energy, to create 100units of magnetic potential, and only 50 magnetic units are used in the motive interaction, then you have 50% loss. However, with the topology I propose, even if only 50 percent interacts to cause rotation in the rotor, the other 50% is still present within the magnetic structure and the surrounding space. This 50% normally considered lost, isn’t because it too will be recycled with the proper recovery scheme.

And last but not least, it occurred to me a while back, and I forgot to talk about it, that no matter which pole orientation happens within the pegs, they always want to separate. This means that we could even modulate very high frequency as a drive mechanism. For example instead of having 1 pulse cause peg separation, we could have 100 pulses constitute one “stroke” of the motor. Even though the polarity would be alternating, the repulsion is always present. This way one could simply modulate how long this HF oscillator would be on. This could allow a pure tank circuit to be used.

[Armagdn03]

Here is a photo of a small simulation I made using "VizMag" a Maxwellian magnetic simulation generator.

I find this interesting because it goes to the very heart of a concept I feel is incredibly important.... How does unit "X" of energy manifest itself in "Y" space.

In this example, one can see the high permeability "pegs" supposedly concentrate the flux. However, it is more accurate to state that the peg material represents a large amount of space in a small volume, eg, high flux density. Flux per given area, however we can use our minds eye to realize we are really discussing volume.



Within the magnetic conductor (pegs), we may choose to view the flux as a quantized unit. Many small magnets, over-toning to give us a macroscopic view of magnetism. Each, being aligned with the same orientation as its neighbor. Because of this, all adjacent quantized units of magnetism (domains) spread as far apart as possible, taking up available space.

Within the peg, there is alot of space in a small volume, we have high flux density, and it appears contained to the reference point of the observer in a permeability 1 surrounding. As the flux moves outward from the peg into the gap, it encounters space of a different quality. It is spacious and non-dense. The same unit of energy manifests itself physically in a altered way. Here the energy again tries to find space for itself, and appears to take a great volume (note the blue bulge as the energy occupies a large area around the gap).

In an electrical circuit, we assume current to be constant at all points due to the linearity of the system. We may assume the same of the magnetic circuit. At any given point, we will have the same magnetic current flowing through the circuit, however its density will change. Entering lower permeability, it will consume more space, and realize less density (another inverse relationship). The energy transforms itself into varying degrees of density and volume in an inverse relationship, as one increases the other must decrease.

Here is something interesting to consider. W Russell and the Alchemanual both state that the electric field corresponds to the potential aspect of mind, while "magnetism" corresponds to the kinetic aspect of mind. They are called the radial system or time field, and the spherical system or space field. Magnetism falls off at an inverse cube rate (correlating to volume of a sphere) and electric field falls off at inverse square rate (correlating to area). Is it not interesting that the structures which contain these two aspects of energy are dictated by area (capacitor), and volume/density? (inductor). Notice the equations.

If we imagine point particles (photon) as oscillating between magnetic and electric conditions, it becomes very interesting mid cycle around sin 45 degrees, cosine 45 degres, both electric and magnetic counterparts will be present, at this point there will be a diameter where the inverse cube of the kinetic aspect, and the inverse square of the electric will COINCIDE! (can only occur at radius 1, which happens to be a surface tension) Now, take the intersection of these fields, and call their product power (potential and current) where does the greatest product of fields lie? In two inward cones making an hourglass shape.



For anybody who has been following the work of Frank Znidarsic, paying attention to the distance (radially from center of particle) and speed at which various manifestations of "field" converge is very important, it is not surprising that his work and the work of many intuitive thinkers are converging in common language. This last part was a bit off topic, but interesting none the less.

[Armagdn03]

I am building a 3d Computer model right now for visualization.

[Armagdn03]

Here is the rotor and stator. I will get the rest done tomorrow. but I could have full engineering spec sheets, cut sheets, and BOM if anybody wants to help me model/

[FRC]

Thanks Armagdn03

Thanks Armagdn03 for starting the new thread. I skimmed through it but had trouble understanding some of it. The concept does sound very good and I hope to study more to get more of a handle on it. There should be a few on this forum that could build a replication and see the results. Thanks again.

George

[John_Bedini]

I will be back

Armagden03,
It's not often anymore that I get into motors but after reading Ted and going to check out some of his work I have second thoughts about if he really does understand. I have seen his modification on the monopole motor and I guess it did not switch right as he has looked at it as a motor. The monopole is not a motor and I never claimed it was. I always referred to it as a rotating energizer, more like an oscillator, mechanical. You and I must talk about what can be done with the Peg motor as I have some ideas to make this work. It makes no difference what people think about Tom Bearden or if the information is on his pages. Radus is something to look at with this design The Tom Bearden Website.
I'm thinking more along the lines of the unit that is self powered, that was the information taken from Radus by Westinghouse.

Magnetic fields are not what people think, and nobody can cut the lines of flux you just move them where you want them by switching them. If the flux paths in the motor is incorrect you have a crappy motor. simple experiments can be done to prove the Peg motor and your analyses is correct. I will be back when I have something to show you.
John B

[mbrownn]

This looks much like a concept that someone has been telling me about, he even demonstrated it to me on webcam. There is something in this for sure.