Electric Motor Secrets Rapidshare Files
Thank you all for responding to my announcement that the Missing Bob Teal Interview had been found. The link to view this interview is here: But first, I'd like to give you a little bit of history on how this came about. As of 2007, the work of Bob Teal and his Magnipulsion Engine from 1976 has all but been forgotten. Teal was granted two patents for his mechanical, reciprocating electromagnetic attraction engine in 1977 and 1978. However, nothing in these patents disclosed the essential secrets of its extraordinary operating characteristics. Its capabilities were only hinted at in a rare piece of company literature.
By 1978, Teal was out of money and work on the Magnipulsion Engine had stopped. Luckily, these documents fell into the hands of Free Energy researcher Dr. Peter Lindemann in 1979. By 1983, a group of people in Santa Barbara, California, including Peter Lindemann and Michael Knox, were working on reviving Teal's ideas and developing their own advanced power plant called the Flux Motor. The Flux Motor produced extremely high torque and was able to recover over 80% of its input electricity.
Unfortunately, this group also ran out of money before finishing their work. So, the secrets of these amazing electric motors lay quietly in a file box for 24 years. In January of this year, Dr. Lindemann decided to produce a new DVD called Electric Motor Secrets, and base this new educational film on reviving Bob Teal' s Magnipulsion Engine principles and designs.
Re: Adams Motor Manual. « Reply #3 on: July 06, 2011, 06:13:30 PM ». Actually found it elsewhere (the Nexus one) and put it up here for easy access: Oops that's not the correct one afterall but a good read anyway. « Last Edit: July.
I was working with Dr. Lindemann on another project when I learned of his plans. Remarkably, eight years ago, I was given a VHS tape by Free Energy researcher Dr. Lawrence Kennedy. It included an interview of a man demonstrating an extraordinary engine back in the 1970's. That man was Bob Teal, and he was demonstrating one of the last models of the Magnipulsion Engine ever built!
Winning Eleven 2002 English Version Isotope on this page. In this film, he shows a number of the extraordinary characteristics of this machine. First, it ran on very low current by eliminating the counter EMF. And second, it recovered over 90% of its input electricity to either recharge its batteries or run light bulbs. The short film is a remarkable piece of history. I have already viewed Dr. Lindemann's and I guarantee to you that he shows everything about how the Magnipulsion Engine worked and much, much more. So, here is the link to the Missing Bob Teal Interview and the links to learn how to build the electric motor of the future.
For more info click this link: --------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE - April 17, 2013 - Peter Lindemann has Electric motor Secrets Part 1, Part 2 and Advanced Motor Secrets available at a huge discount if you want all 3 here. The purpose of this thread is for the discussion of the DVD by Dr. Peter Lindemann called Electric Motor Secrets. It would be greatly appreciated if you buy your own copy and watch it before posting any messages here as it will answer almost anything you want to know about Bob Teal's Magnipulsion engine. Lindemann will be contributing some very helpful information here for those of you who are interested in building any of the versions of the the motor(s) discussed in the DVD. Please keep your posts in this group on topic: Bob Teal, Magnipulsion, Magneteal, Electric Motor Secrets, etc.
If you want to discuss other attraction motor concepts or similar topics but not directly related to Electric Motor Secrets, please feel free to start a new thread. Hello Everybody, Thank you, Aaron, for setting up this forum. This will be the only forum I will participate in for the discussion of the information in my new DVD Electric Motor Secrets. Here, we can discuss 1) What Back EMF is, 2) How to engineer around it, 3) How to maximize mechanical energy production in attraction motor designs, 4) Bob Teal's Magnipulsion Engine, 5) and problems encountered in building models. Certain other topics may be allowed on a special basis, or used to start a new thread.
In order to be fair to others in the Forum, please do not post here if you have not seen the DVD presentation Electric Motor Secrets. I look forward to helping all of you fully understand these ideas. Peter Lindemann. Loved this documentary! But now i am looking for some recomendations for some books i can use to teach myself how reverse design a test motor, meaning if i want plan to build a motor with roughly 1hp (or a little more) usable shaft work useing Peters S shaped iron rotor idea how do i mathmaticaly design the size of the rotor, number of turns in the winding and the AWG of the wire, shape of the coil and the laminations size and shape.
I understand circuts enough but literally this documentary is the first time i have seen the internal workings of a DC motor in an understandable fashion. I love to read and i am very eager learn about design principals if i can just find the right reference books and a few friends i can ask some questions. Your help would be much apprieciated!! Eric, The magnetic attraction motor, whether it is Teal's electric solenoid engine, my 'S' rotor, or other designs, can produce mechanical energy at a different rate of conversion than a standard induction motor, due to the lack of Back EMF.
Exactly what this new conversion rate is is still not known, and must be determined by experiment. You can see from my DVD, the Back EMF is responsible for neutralizing between 50% and 90% of the applied energy in a standard induction motor, depending on load conditions. Assuming a moderate load, it seems reasonable, then, to conclude that it may be possible to create a 1 hp motor that only draws 200 watts.
If the electrical recovery system can return 85% of this, then the machine will run on 200 watts, produce 1 hp of mechanical energy, and return 170 watts to the batteries. This suggests that 1 hp of mechanical energy may be able to be produced for 30 watts. This is how Teal accomplished what he claimed.
At this point all of these things must be re-worked out by experiment. Assuming i do understand the dvd lets look at your demo of the single piston motor you built this i believe is a simple bifliar coil wound on a spool, the solinoid inside being soft iron has no permanate magnet field to generate a cemf soooo isnt there a way to calculate magnetic field strength based on number of turns, wire size, volts, amps, then using this field strength we can maybe calculate the nessesary pounds the piston can provide for the crank shaft? Solinoids have been around awhile. The geomitry in a soliniod switch might not be what we want for a motor piston but for the size of the coil it might be a start. Is there a way to calculate this? Maybe i was too specific in my previous post. I am not really looking for a direct induction motor book but rather a more basic book on coil design without a permant magnetic field present, (like a solinoid switch).
Granted it might not cover the details of how to recover the cemf to charge the source but before i learn about that i was curious about calculating the magnetic field strength in terms of pounds and working from there to the rods and crankshaft in the hopes that i wouldnt have to just start blindly wrapping copper around a core and guess as to whether its enough to pull the rod. Hope im not rambling here too much thanks alot for your help!! Eric, You aren't rambling. You are totally on the right track.
A good book that covers the math on what you want is: 'Solenoids, Electromagnets, and Electromagnetic Windings' by Charles N. ISBN #1-55918-096-X. This book was first printed in 1914.
I like the old books because they are factual, and uninfluenced by changes in theory and politics. It is currently available from Lindsay Publications as a reprint.
This book will let you calculate magnetic field strength for wire size, number of turns and current. Teal's big secret was the method whereby he minimized the air-gap in the solenoid at the middle of the stroke. This sort of solenoid design is not discussed in the book, so you will not be able to accurately calculate the mechanical energy produced. You will have to build a model of the machine and MEASURE the mechanical energy generated to fully understand what it does. Hi Peter, 1) I would like to know if Bob Teal is still with us or he passed?
2) I apologize for posting here without having bought your DVD yet, I would like to know that the discussion topics you outlined yesterday are based on a practical / working motor you /or/and your partners have actually built and measured to be really overunity or will be based on very logical theory? You have measurement results on at least one working overunity motor and if so will it be possible to learn about them? Very sorry for my scepticism but I hope you understand it, I am open to think outside of the box, I believe in possible overunity devices but need practical facts. Thank you, Gyula.
Hi Peter, 1) I would like to know if Bob Teal is still with us or he passed? 2) I apologize for posting here without having bought your DVD yet, I would like to know that the discussion topics you outlined yesterday are based on a practical / working motor you /or/and your partners have actually built and measured to be really overunity or will be based on very logical theory? You have measurement results on at least one working overunity motor and if so will it be possible to learn about them? Very sorry for my scepticism but I hope you understand it, I am open to think outside of the box, I believe in possible overunity devices but need practical facts. Thank you, Gyula Dear Gyula, No problem. These types of groups are full of stuff that is pure speculation, so your skepticism is warranted. My DVD covers a lot of ground.
First, I show how to build a Dynamometer, and then run a Dyno test on an induction motor. Then, I show exactly what Back EMF in the motor is, and why it is the main factor holding back the performance of the motor. Then I show the history of motor designs that have No Back EMF, and what the problems have been in allowing these motors to produce high torque. That brings us to Teal's Magnipulsion Engine and how he solved these problems.
I also show an advanced motor I built in 1983 that solved most of these problems, as well. I end with some speculative designs that have not been fully tested yet, but are in the process of being tested now. So, there is a lot to learn.
The purpose of the DVD is to get people to think about Zero Back EMF designs as the way to produce motors with COP >1. With all of this in mind, you may want to wait for some more definitive testing data to come in. On the other hand, some people like to be shown basic principles so they can come up with their own design that works. There are dozens of 'solutions' that will allow a working model to operate in the high torque 'window' while returning most of the electrical input. As for Bob Teal, I do not know if he is still alive. If he is, he is 85 years old and probably living in North or South Carolina.
I have not tried to contact him. I ordered that. And few more that seemed interesting, hehehe i like your thinking on using older books.
The only thing i couldnt find on Lindsay's site was a book on designing and building transformers. I would love a recomendation for a good older books for building both regular inductive transformers and high freq tesla transformers for some other experements. But back to your dvd. Question about the soft iron keeper.
First is a magnetic field relatable to water pressure in that if you enclose the coil in soft iron and restrict its escape to the outside world to a smaller controlled outlet (I.E. The top halve of a solinoid shaft) the magnetic 'pressure' (or maybe 'velocity' is a better word) will be stronger giving us more available work where we want it. Much like using a valve on a hose to 'spray' water on our lawn. Second (and i may find the answer in the book i bought) i would hazard to guess that field strength is partially related to the size or 'mass' of copper in the coil but does the coil 'shape' (and iron keeper geomitry) influence the strength of the field, or the 'postion' of where i want most of the strength to act on the solinoid shaft.
I think i understand what you mean about how no known design criteria is available for bob teals solinoid motor. It is still a solinoid with a copper mass where the geomitry is altered by a soft iron keeper to constrict the magnetic field to the top half of the side walls of the shaft where the air gap is the smallest at the begining of the stroke instead of the end of the stroke. So when i build my first test i think i should be able to use the book you mentioned to calculate the 'strength' of the coil mass and test my own geomitry to apply the position of strength.
Also how exactly do the magnetic lines of force act on any solinoid shaft. Is a standard solinoid shaft pulled from the top surface or are the magnetic lines of force circulating in a clockwise/or counter clockwise fasion through the hollow core of the coil pulling up at the sides of the shaft and is the reason that a standard solinoid is strongest at the end of a stroke because most of side suface area the shaft is all inside the coil and being pulled up by the field rotation? Lol am i getting warmer or colder hahaha. Maybe there is a book on studing design principles of magnetic lines of force to!!
Also following what you are saying about building a model and measuring mechanical strength in say 'pounds' do you think it would be a simple linear proportional equation to calculate how much bigger or smaller and identical duplicate of the first test model would have to be to achieve a target shaft work. Lol now for a funny question.
In the dvd you mentioned this idea is not overunity but. If as in your example a 1 hp motor might only use 30watts and 1hp equates to 746 watts ideally.
Doesnt this mean i could strap on a belt driven alternator to the shaft and deliver say 35 or 40 watts and still have slightly less than than 1hp of mechanical energy to use elsewhere making this a self sustaining motor? Or am i missing something in the concept of unity whew!! Ok i will stop now thank again! Lol now for a funny question. In the dvd you mentioned this idea is not overunity but. If as in your example a 1 hp motor might only use 30watts and 1hp equates to 746 watts ideally.
Doesnt this mean i could strap on a belt driven alternator to the shaft and deliver say 35 or 40 watts and still have slightly less than than 1hp of mechanical energy to use elsewhere making this a self sustaining motor? Or am i missing something in the concept of unity. Eric Eric, Yes, you are missing something. The idea of efficiency is based on the First Law of Thermodynamics, often referred to as the Law of the Conservation of Energy. This idea is that energy can be converted from one form to another, but it is neither created nor destroyed by its passage through the mechanism. I do not believe in the idea of 'Over Unity' because this Law is either correct and in-force at all times, or it is not.
So, it is logical that the Law cannot be both correct and in-force, AND violated at the same time. It is well established that the energy conversion rate for the direct induction machine is 746 watts = 1 horse power = 550 foot-pounds per second of mechanical energy. The magnetic attraction motors that my DVD discusses can be called indirect induction machines, as they use direct induction for the creation of a magnetic field, but it is the magnetic field that causes the mechanical energy production. So, the electricity input is only indirectly related to the production of mechanical energy in the machine. I have postulated that this process, which is NOT the same process as Faraday's induction, operates at a different conversion rate, somewhere around 200 watts = 1 horse power = 550 foot-pounds per second of mechanical energy. Then, by configuring the machine to operate on short pulses of DC current, an inductor can be charged with electric current. This in turn, causes the creation of a magnetic field.
As this magnetic field grows, it can be used to attract a piece of iron, producing mechanical energy. When the field is maximized, the current can be shut off, and the magnetic field will collapse.
The collapse of the magnetic field will induce a new current of electricity that can be recaptured by the circuitry, and re-applied to the battery system, thus recovering up to 90% of the input electrical energy. If the machine can produce more than 10% mechanical energy production, then there is an anomaly here which needs a creative explanation. So, the issue here is, how much mechanical energy can be produced by this process? The answer is, quite a lot, if you design the machine correctly. Way over 10%, in fact. So, when all of these processes are designed right, the machine apparently produces significant amounts of energy that are not explained by the Laws of Conservation. So, three possibilities exist to explain this.
The first is, that the Law of Conservation is just plain wrong, and nothing is being converted into anything else in any of these machines. Most people are not willing to entertain this idea.
The second is, that the conversion rate for the indirect induction machine is different than for the direct induction machine, and therefore it can produce more mechanical energy from less electricity because that's what it does. Again, most people find this idea difficult to accept.
The third is, that the machine is somehow tapping an unseen source of energy and converting it to the seen energy surplus. Many scientists are starting to consider this idea as the explanation for these phenomena. No matter which explanation you pick, OVER UNITY is NOT one of the possibilities.
Does this help? Yes i am aware of the first law and i had allready gathered that unity is refering to efficancy which considers the whole system and not COP which referes to what we put in to the system. However in your above statement refering to 746w=1hp for a direct induction motor and 200w=1hp for the new machine this doesnt jive for me because 1hp of mechanical shaft power is still one 1hp so i believe what your refering to is it 'takes' 746w in a direct induction to produce 1hp and we are estimating that it 'takes' 200w to produce 1hp with the indirect method plus we will recover maybe 170w back to reuse leaving us with 30w lost input power. I dont think this is a reversible example (meaning 1hp=200w doesnt work) if in the end my new machine still outputs 1hp of work, or slightly more, and i common shaft 1hp direct induction generator to it,assuming 100% eff gen, then i get 746w out and watts are watts so i send some back to the source and use the rest for an outside load this should be a self sustaining cycle. While i do understand its not overunity from a whole system efficancy stand point, i do believe a >1 cop engine should run for as long as magnetics last in nature if that is where we theorize where the extra energy is coming from? Today we produce electrical through the consumption of chemical 'fuels' perhaps tomorrows future is the recognition that we might be able to 'consume' magnetic energy or some unknown energy behind its curtain to produce more shaft work out by 'intiating' a magnetic process with electricity. Hahahaha heres an idea i thought i would float by for a test.
I noticed in your dvd the picture of the c shaped lamintion core and coil with the S rotor looks very similar to a shaded pole motor i pulled out of a microwave oven. I could remove its old rotor, cut the top and bottom out of the laminations to closer mimic your C shape, build a new iron rotor and comutator using the same shaft and bearings, and pulse 110v DC into the coil using your sugested circutry maybe use capacitors instead of batteries to drive the motor and collect and recycle the cemf by swapping caps and have a seperate circut that only 'tops off' any lost energy in the process. This 'top off' circut is the energy i 'pay for' so i should measure watts there and build a mini dyno test to measure shaft output!! Sound like fun? Ok i took a bunch of pictures of a shaded pole motor i yanked out of a microwave you can view them here just click on the photos link then click on an image to enlarge.
I have 2 pictures in particular with highlighted lines showing where i want to cut away the laminations of the stator core. I would like some advise as to which of the 2 pictures would be a better attempt.
I am not sure but i am guessing based on the dvd the width of the center bar of the S rotor idea needs to match the width of the connecting stator 'brushes' (for lack of a better word) so i am not sure if highlighted picture 1 would be practical. For the rotor i will use the old rotor to determine the size of the new rotor with the same gap clearance between rotor and stator.
I will have a machine shop cut me a new rotor out of soft iron (and cut a longer shaft) modeled after Peter's S shape idea. Not sure how i will do the comutator. Eric, I took a look at your pictures.
You are totally on the right track here!!!! Cutting the stator core laminations is a bit tricky because they are covered with Silicon (glass) insulation. It tends to dull your cutting tools pretty fast.
Also, you'll find that running the coil on 12 volts DC will give you a lot of power, since there is no Back EMF in the coil to buck the input. You won't be able to run it on 120 volts DC as you suggested. It will melt the coil. Make a new rotor that is just a bar (with curved ends) of cast iron across the section of the stator that is left after you cut away the sections you have marked. Set the commutator to turn the coil ON when the front edge of the rotor is at the front edge of the stator, and to turn the coil OFF when the rotor is half way into alignment. The collapsing field will keep motoring the rotor forward until the magnetic field disappears, at which point the rotor will slide out of alignment unopposed. This is the simplest version of the idea.
This will work better than the 'S' rotor and is the basic method we used in 1983 with the original Flux Motor, as far as just attracting bars of iron to the stator sections. Keep us appraised of your progress! You really do understand the idea. Hahaha i love finding ways to recycle junk into new projects. But if i get this to work than for the record it was actually my neighbors idea,we both watched the dvd, drooling at the possibllities LOL, I,not knowing as much about motor geomitry as he, was all set to research what it would cost to custom make a new laminated C shaped core and coil when mark, my neighbor, piped up and said 'that looks like a shaded pole motor!' Hahaha and I with a deer caught in headlights look in my eye replied 'whats a shaded pole motor?' , hehe, he in turn described it and of course i just had some 'lying around' in my shop from appliances i tore apart.
So that said. I didnt know about the glass in laminations and i do have a portaban saw i was tempted to use to save money but i was allready going to see if the local high school might cut it for me with there plasma cutter. Do you know if there would be any problems, would i damage the motor, if i use this type of cutter. If so and since i am willing to pay a machine shop or high school to 'cut it right' the first time, what type of tool would you recomend? Second i am still curious about how to cut the core. I left two possible highlighted pictures on my seb site to choose from. One of the pictures shows a cut that leaves the largest continous stator contact surface area possible.
And the other picture shows a cut with a much smaller stator contact surface area. If I use the simple bar rotor idea i would be tempted to assume that first the width of the rotor bar must match the the stator 'brush' width and a wider rotor/stator would give more motor torque/power because there would be more surface area on the end of the rotor to 'pull' into the stator. Electricly this would also mean the electric pulse duration is longer so i would use more power but. The collected cemf would be more as well so maybe the 'payed for' input would be similar.
So unless you believe there is an important reason not to have the large stator surface area i will have it cut for the large one. Also i am curious as to why the S rotor wont be better and the bar idea and, since its in your dvd, when would this design be appropriate?
Thanks again!! Hello mister Lindemann, I’m sorry that this is unrelated to the Teal motor. But I don’t know where else to reach you. So if I may, I always wanted to know whatever happened to Eric Dollard?
I saw his work a long time ago and you were there also. He was very much in the know about the more advanced Tesla stuff.
He would be an excellent contributor to this whole f.e field these days. But other than the old video’s I have never seen anything of him again. Maybe you know?
Thanks Kind regards, Steven. Hello mister Lindemann, I’m sorry that this is unrelated to the Teal motor. But I don’t know where else to reach you. So if I may, I always wanted to know whatever happened to Eric Dollard? I saw his work a long time ago and you were there also. He was very much in the know about the more advanced Tesla stuff.
He would be an excellent contributor to this whole f.e field these days. But other than the old video’s I have never seen anything of him again. Maybe you know? Thanks Kind regards, Steven Steven, Eric is a brilliant engineer by training. He is the most knowledgeable person I know regarding the duplication of Tesla's Magnifying Transmitters. I have not seen Eric since 1989 and do not know what he has been doing.
Hi all, Im new to this group, and sadly to say I havent viewed the DVD. But im really curious and would like to get one thing straight here about the back emf. Just listened on the sterling d allan interview. Someone please correct me if im wrong. Lets imagine 2 experiments. They are very basic and similar. They consist of an electromagnet, a powersource and a switch.
In experiment number 1 we activate the electromagnet and exert a pull on a target, in this case a piece of soft iron. If we have a whole bunch of measuring equipment, we can take readings of all sorts of things, but basically we can see that it takes a certain ammount of electrical energy to get some mechanical work done (pull the target with xx newtons) in experiment nr 2 we have a permanent magnet instead of the soft iron as a target. So when we switch in the electromagnet the magnet is drawn closer ( if the emagnet is wired for pull N/S). And if i get the thinking right by what is presented here, then just by moving the perm.magnet closer we increase the magnets field strenghth and hence there will be a counter emf produced in the electromagnet? So if we design the second experiment to show the same ammount of MECHANICAL work being done, there should be MORE electrical drawn from the powersource in the second case?
If it is then we have a really nice thing coming up I just want it confirmed, because i have a few very nice ideas for a motor that will use this idea. Hi Peter, I made it through your DVD on Sunday morning. Although I was familiar with much of the theory, you really opened my eyes to counter emf. Also, your explanation about the containment of the magnetic field was awsome. I've built a few Bedini motors, the window motor being the latest. It has very little counter EMF and runs quite efficiently as a motor.
Nevertheless, I'm already designing a motor in my mind to take advantage of your concepts. It will combine your ideas along with a few from Bedini and some other guys. Who would have thunk that the simple solenoid could be so efficient. Thanks so much for passing along your wisdom. Motors are so much fun.
Peter, I'm trying to figure out if it is a must for me or not to buy this DVD of yours. I'm on a tight budget and there are some concearns about the explanation you give. So in order for me to decide if it is worth the money i have to cut through the marketing 'glazing' and to really know that i can learn something by it that i can not anywhere else. Generally the information is present if you try hard enough to find it. Anyway, take a look on where sam barros shows his can crusher project. In it he says. Quote: All of them share one thing in common: The use of a large, bulky, high-voltage capacitor to deliver, through a spark gap, a massive electrical impulse to a coil of wire inside which the can is inserted.
This enormous current induces an even larger current (by transformer effect: Suppose the coil has 3 turns of wire. The can, representing a single turn, will thus have a current that is 3 times as large induced on it) on the thin aluminium surface of a metal can. This rotating current (also known as an eddy current) has a magnetic field associated with it (proportional to the current involved), which, being the same polarity as the field on the coil, will cause the can walls to be repelled and hence to collapse in upon themselves.
So even if teals system uses a electromagnet to pull on a piece of iron, wich lacks its own magnet field, the eddy currents created will AS I SEE IT produce a back emf in the coil the ordinary way? Correct me if im wrong here. Maybe that the back emf is present but way smaller than ordinary?
OR there are some other things in work here. My first on teslas battery-operated tesla-coil, shows how yoy can catch the voltage spike when the current is cutoff. Perhaps you guys here can use this setup to power your coils? And to catch the kick-back. I believe that this is what john bedin does?
The motorcoil in teslas patent may be exchanged for your electromagnet and you may skip the primary side of the teslacoil completely. Just short circuit the capacitor, open the switch, Cap charges up, dump the charge through a secondary battery bank, and start all over again. I was planning to build a motor on this design, that pushes on neodymium magnets, and to catch the voltage spike in the cap for recovery. And just by coincident happened to find this info about no or reduced back emf.
I figured it might be even more economical in power terms than a bedini looking pulse motor. Or EV Gray for that matter.
So i have not made my mind up yet if you guys have something special or not. Time will definately tell. Some of you, me or someone else will of course build a working electric motor that brings out a whole lot of mechanical work by just a small ammount of electrical input. This is the ultimate goal for the world, a goal we all should work together to achieve. Best regards, Lars.
So even if teals system uses a electromagnet to pull on a piece of iron, which lacks its own magnet field, the eddy currents created will AS I SEE IT produce a back emf in the coil the ordinary way? Correct me if I'm wrong here. Maybe that the back emf is present but way smaller than ordinary?
OR there are some other things in work here. Lars, Just to clarify one more time. There is ALWAYS back EMF in a COIL, both when it is energized and when it is discharged. This is caused by Lenz Law and is responsible for the 'rise time' and 'decay' characteristics of the current in the coil. In the attraction motor, where only an iron piece is attracted to the magnetic poles, all of the back EMF effects remain in the COIL and do not appear in the ROTOR or affect the generation of mechanical energy.
In an ordinary induction motor, the current carrying conductors on the rotor also have a reverse generated voltage on them produced by their movement in the magnetic field of the stator. This effect is absent in the magnetic attraction motors I discuss. This situation produces a new set of advantages that are not present in other designs. You seem to have plenty of interesting ideas to explore, and probably should wait to buy the DVD until others build some working models.
You can always catch up later. Hi Peter and all, I built a small solenoid motor a few months ago while researching the Gray device. It is a converted R/C motor, solenoid driven, about 1000VDC 3-400us square wave pulse because of capture diode across coil to hold energy in the coil. Power comes from a step-charged 1uf, 3000 V. Oilfilled cap, IGBT driver triggered by a photo-intrupter off the flywheel. Would run very fast but is VERY out of balance due to weight of solenoid plug. Probably had it up to about 4K a couple times.
I guess it is basically a Teal motor although I wasn't aware of his work in the past. I watched the 'video' on the web and mine is just the same but much higher voltage as I discovered the effects seem to multiply as the voltage goes up. All back EMF goes back into the solenoid to provide full use of the pulse for mechanical effort.
There is a picture at: The limitations to post pictures on this site seem to be very limited so I just put it in there and they were gracious enough to accept it. Could post a video if anyone interested. NICE motor Ben! Were you pulsing it with a Gray type conversion tube?
I would be very interested in seeing your circuit if you care to show it. I have a question for Peter: What, if any, difference is there between your flux motor and a variable reluctance motor?
I can see why you developed that 'S' rotor. Otherwise you would have a step motor. I can also see that pulse switching via detection of the armature position would be preferable. Otherwise you would have to slowly increase the frequency of the pulses until you got to the speed you wanted.
A healthy flywheel wouldn't hurt either. Hi Peter and all, I built a small solenoid motor a few months ago while researching the Gray device.
It is a converted R/C motor, solenoid driven, about 1000VDC 3-400us square wave pulse because of capture diode across coil to hold energy in the coil. Power comes from a step-charged 1uf, 3000 V. Oilfilled cap, IGBT driver triggered by a photo-intrupter off the flywheel. Would run very fast but is VERY out of balance due to weight of solenoid plug. Probably had it up to about 4K a couple times. I guess it is basically a Teal motor although I wasn't aware of his work in the past. I watched the 'video' on the web and mine is just the same but much higher voltage as I discovered the effects seem to multiply as the voltage goes up.
All back EMF goes back into the solenoid to provide full use of the pulse for mechanical effort. There is a picture at: The limitations to post pictures on this site seem to be very limited so I just put it in there and they were gracious enough to accept it. Could post a video if anyone interested. @Peter, it seems some wrong interpretation is circling around. The information from the Bob Teal interview made it worse and many are thinking about a simple BEMF recycler. In my opinion it's an addon and not the main key!
It would be nice if you can make a clear statement here which i can forward to the gnosis forum. Thanx, Joehan That's a post from the gn0sis forum rickfriedrich wrote: [quote]Peter L's New DVD shows no secrets as advertised.
My comments are below these relavent quotes. John_Bedini wrote. Quote: Ted, snip. Also in the NEW movie, I built the engine you see running, I did the switching. As Teal's motor was not capable of charging any battery. The circuit you see with teal's drawing is not for storing energy at all.
The circuit is a spark suppression for the points. The teal motor is not capable of charging batteries until you use the monopole circuit for recovery. I'm not going to say anything more. Remember closing down all the fields is not an open system, no recovery possible. John Eddie Currentz wrote. Quote: Two things happened yesterday that have given me pause for thought. I watched Peter Lindeman’s new video on motors, and I hooked up my window motor to the shaft on my monopole to act strictly as a generator.
I found out that this window motor sucks as a generator. Even with all its windings in series it only generates about 8 volts @1000 RPM on an OPEN circuit, and this only after a minute or two. This made me realize that I am not going to get a lot of energy back from this motor no matter how it’s wired.
Peter made an interesting observation, among many, in his presentation when describing the limitations of modern motor design. He observed that with most motors, eliminating or overcoming back EMF is impossible with their current geometry. This made me start thinking about how much I could expect to get from this motor. As a motor it runs fairly efficiently and produces pretty good torque on the shaft.
As a generator it blows. I’m going to try and build a dynamometer similar to the one peter describes in his video. Then I’m going to start working on getting more power out of this motor for the same input. For me it’s going to be more productive to get a better COP than a self runner.
Crack Hitman 5. Now, if anyone has a highly efficient generator design Ted Peter L's New DVD shows no secrets as advertised I hesitated to post this on this list because I don't want to distract anyone. But for the sake of the truth I had to write this, and John encouraged me to. I also have no personal conflict with Peter, my last visit with him was very good. This email concerns Peter's new DVD, and the credibility of free energy videos, etc. Chronological Overview: On my first visit (July 2005) to John's shop Peter was very nice and showed me many of John's machines.
At the end he showed me this supposed Teal setup, which now I find out John really built (and not Peter, and it was also not a Teal machine but a Bedini machine). This is the motor shown in Peter's new DVD. I was allowed to film everything in the shop, and take pictures of everything but this setup. This was all hush hush, not for John but Peter everything about it was whispered. I was shown a stack of papers of old patents going back over 100 years, which John shared now that mostly came from him. So I went home wondering if this was the most important thing.
I looked up the patents but did not find anything significant; and after a little experimenting went on from there to other more important setups. The setup was what you saw, but had the hall switching, which may or may not have still been on there in the DVD.
In the DVD you see no circuit but you can see 4 or 5 strands coming off of the coil and beside that another clump of strands together, which was a multistrand coil Bedini uses for stage 2 monopoles. These go to several transistors but they are not shown. All you see is a big aluminum heat sink. But the impression you get is that this is a Teal motor, which it is not as I write below.
On my last visit to the shop some weeks back Peter showed up now and then doing his own thing and adding a few comments about this window motor experiment and Mikes setup. He was filming this DVD by himself in the back. He talked to me about various points as you see in the DVD. I wasn't sure of where he was going with all this and didn't have time to get into it. Not long after this time Aaron starting promoting Teal and this new DVD by Peter.
So below you see the progress of the posts and my responses. My concern below is this, that several things (secrets) are promised and not delivered. Secondly, we have no way of knowing if any secrets are known or if any really even exit. Thirdly, the only significant thing in this DVD is nothing new, but is John's recovery circuit. Fourthly, Teal is made to be the grand savior of the environment and world economy when nothing significant is presented of his work, while it is really John's recovery that has the most significance.
Fifthly, the final motor is only theory and no demonstration is given, as well as no demonstration of Teal's motor working or recovering anything. All of this adds up to a big question of what is the purpose of the video? I am forced to say that it is not just bad editing but bad science. I only say this for the cause of truth.
I wish I did not have to write this. I just cannot support these claims. Below you will see more details about specific claims in the book.
Please correct me if I am wrong in any statements above or below. Rick >>>>a1c3m wrote: >>>>Hi all, we had to change the web address: >>>>>>>>Bob Teal missing interview: >>>>>>>>>You can now watch this on Youtube right on that page.
>>>>>>>>Bob Teal discussion forum about Electric Motor Secrets: >>>>>>>>>>>>>Peter Lindemann will be posting some info about his new video release in the next 24 hours. >>>>>>>>Take care! >>>>Aaron >>--- In Magnetricity@yahoogroups.com >, 'a1c3m' wrote: >>>>>>That electromagnetic piston is a pretty cool concept but in Peter's new video, he shows how he eliminated the need for that in a more simplified rotor style. Will be giving more details here: >>>>>>secrets.html >>>>>>--- In Magnetricity@yahoogroups.com >, Rick Friedrich >>>wrote: >>>. >>>>I saw Peter's first prototype on my first visit and was there when he was filming this latest film.
Looks interesting. I like the monopole better but I have not replicated this yet (got started on it last year but never finished). This is one way to relatively easily replace the fuel heads on combustion engines with electric solinoid heads. And this solves the major problem with the degenerating batteries in the new hybrids.
>>>>>>>>Rick >>Aaron, >>>>I have watched the new DVD now and have not found it convincing. I don't have time to do a review of this long video. >>>>Number one concern: Bob Teal's motor did not have recovery. The motor shown was not Teal's recovery but Bedini's.
Teal's was fundamentally different than Bedini's in this point, also that one is electromagnet and the other is permanent magnet. The capacitor WITH resitor does not hold the juice because it is a resistor, nothing is shown to support the suggestion that this is anything more than to help reduce the arcing on the contacts. So there is nothing really important with >>Teal, unless there is some minor benefits with the kind of solinoid arangements. >>>>I do not feel that BEMF and charging of batteries with these kind of setups is covered sufficiently or even correctly. The video starts off with conventional theory in this matter and it is hard to follow where or if he departs from that. How can conventional theory explain the charging of batteries in Bedini's recovery system?
This is fundamental. >>>>We do not see Teal's setup run, nor it's efficiency to be able to judge Peter's claims in this respect. However, the one shown is presented in a way that appears as if it is Teal's motor. I have seen this run in person and saw the circuit and it is not Teal's circuit (that is the motor shown running charging the battery). No testing of the torque is shown on this as on the conventional motors previously (besides a small generator powering a bulb very very shortly). >>>>I'm not going to comment on the Lindermann Rotary Attraction Motor because none is shown running. >>>>Everything about the DVD sounds conventional but the minor points relating to Bedini's recovery.
>>>>All other statements relating to other inventors were not >>demonstrated. >>>>Further, I do not see how the COP = 8.6 near the end of the video in his COP Analysis. I don't see several points explained or supported. >>>>At the very end he says 'Motor designs that produce no back emf have been around for 170 years. These designs use a single electromagnet to attract a piece of iron and never use permenent magnets at all.' >>This is not correct and I wonder why this statement is made.
>Perhaps this is one of the several mistakes made in the editing. >>>>And what follows about Teal's system being so good was not established in the video. >>>>These are my thoughts about the video in the process of watching and finishing it. >>>>Rick Friedrich rickfriedrich wrote: >>Aaron, >>Below is the quote from the website where you order the DVD. Notice that it says that Teal's 'engine produced COPs between 8 and 10.'
In the video I don't see any supportive statement about this claim and I don't know if it even was claimed (from the video or reading the patents myself almost 2 years ago). Maybe Teal made that claim somewhere, I would like to know that. The only statment about COP = 8.6 in the video that I remember was in reference to some kind of calculations of a solinoid setup with Bedini recovery, where 85% was factored in as recovery, so this does not at all support any COP greater than 1 with Teal. Again, without the Bedini process I don't see what is significant about all this. However, if the collapsing field pushes the rod away (while the swtich is disconnected) then I suppose you do have some additive nature in torque benefits, but the cap with resistor would seem to prevent that. Nothing is shown in the video about this because Bedini's circuit was used instead.
>>Here is the quote: >>'Electric Motor Secrets by Peter A. Lindemann, D.Sc. >Laying dormant within the modern electric motor is a deep, dark secret. For the last 176 years, that secret has held the electric motor to its present level of performance. But in 1975, a quantum leap in electric motor design was made by an American inventor named Bob Teal. Teal's Magnipulsion Engine produced COPs between 8 and 10. >Using lab demonstrations, patents, diagrams, and private documents, Dr.
Lindemann takes you on a trip through the history of electric motors, resurrecting the secret of Magnipulsion, and revealing the future of electric motor design. (2 hrs 30 minutes)' >>Here is another quote of interest: >>>'After retirement in 1972, Bob and Beatrice moved from Honolulu to Madison, Florida. Like many creative people, 'retirement' didn't agree with him. With nothing else to do, he decided to build a model of the sci-fi engine he had invented for his novel.
The Magnipulsion Engine produced large amounts of mechanical energy while running on small pulses of DC current to its electro-magnetic coils. >In addition, when the power coils were turned off, the circuitry could also recapture most of this input electricity from the collapsing magnetic fields to recharge his batteries or run other loads. It was a quantum leap in electric motor design.' >>I don't see how the circuit would give this much mechanical, I did not see large amounts of mechanical, nor could the setup as shown in the video recapture really any of the input. The only capture was due to Bedini's recovery system placed on Peter's motor.
>Now, I just saw the short video advertisement for Peter's video and it certainly claims to use the BEMF, and it shows it supposedly running bulbs with no hinderance to the motor opperation. But this does not result from what is shown in the patents or what Peter showed of Teal's system. You would have to modify this the right way. >What I do see is that Teal's system as shown may prevent the destructive BEMF from flowing back, by flowing into the cap while the resistor right away drains the cap but not recharging the battery. So the hindering of the BEMF makes it more efficient, but it is not captured to any use as shown. You would have to gate it out of the system the right way to be used, as John has done. If he did do that it is not shown.
>>In this short clip at the end we read: 'Dr. Linderman takes you on a trip through the history of electric motors, resurrecting the secret of Magnipulsion, and revealing the future of electric motor design. >You will learn how Bob Teal exceeded 1.0 COP with his Magnipulsion motors. For the first time in history, all his secrets will be revealed.' >>But this is the very thing that is not shown.
We do not see a Teal motor running in the new video. >>Further, the news article listed mentions that the setup had magnets. But the new video says it only used electromagnets and no magnets. Further quote 'A small magnipulsion engine could operate a home cnetral air conditioner for about 50 cents per day.'
This was in the seventies. 50 cents today would give you 5kwh, and back then much more. So this is not a full recovery setup, and if this was true it does not seem as powerful as made out in the video. Maybe I am missing something here. >>Finally, reading the brochure by Magneteal Industries Inc., I see no statement of its efficiencies or COP, so I don't know where these figures come from other than the Bedini modification. The paper has several questions asking this very kind of thing and all that is mentioned is that it is but a fraction of what is used in conventional systems, or that it would cost pennies a day.
$0.50 a day for central air in the 1970's. Anyway, I would be curious to see any specific claims or specific circuits that show recovery. >>Rick Russel Prier wrote: Hi Rick, Dont forget a wirewound resistor is also an inductor I know of one person in the US who achieved COP of 8 by pulsing a resistor in the right way and at the right frequency. We all still have much to learn here yet. All the best Russ P. Russel, My point is not that Teal did or didn't have anything, but that we have not been shown how the very basic commutator switching could do 8.6 COP, which the ad said we would be shown all Teal's secrets. Just what kind of pulsing and switching is necessary to do that?
No values of the little arc prevention cap and resistor are given. No instruction is given of how Teal powered those bulbs or fed it back into the front end or even if he charged other batteries. The only thing we have like this shown is the bedini circuit. I don't see any support for Teal doing what Peter claimed. Pulsed DC with conventional circuitry does not give you OU or COP 8.6.
All of us have long seen this--the difference between pulsed DC and bedini recovery. The video, but for the bedini element, is conventional circuitry pulsed DC. I don't see it a secret now revealed because it only shows Teal's patent circuit and no recovery.
I think the video is like an introduction to pulsed DC. Now we need to see just what is claimed, the secret of how Teal powered those bulbs with his circuit. Secondly, why conventional pulsed DC cannot produce COP over 1. We could see with those first motors shown on the bench that you cannot get this with constant current or pulsed DC. Then we could compare that with the Bedini system, as shown, and see some recovery. But if you remove the multistrand coil and transistors and put the one wire solinoid with very simple mechanical switching that Teal had with one arc prevention cap and resistor, what would you see? This is all that we have been shown that Teal had.
If he had more then all Teal's secrets have not been shown. If this is all that Teal had then he had no recovery and thus far from COP 8.6. Does this make sense Russ and Aaron? Maybe I fell asleep and missed something when I watched it the other night. The question is not so much whether Teal could get 8 or 10 COP but was this secret shown? Not whether Bedini did this with a solinoid as we know John has done many things like this, but how Teal did this.
The presentation puts Teal as the solution to the whole electric engine problem, but how so? Please help me understand as I am a very serious researcher.