What are the Physics Behind the Equilibrium Motor Concept?

[cala]

Hello Jonathan. Finally i can see the coil you talk about.

I have made an analysis with the rule of the hand to see the current flux and the magnetic field created, and it seems not to create magnetic flux, because the lines of flux that one turn creates seem to be compensed by the return flux lines of the surrounding turns, so the flux density doesn't change, or keeps very low (at least, near the center of the coils, around the external edges, there is magnetic flux not compensed).

So you could put the current you want, the flux density will not change near the center.

What will happen if we change the strength of the field near that coil?

I have done some simulations, and the flux lines of a changing element near the coil doesn't seem to be affected, but sure the coil sees this changes, but i can't say if this variation creates a current or voltage. If it does, the fact that it will not create backEMF (because the current running through the coil will not change magnetic flux state) could be true.

 

[wimms]

Seems there is some confusion about induction and self-induction, counter-EMF and back-EMF.
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/EddyCurrents/Physics/selfinductance.htm

The coil you posted is simply 2 coils wired in series by using parallel wires during winding.
http://www.play-hookey.com/dc_theory/series_inductors.html
What it could do, is to reduce perceived self-induction, that becomes a nuisance in some situations. Telsa perhaps stumped across the issue because he built HUGE coils with huge inductions, that worked at relatively high frequencies and where selfinduction became notable source of losses. This has nothing to do with free energy though, it has only to do with avoiding losses and high impedance.

Basic idea as I see it is that when current changes fast enough, then mutual induction between the coils cancels out self-induction that input terminals perceive. That does not mean self-induction is gone, or that inductance of coils is reduced. Effect is interesting and quite complex though.

Self-inductance is source of impedance, resistence to AC current. When you apply voltage to inputs, current doesn't flow instantly, but takes time to increase. When input voltage alternates fast, current doesn't go up at all. Thats measured as impedance, and needs high voltage to be overcome and force current flow. When current goes into one coil, it induces opposite current to other coil. But because they are wired in series, and equal in all regards, voltages across both coils are opposite and same value, or, at input terminals voltage difference is ~zero. In effect, it seems like impedance of the circuit is zero, because current flows with very little voltage difference. Voltage difference is produced at point where two coils are connected, it alternates relative to both input terminals.
Its no difference how you drive the coil, with high voltage AC and low current onto high impedance, or low voltage and high current onto low impedance. Power is about the same. Perhaps its easier to produce high current than to deal with very high voltages.
I'm not sure what the magnetic flux does, seems that mutual induction of coils is aiding each other, thus flux is additive by both coils. But its important to realize that its no sense in thinking that because there is little voltage input and a lot of voltage output, that there is any free energy. What matters is power, product of voltage AND current.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by cala
You have to create a H or B field with a coil. Then, this H or B field creation depends on 2 factors: The inductance (related with geometry) and the electric current. If you have a very very inductive coil, you should enter less energy to get the same H or B field. But on normal motors, the more the inductive coil, the bigger the backEMF you have to overcome from the moving rotor, so inductance on normal motors affect the input and the backEMF amount.

How to say it, .. you are .. wrong. Electric current is not input energy. Input energy is product of current and voltage (power) over time. Inductance is factor, but together with higher inductance, higher voltage is involved, thus more power, or time. There is no more free force in magnetism than there is with water barrels or ropes.
Keep in mind that there is difference between creating field and maintaining it. Think of it as difference between accelerating a car and maintaining its speed. You can accelerate car with little energy, but it will take more time.

On the new device, it doesn't matter how inductive the coils are, there is no backEMF in any case, so you can use higly inductive coils to input less electric energy to obtain stronger H or B fields, and also, the rotor movement will not affect the coils, so the inductance is only important to reduce the input power, but doesn't create backEMF amount or opposition

Here is key to your confusion. "input less electric energy to obtain stronger H or B fields" is as heretic as it can get. It has red flags all over it and you rely on this as if it was true.
"BackEMF" is actually counterEMF in coils here, and is not you main enemy. It is not consuming energy, it just is reluctance to consume energy. Can be dealt with higher voltages. Its only nuisance as said before. BackEMF occurs when you switch off your coils, much like when your hands slip while you compressed a spring and it makes a "boink". Also occurs when moving magnet passes coils. If you oppose it, it works like brakes. So, while you don't have attraction between rotor and coils, because you oppose backEMF (by neutralising attraction), its braking your rotor. Heard of eddy-current braking? http://www.cwru.edu/artsci/phys/courses/demos/eddy.htm

And I don't think you would get rid of counterEMF. Whether your power source feels it or not, it happens inside coils. Its the very essence of induction.

Rotor movement WILL affect the coils, probably causing nonlinear and jumping impedance, thus your energy consumption while "neutralising" will be variable.

Overall, its quite complex to analyse, but it boils down to few simple truths: to create any force, you spend energy. To neutralise any force, you spend energy. If amount of "free force" you have is all that does the work, then amount of energy you spend to neutralise it equals amount of work it can do.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by wimms
Overall, its quite complex to analyse, but it boils down to few simple truths: to create any force, you spend energy. To neutralise any force, you spend energy. If amount of "free force" you have is all that does the work, then amount of energy you spend to neutralise it equals amount of work it can do.

Worth repeating.

 

[Jonathan]

I can't tell if some of you are replying to cala or to me, because I agree when you all say cala is wrong, he/she uses the terminology wrong a lot, though I'm not perfect either. I just wanted to put this device out there, I'm not interested in arguing how/if it works, I will do the experiments and see for myself. All I know about it is what the patent says, and it says it is an improvement for AC electromagnets. IF one can reduce the self-inductance, as the patent claims, then you can reduce the back-emf (or 'false currents' as Tesla called them). If one can even slightly reduce the back-emf, then one has slightly broken Lenz's law and probably Newton's 3rd law, which would then tells us that it might be possible to increase the load on the 'transformer' I mentioned a few posts ago without having to increase the input power.
Granted, that is a big IF, and it is highly unlikely, but i think the experiment would be worth it. All one needs to do is make a 'transformer' like I described and hook up the primary to a variable frequency power source, and vary the frequency until the power out of the secondaries is the highest you can get (indictating you've found the resonant frequency) and then you compare power in and out. Of course, one is going to want a volatge/amp meter for power measurements. And let's not forget that since we can't be sure we're doing this right, the ultimate test is the self and load powering one.

 

[cala]

"Overall, its quite complex to analyse, but it boils down to few simple truths: to create any force, you spend energy. To neutralise any force, you spend energy. If amount of "free force" you have is all that does the work, then amount of energy you spend to neutralise it equals amount of work it can do."

A magnet fixed on a fridge neutralise the force of gravity, but it's doing no work, nor spending energy. Neutralise the effect of a force can be done without spending energy or doing work.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by cala
A magnet fixed on a fridge neutralise the force of gravity

[?] [?] [?] [?]

 

[cala]

I mean, the magnet will fall if no magnetic force were exerted.

But if you let the magnet fix on the fridge, the friction will happen.

If you let the magnet there, it will not fall on many years (maybe forever?).

If the gravity force were not neutralised, the magnet will fall, so there is neutralization of gravity force... but is the magnet doing work? the answer is no, there is no displacement, so no work is done, and also, no energy waste, but you are opposing the gravity force, and making the gravity not to take effect on the magnet.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by cala
A magnet fixed on a fridge neutralise the force of gravity, but it's doing no work, nor spending energy. Neutralise the effect of a force can be done without spending energy or doing work.

Well, why magnet, why on fridge? Take a rock, on the floor. Opposes gravity without spending energy.

If the gravity force were not neutralised, the magnet will fall, so there is neutralization of gravity force... but is the magnet doing work? no

You misuse term "neutralise" here, or misunderstand what I meant. To neutralise gravity, your only option is create antigravity field. To neutralise magnetic field, you can create opposing magnetic field. And that creation needs work. Switching coils on and off is doing work.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Jonathan
I'm not interested in arguing how/if it works, I will do the experiments and see for myself. All I know about it is what the patent says, and it says it is an improvement for AC electromagnets.

I'd not trust patent filed 100yrs ago by Tesla. As you've seen, even 100 yrs later their patent office has all sorts of problems

I am actually quite interested to get a "second opinion" on how this device works/fails. I recall there are ways to abuse transformers in such a way that magnetic "short circtuit" is formed, complete loss of inductance and magnetic flux. I wonder if this one falls into that category.

If one can even slightly reduce the back-emf, then one has slightly broken Lenz's law and probably Newton's 3rd law, which would then tells us that it might be possible to increase the load on the 'transformer' I mentioned a few posts ago without having to increase the input power.

Why on Earth do you think that some energy will pop up from thin air? Do you think energy conservation is broken? If not, then were would that additional energy come from??

All one needs to do is make a 'transformer' like I described and hook up the primary to a variable frequency power source, and vary the frequency until the power out of the secondaries is the highest you can get (indictating you've found the resonant frequency) and then you compare power in and out. Of course, one is going to want a volatge/amp meter for power measurements.

This isn't trivial. As this device isn't linear, you can't use ordinary volt/amp meters, or you'll measure whatever you "want". On the other hand, as such paired winding offers most effective mutual inductance between coils, it is THE typical winding type, so you might not even need to make it yourself. Just pick a transformer with 2 primary and 1-N secondary coils and rewire. Only, don't test it under any notable power (ie. mains) or you can get hurt. Also note that any sort of resonances depend very heavily on characteristics of load and power transfered. So you might not ever find a resonance frequency.

 

[cala]

Wimms, i was only saying that to overcome or anul, or neutralise the effect of a force, sometimes you do not need to do work or waste energy, as you said.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by wimms
Well, why magnet, why on fridge? Take a rock, on the floor. Opposes gravity without spending energy.

You misuse term "neutralise" here, or misunderstand what I meant. To neutralise gravity, your only option is create antigravity field. To neutralise magnetic field, you can create opposing magnetic field. And that creation needs work. Switching coils on and off is doing work.

He just plain doesn't understand the difference between/relationship between force/work/energy. A refrigerator magnet is holding itself on a refrigerator with a force. A magnetic field opposing motion (or a coil cancelling out that opposing field) is doing work. A specific amount of work in a specific amount of time is energy. Understanding the relationship between those concepts is CRITICAL to analyzing the utility of your device, cala.

For the record, I sometimes use work and energy interchangeably. Though not technically correct, it usually works out ok. Using force in place of work or energy doesn't.

Anyway, another example: pushups. Do half a pushup and hold your chest an inch off the ground for as long as you can. Mechanically, you are doing no work/energy, just applying some forces. Does that mean you are not burning any calories (energy) to keep your body in that position?

Wimms, i was only saying that to overcome or anul, or neutralise the effect of a force, sometimes you do not need to do work or waste energy, as you said.

That is correct. But in this case you do.

This isn't trivial. As this device isn't linear, you can't use ordinary volt/amp meters, or you'll measure whatever you "want".

To expand, you need a wattmeter, a single device which couples amperage and voltage to give you power. And with inductors, power isn't a stand-alone concet. You need to look at active/reactive power, power factor, etc.

Johnathan, I also am highly skeptical of that transformer claim. On the face of it, it violates conservation of energy. But I haven't looked at it yet (hopefully tonight) and even then, I'm not an electrical engineer.

 

[russ_watters]

Cala, enigma and I have been kicking around whether we should move this thread to Theory Development. What is your goal here? It doesn't seem like you are truly interested in learning anything. Do you want to build this device? Get a patent? Sell something?

If you are just here to argue against the laws of physics (or say they just don't apply to you), this isn't the place for it.

 

[Jonathan]

I do agree that cala can't use the terms correctly and so this should go into TD.
Several people have asked me the same question, and I've already told you all that my plan is to just test the device. I have not made any claims of free energy, only a logical deduction based on patent info.
Wimms, if you are willing to dismiss Tesla's 'testimony' that this device reduces it's inducance at resonance, then you might as well call one of the greastest geniuses of all time an idiot. Given that I have no real info though, just speculation and ideas based on the 100 year old claims of Tesla's patent, I do not intend to continue my part of this disscussion, as I have nothing more to add. Thank you all for taking this research seriously.

 

[cala]

I posted this topic here to comment on what failures you see, and i'll try to explain myself the best i can, but also, I've got to see if there is an error, and try to understand why.

The most important thing this topic show me is about the energy-work when the coils are active. That's the point were I must look to completely understand.

I have two questions i want to ask:

Imagine an equilibrium situation of a force field. Now, imagine you go against one of that forces, and de-equilibrates. You are working against one of the forces, but can't this de-equilibrium (the rest of the forces) create more work on a device than the needed to go against one of that forces?.

Another question:
Imagine a bifilar coil (current run on both senses, so no B field is created). An iron core is inside this coil. Will the iron core behave magnetically the same as if the bifilar coil where not there? i mean... Will another magnetic field affect the iron like if no coil were there? will the magnetic field penetrate the iron in the same way?

 

[cala]

Well, this link comes from another search, but in some way, it's related to my first question. Read the last part (at the end of the page). It's about "motion cancellers":

http://members.dancris.com/~bfraser/4v4a/ADVPROP.html

That's what i was talking about equilibrium and cancellation of it to get movement.

Another example: A moving electron under a perpendicular E and B field will describe a movement on a preferred direction and sense, and the E and B field must do no work (only energy presence is required).

I think E and B create forces on perpendicular to the motion of the electron, but as the paper claims, this creation of forces "cancells" an equilibrium, and then, another forces can move the electron and do the work.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Wimms, if you are willing to dismiss Tesla's 'testimony' that this device reduces it's inducance at resonance, then you might as well call one of the greastest geniuses of all time an idiot.

Being cautious and calling idiot is a long step. What Tesla knew at his time has transformed hugely. He was experimentator who didn't often understand what he saw.

What confuses me is talks about resonance of inductance. I'm not pro but I've dealt with electronics, and I can't think of reason why pure inductive circuit would have any resonance. We could build inductive circuits with no measurable inductance, but all of them would be useless. Knowing that Tesla was obsessed with his Tesla coil, I can imagine number of factors that all together could result in resonance, but these apply to huge coils and interactions with environment over large distances.

Also, you must understand resonance better before you bet on its miraculous features. Simplest example is perhaps a swing, you don't spend awful lot of energy to get a good amplitude swinging. BUT, it takes TIME. Thats the nature of resonance, you feed energy back and forth and it cumulates. If you do it at right moments, you get huge amplitude. But energy you can extract is exactly that which you entered there. It just takes more time to enter it than extract it. Alot of PM ideas fail to see that, and compare input amplitude with output amplitude, ignoring the time factor.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by cala
Imagine an equilibrium situation of a force field. Now, imagine you go against one of that forces, and de-equilibrates. You are working against one of the forces, but can't this de-equilibrium (the rest of the forces) create more work on a device than the needed to go against one of that forces?

Depends. Imagine stepping onto icy rock and balance. Now, imagine you "de-equilibrate". Woops, you go down. So yes, when you are on top of potential, droping down can do more work than you hope. But when you're down, "de-equilibrating" doesn't help you. With slight trembling you won't get up on that rock again. To create a potential (climb the rock) you need to spend energy.

Imagine a bifilar coil (current run on both senses, so no B field is created). An iron core is inside this coil. Will the iron core behave magnetically the same as if the bifilar coil where not there? i mean... Will another magnetic field affect the iron like if no coil were there? will the magnetic field penetrate the iron in the same way?

Thats a difficult one. I'd guess not. Core is under stress, it participates in mutual inductance. It will have Eddy currents. Some degree of "shielding" will occur. With coils, you speak of AC currents, but another magnetic field could be from permanent magnet (magnetic DC analogue). That field is biasing iron core to one direction. If AC current is suitably high frequency, then it can actually "open" iron core for easier realignment. I wonder if they create permanent magnets in that way.

 

[cala]

Wimms, your answers to my questions sound very interesting!. Thanks a lot. Also, I've got to think and search more about that two points, because i have them not quite clear. Thanks again for your well-founded opinions.

 

[Jonathan]

Wimms, since I have no experience with the coil, I have no idea. All I know is that he claimed that when you powered the coil with its resonant frequency, it had little or no inducance.
I disagree with you that he might not have understood what he was seeing. All of physics is coming to conclusions based on what you see and logic, and I imagine that he fiddled with it long enough before patenting it that he understood it pretty well. I have to admit a shaky understanding of ED in general, I think I can say better than most though, and I see no reason why it can't just have a resonant frequency independent of any circuit it is attached to. Galloping Gurdy (Tacoma Narrows Bridge) had a resonant frequency, but in the absence of wind it didn't matter.
As to resonance, I understand, I have taken the usual classes, I know how it works. This is evidenced by the fact that I can tell that cala doesn't know the correct terminology to allow easy conversations here.
Cala, I wish you good luck in your researches.

 

[wimms]

Jonathan, while I've got the "momentum", I'll elaborate why I'm so suspicious about this coil.
All transformer coil endpoints are marked. When you apply 2 AC sources to 2 separate coils on same core, it becomes vital. AC power source depends on transformer to have some specific inductance, this causes impedance (analog to resistence in DC domain), and that defines how much current can go into coils. When you connect power to coils wrong (opposing) way, there happens so to say magnetic short circuit, coils cancel each others flux and inductance goes to nada, this results in impedance collapse and nearly unrestricted current flow between power inputs. Basically, it is very similar to short-circuiting the AC power source. This happens occasionally when careless, and can (literally) blow out equipment and cause fire.
And this patent coil reminds this mishap enormously.

Inductance alone has linear dependence of impedance to frequency, all the way from DC to infinite frequency. Linear. There is no resonance. Resonance occurs when there is phase shift large enough to cause delayed output to coincide with input. In circuits this requires capacitance, or quite long delaylines. For eg, if you have 200,000km wire, then it takes 1 second to reach the end. If your input AC is 1 Hz frequency, and its other end is brought back to your power source, you can get resonance. For shorter distance, frequency needed is higher, waay higher. Incidently, impedance goes up with frequency and inductance, and that requires ever higher input voltage to get same power transfer.

Tesla needed several things, very huge inductance, normal accessible input voltage levels, quite high frequency. This is quite conflicting set of requirements. So he came up with this coil. Its basically short circuit. imo. But currents inside aren't perfectly balanced. Transient magnetic fluxes have time differences. With sufficiently huge coil and inductance that can be brought down to manageable delays and thus frequencies. When that happens, we maybe could even talk about some resonance. But it depends heavily on material then and is nonlinear. Tesla's goal was to transfer energy over distance, and he basically used Earths capacitance for resonance. So his coil had resonance when interacting with environment.

This all is very different on the table and in small setup. After inductance collapse occurs, there is a short period of time when currents inside coils and iron core fluctuate wildly at random. That can cause heavy RF interference, while benefits are questionable. There are other winding methods to produce even better magnetic fields. For Tesla, it was a sort of energy pump. While inductance collapses, power source is detached from the coil's output. With capacitance behind it, the energy that got into the coil was transferred out at that combined resonant frequency.

When it comes to electromagnets, then shorting power source is a bad thing, wastes energy. RF intererence is illegal thing, and wastes energy too. High frequency currents is unwanted thing, core efficiency goes down. Inductance of coils is friend actually. It can be managed and brought to optimal levels differently. Thats why I think this coil isn't used widely.

 

[Jonathan]

What are you talking about? Tesla had nothing to do with the transformer idea, it was mine. The transformer has an air core, because iron creates higher impedance. The field of the coils do not cancel out, all turns and all cureent are in the same direction. The topology of the coil described in the patent is supposedly novel in such a way as to cause an interaction between self-capacitance and self-inductance, resulting at a decrease in self-inductance at resonance. What does that mean? And how? I have no idea, that was just my interpretation of the patent, but I could have vastly misunderstood something. It is my understanding that the self-capacitance is what is modified by the topology, and I think I have a good grasp on why, but it is beyond me to express it. As to the equations, I think the idea is that the topology causes the coil to follow different equations than usual, but that is just an assumption, I have no experience with it nor does the patent say.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Jonathan
The topology of the coil described in the patent is supposedly novel in such a way as to cause an interaction between self-capacitance and self-inductance, resulting at a decrease in self-inductance at resonance.

ok people I'm so confused about your coil talk...
let me start with what I know abaout coils and please help me understand

The coil is an inductor right? The coil is characterized by the formula:
[tex]u(t) = L\frac{di(t)}{dt}[/tex].
As far as I know L (the inductance of the coil) is a constant value dependent of the geometry of the coil.
Now moving to AC, the complex impedance of a ideal inductor is
[tex]Z = j \omega L[/tex]
However there are no ideal inductors so for a real coil we have
[tex]z = R_L + j \omega L + \frac{1}{j \omega C_L}[/tex]
where [tex]R_L[/tex] is the resistence of the coil and [tex]C_L[/tex] is the parasite capacitance of the coil.
Am I right so far?

so what are you trying to say? That for the Tesla coil both L and [tex]C_L[/tex] are frequncy dependent?

 

[Jonathan]

I have already explained that I have no idea what I'm trying to say, I'm just parroting and reinterpreting the info on this patent:
http://patimg1.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid...ageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=87768B96A046
As to the last question, I guess so. But we shouldn't call it a Tesla coil to avoid confusion with the high-voltage generator of the same name. I think it is more correctly called Tesla's bifilar coil.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Jonathan
I have already explained that I have no idea what I'm trying to say, I'm just parroting and reinterpreting the info on this patent:
http://patimg1.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid...ageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=87768B96A046

the damn page still doesn't work...

 

[Jonathan]

Oh! I'm sorry! It didn't occur to me that the link wouldn't work! Okay go here:
http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html
And click Patent Number Search on the left. Then enter 512,340 and click enter. (I think you need to include the comma.) It should pop right up, but they don't have it transcribed, they only have pictures of the actual patent papers. So click on the Images button, and you should see the picture of the usual coil and the coil described in the patent. By clicking the buttons to the side of the page you can read the whole patent, it is only three pages.
This explains the questions, I thought you all had read it by now, it didn't occur to me to try the link myself and see if it was the problem. Sorry!

 

[sheldon]

I tried to look at this coil and could not see it; I must not have the right viewer. Anyway, the beginning of the thread was about a special motor. I would like to start by saying that a regular motor is just as efficient as the motor described. I personally don’t think that motor described will even work. Knowing you people on this site, I need to explain so here it is, iron cores will store magnetic field, this may look like a benefit at first but it actually isn’t it will become nothing but a coagulated mess and eventually take a great amount of power to even turn the stator in order to break this stored magnetic field. A regular motor doesn’t use much power until it’s loaded, that’s the real test “under load”. As far as your inductance and capacitance and resonance and Tesla coils. I can say that under resonance of any energy flow through a medium is more efficient than going through a given material that is not resonant. Common sense really, any thing else is reactance to the energy flow. Now to agree with your views a little, If you are resonant with another energy source then you should be able to transmit or transform it into something else. For example if there is a stored energy held within the atmosphere and you make a devise that is resonant with the atmosphere it is possible to use such devise to drain that energy source for utilization. Why? because at resonance reactance is practicaly zero and alows for a path of energy flow.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I could see the patent, after trying with all the available browsers and installing some plugins. I guess they wanted to keep it secret because of it's importance
Anyway, if anybody's interested I can do a pdf or something and post it here.
Jonathan I'll read the patent carefull and than come back...

 

[Jonathan]

Guyetc., I tried to do something with the patent, but couldn't get it to let me copy it.
sheldon, I think you are reading more into this resonance thing than necessary. I very much doubt that the coil's supposed properties need have anything to do with the resonant frequencies of its environment, ie the atmosphere, because one can build the coil to work at any reasonable frequency, what is important is that the AC in is at the resonant frequency of the coil.
As far as I can tell, the idea is that at the resonant frequency, self-inductance is minimized or eliminated, at which point there is little or no back-emf. With little or no back-emf, one can make it be an AC electromagnet and pay only for the energy to create and sustain the field, but not the energy to alternate it against itself. #It seems to me that additionally, if one applied the right frequency of alternating magnetic field to the coil, one would get little or no current induced in it, which occurs to me now would negate the working of the aforementioned transformer, requiring the design change of having the secondaries be normal coils, and only the primary be a special bifilar one.# I can't be sure, it is late here and I might just be very confused. To make this clear in case of future reference, I will put number signs at the beginning and end of what I'm unsure of.
Well, regardless, I think the coil might indeed have odd properties and when I get around to it I will do both versions of the transformer and see what happens.

 

[cala]

Well, Jonathan, that's were your special coil has the meeting point with my device. I think the no-work-motor works as I claim once the fields are created on the coils. The point is that to get that situation, you've got a transient, and you have to do work on that transient. That is something i did not see, and I've got to thank you all make me see this point. The explanation is under clasical physics. Now, the question if this work is less, more or the same is not quite clear, because in the transient (when creating the fields) we're doing work against the polarization of ONE iron core (the other active coil core remains almost in the same B field, althogh the H filed is increasing), but we are getting the rotational impulse of TWO iron cores. What do you think about this point?

 

[Jonathan]

If you are asking me specifically, I have no idea. I really don't understand how it was supposed to work in the first place.

 

[wimms]

I found a decent copy of the patent.
http://www.tfcbooks.com/patents/coil.htm

Indeed, its clever setup. It puts parasitic capacitance to use. Two coils closely together form capacitor. Voltage drop over both coils defines the voltage on the cap, and the more it is, the more effective capacitance.
In effect, its purely LC resonant circuit, where impedance drops at resonant frequency, not inductance. Any deviation from resonant frequency, and you face reactive impedance. Any deviation includes switch on or off power, resonance changes due to loading, surrounding magnetic fields, etc.
And it resonates only with AC, where magnets can't be made. If you try to use it for halfsine period, you aren't at resonance.
At resonance, its swinging energy between capacitance and inductance, that's why its easy to keep it going (its like inertial motion). But to put the energy in there, you do all the work (start the swing). I.e. from off to on, you face reactance. After you switch it off, IT wouldn't. You can't control it as freely as you need. Resonance can be your worst enemy sometimes. Think of your car with missing shocks.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

yes, what wimms said...

from the patent I understood that the main objective of Tesla was

My present invention has for its object to avoid the employment of condensers, which are expensive, cumbersome and difficult to maintain in perfect condition, and to so construct the coils themselves as to accomplish the same ultimate object.

nowdays you'll find condensers are not what they were on Tesla's time. You can use them easily and get the same effect without complicated coil geometries...

 

[sheldon]

Now that I can see the patent, I have to agree with wimms very well put. Can you explain the theory of the motor the thread started from better for me?

 

[Bluelite]

I must admit, I was skeptical, so I just closed the forum and went home. It would be like a rock rolling down a hill with no bottom: it just keeps falling forever.

Then, I found the patent! Yes, this "perpetual motion" machine has been patented. I now have renewed faith in the idea, and plan to "build-it". It is called the "Permanent Magnet Motor"; patented by Howard R. Johnson on April 24, 1979 (US Patent Number 4,151,431).

Here is a link with pictures and articles:
http://www.newebmasters.com/freeenergy/4151431-pg1.html