The Adams Active Thermo Electric
High Voltage Pulsed DC
Permanent Magnet Switched Reluctance Electric
Motor

(c) 2002 Tim Harwood & John
Jankowski

Introduction:

The most obvious question people ask is why no-one invented the
Adams motor before 1969, and the answer is fairly simple - the materials needed
to build it were not widely available. It is a great pity that ideas about what
electric motors are capable of doing were fairly firmly fixed, long before the
materials required to properly experimentally explore electric motor design were
developed.

'While most small DC motors are now produced with
permanent magnets, this has not always been the case. It has been only
relatively recently that permanent magnet materials have been developed
sufficiently to make them useful in practical machines. From the late 19th
century until the early 1940’s, steel permanent magnets were used in
applications where permanent magnets were necessary for the device to function
(compasses, etc.) Only in the late 1940’s did Alnico and Ferrite permanent
magnets finally improve sufficiently to be practical in applications
previously reserved for electromagnets.'

Switched Reluctance Motor Systems Poised for Rapid Growth
Amory B. Lovins, Bill Howe

The emergence of a rugged, versatile, and highly
efficient alternative to conventional electric motors promises to have a major
impact on drivepower markets over the next decade. Although switched
reluctance drives are not yet available "off the shelf" from major motor
manufacturers, they are likely to compete favorably across a broad range of
applications, due to their superior performance characteristics. Switched
reluctance drives maintain higher torque and efficiency over broader speed
ranges than can be achieved with other advanced variable-speed systems, can be
programmed to precisely match the loads they serve and, in high-volume
production, are likely to be less expensive than competing systems. The
principal obstacle to rapid commercialization of switched reluctance motors is
the fact that few engineers are trained to perform the exacting and
specialized design that this technology requires. This hurdle is gradually
being overcome as over two dozen firms now design or manufacture switched
reluctance drives, and several are moving into mass production applications.
As these and other firms gain experience with the technology, new
opportunities will arise for utilities, energy users, and original equipment
manufacturers to capture the benefits of switched reluctance motor systems
(1992).

Brief History

Invented in the period 1967-1969 by Mr Robert Adams of New
Zealand, for a variety of reasons the technology did not win immediate
acceptance, not least of which was that the New Zealand government and the Lucas
corporation, for various reasons, allegedly directly suppressed it, followed by
a typically botched and incompetent CIA assassination attempt. That this direct
suppression could happen during a period of global economic crisis triggered by
the 1970s oil shock, is simply astonishing, and with hindsight, outright
scandalous. As for the academics, they ignored it, and simply told Mr Adams free
energy was impossible and 'against all the laws of physics'. Academics like to
put theory before experiment - it is their way. Frustrated in 1992 Mr Adams
published his technology in Nexus Magazine, putting for the very first
time, a working free energy device into the public domain. However, sadly, the
continued lack of interest in free energy solutions from the general public,
government, big business, scientific community, and environmental organizations
alike, means the motor has still not been commercialized. Subsequent to the 1992 original Nexus article, an Englishman called Mr
Harold Aspden helped draw up what became GB Patent 282 708, a document which
like the original Nexus article, is certainly not without its flaws, due
primarily to the lack of experimental experience of the author. For example, Mr
Aspden was apparently unaware the motor runs off time reversed negative current,
something anyone with a working unit knows full well. Nonetheless, the patent
remains an important landmark in Adams motor research, because of the more
recognizably modern and scientific terminology Mr Aspden used to describe the
motor, and as a consequence, is given in the appendix to this document.

1994 Institute of New Energy (INE)
Conference

As well as Mr Aspden's contribution, this conference marks an important
inflection point in the history of the Adams motor, because for the first time a
group of educated men discussed the device, and several real motors were brought
to the conference, attempting to replicate the over-unity performance. However,
sadly none of the motors present were of sufficient engineering quality to
manifest the elusive over-unity effect, and one must lament the missed
opportunity this conference represented. As a matter of historical record,
photos of some of the machines present are included in this document. These are
among the earliest attempts to replicate the Adams motor.

The spindle motor (my nickname).

The plastic motor (my nickname).

Saucer motor (my nickname).

Quick Guide to Design

It seems to me there are 3 key stages to the stator cycle of the
Adams motor that deserve particular attention, and to properly appreciate it,
one should also understand that an Adams stator is really a 10 ohm generator
winding:-

Attraction to Stator Core:- The permanent magnet rotor
is attracted to a wound stator core. No electrical current is supplied. The
kinetic energy gained comes from the intrinsic ferromagnetic state of the
magnet, and is 'on loan,' and must be paid back at the stator. In other words,
to remove the magnet from the stator, an equal amount of energy must be
inputted to separate the magnet from the core.  This is where the energy
'loan,' made in stage one, is normally paid back. The laws of conservation of
energy state this.

Demagnetization of Stator Core:- When the rotor magnet
is in register with the stator core, the timing circuit is closed and a
current pulse is delivered to the stator coils. The stator is wired such that
the current flow creates an opposing magnetic field to that of the rotor
magnet. This works to offset the magnetization induced in the stator core
across the air gap. The stator coils 'dull' the field induced in the stator
core, and can even overcome it and provide repulsion at sufficient voltage.
Consequently, the total current cancels out much if not all of the drag back
of the rotor to the stator, and the rotor is capable of 'free wheeling,' out
of the stator zone using the remaining inertia gained in stage one. The magic
is that this current pulse is complemented by additional current freely
induced in the stator windings by the rotor magnets, which as per the dictates
of Lenz's law ( 1834), opposes the force that induced it. THIS IS WHERE THE
OVER-UNITY EFFECT HAPPENS, AT THE MOMENT OF SWITCH CLOSURE! The permanent
magnets in effect provide free precharge to the motor circuitry when in
register!

Recovery:- Now the rotor has moved away form the
stator zone, the timing circuit is open again, the stator windings lose power,
and stator core reverts to its default magnetized state. Restart at stage
1.

Clarification of
above

In permanent magnet switched reluctance design, it is important
to understand the windings are fundamentally demagnetizing windings, and NOT as
many people intuitively assume -  magnetizing windings. Important
difference. This is not to say the windings can not with enough voltage be used
as magnetizing windings, but this is not really the proper mental image to use
to visualize how the motor functions. Try it this way - the units I am
about to used are not intended to correlate to real values, simply to make a
point. The rotor is attracted to the stator core. When in register, the core is
energized by the pole face of the permanent magnet to a strength of (negative)
-10. In order to totally neutralize the temporarily acquired magnetism of stator
core, and enable the rotor to 'free wheel away,' an electromagnetic field of +
10 must be induced in the stator windings. The Lenz current / precharge in
full register where the greatest number of stator turns are cut, might be
equivalent to, say, + 8. The timed delivered DC pulse, has a value of + 12. So
with Lenz current / precharge, the net magnetism of the stator when in register
is +10. That is ((-10) + (8)) + (12) = +10. Without Lenz current the calculation
would be as follows (-10) + (12) = +2. We have therefore made a 'free energy,'
gain of + 8 units - equivalent to the size of the Lenz current / precharge
induced in the windings.

The Stator - An Electromagnetic Field
Splitter

A stator has two main parts.

Firstly the central core. A piece of material that is in an
ideal world magnetically non retentive, highly permeable, with a very low
magnetic orientation and response time, and an inductance rating of 1.5 Teslas
or above.. Obviously, the rotor will be most strongly attracted to this
substance.

Secondly, the stator is wound with many hundred of turns of
wire, the current induced in this wire by the magnet will be of a polarity
that repels the magnet, as per Lenz. The 1.5+ Tesla inductance rating of the
core, ensures a solid pole face is formed by the core when the windings are
energized and an electromagnetic field applied.

As stator and rotor come into alignment, the field spread over
the stator windings is at its greatest extent, hence the current induction is at
its strongest, exactly at the 'in register,' position, when it is most needed,
which is also where we close the timing circuit enabling current to flow.
Therefore at the 'stuck,' point where the stator core and magnet are effectively
temporarily as one, you will get a large current induced, that acts to offset
the field the magnet has been inducing in the stator core, which is the basis
for the mutual attraction of the rotor to the core. We are therefore left with a
most fascinating electromagnetic paradox, whereby the magnet is fighting for
control of the stator core simultaneously from two directions. It is both
trying to extend its flux field into the stator core to create an attraction
effect, but it is also trying using current induced, to make the stator core
repel itself. Both actions on their own are fully predicted
and explained by existing electromagnetic law, some of it 170 years old, yet
what no-one in the mainstream has ever investigated, is what might happen when
you perform both actions near simultaneously. The answer seems fairly simple to
me. Space time is, in a manner, short circuited. The magnet has gained kinetic
energy in being attracted to the stator core, yet when it arrives at the stator
core and should get 'stuck,' its own field energy causes partial demagnetization
(repulsion with delivered pulse) from the said stator core via the windings. It
is therefore forced to keep a  % of the kinetic energy it gained in being
initially attracted to the stator core, in an apparent violation of the laws of
conversation of energy.

Hence,  we have taken advantage of a switched reluctance
motor's mechanical yaw to register, to force energy out of the field of a
permanent magnet, by using stator cores configured as generator
windings. It has required less electrical energy to demagnetize the stator
core, than the sum of the kinetic energy we gained on approach, because of the
'free precharge' provided by the pm field to the stator windings. Thus an
electromagnetically asymmetrical operation has been performed upon the field of
a permanent magnet, temporarily depleting the field strength of the magnet below
that defined by the atomic structure of the magnet. Demagnetization is a
fundamental over-unity concept!

It is this two way magnetic energy field extraction
optimization the Adams motor delivers, that turns the permanent magnets
into negative inductors, that time reverse all particles caught up within the
negative flux field created on the pole face of the permanent magnets. The
negative time flux field of the magnet is a direct response to the field
depletion effect manifested, and is the mechanism whereby the magnet draws in
energy to rebalance the voltage component of its field and restore normal
strength, as defined by the atomic structure of the magnet. Since the magnets
run cold, and since this energy draw takes place in a time reversed zone of
negentropy, I hypothesize this mechanism to be a loss less and direct thermo
electric conversion. Photons radiate energy from a high potential source into
space under normal physics in a direct electric-thermal conversion (called
I2R losses in conventional physics), when time reversed, they do just
the opposite. They take thermal energy from space, and concentrate it on the
magnets to replenish their field strength. The circuitry of the motor is of
course caught up in the field replenishment routine of the magnet, hence cold
current in device circuitry, as well as further reductions in current draw, in
excess of the 50% reduction provided by the basic unit.

In terms of device optimization, cold current wires need to be
small enough to offer maximum vacuum surface area contact, while large enough to
allow electrons to flow. The exact equations that determine performance have not
yet been derived, but Adams stators in series should have a total resistance
approaching 10 ohms for best result. So if using 2 stators in series, that
implies about 4-5 ohms each. Obviously, the photons absorb any of the heat the
electrons emit in their passage through the wire and convert it directly back to
potential, so conventional I2R losses area a complete non issue. If
you use conventional equations in your stator construction process with the
Adams motor, you will most likely fail. Because true cold current is fully time
reversed, the electrons flow backwards recharging the source, hence the device
is really a mechanical transductor, changing energy from one form to another.
This reversal of current can give the appearance of polarity reversal in device
circuitry. But this is an effect and not a cause, of course.

Finally, the importance of voltage should be noted here. Voltage is
electrical pressure. If you recall we are performing a time reversal operation,
the higher the voltage the greater the heat dissipated in conventional circuits.
Hence in a time reversed state, the greater the voltage, the greater the photon
accretion from the vacuum. The relationship between voltage and energy gain does
not appear to be linear, and the below table gives the known
values. Current draw falls as each input voltage threshold is crossed,
increased voltage multiplication effects above supply can also be
manifested.

Summary: Known Negative Energy Voltage Harmonics

Crossing each harmonic further reduces current draw beyond
the basic 50% result.
Increased above supply voltage multiplication
effects have also been noted.
It is extrapolated that current flow may
stop entirely around 720v.
Important switching speed harmonics also
exist

9v

Source: Sparky Sweet, Tim Harwood

120v

Source: Sparky Sweet, Robert Adams

240v

Source: Robert Adams

350v

Source: Chris
Arnold  (360v?)

In the case of the Adams motor, I hypothesize the magnitude of the
negative impulse from the permanent magnets, to be equivalent to the size of the
free precharge, PLUS the kinetic energy gained on rotor attraction to the
stator. No doubt this can be modeled mathematically, but the key point is that
it is the mechanical yaw to register, that scales the very brief negative
impulse from the rotor pms, to such a size as to be technologically useful.

End view of stator and rotor magnet. Stator core 1/2
width / height of rotor magnet, as per Mr Adams 4:1 area ratio rule. This
is to ensure the stator winding get plenty of 'free precharge,' as well as
facilitating the negative inductor function of the permanent
magnets

Finished generator configured Adams type stator. Solid 24
awg wire. When tested on the pole face of a permanent magnet in a solid
state setup, after 10 minutes it started to burn up. When installed in a
motor unit and correctly configured for the 'yaw to register,' it runs
cold even after extended periods of operation.

'Back Emf' - a Common Source of
Confusion

Back emf is a Lenz effect reversed polarity current surge that
happens whenever current is suddenly stopped - as happens all the time in a
pulse motor. Many people confuse back emf with the negative energy manifested in
the Adams motor. Transducted negative time reversed energy flows BACKWARDS to
its source - hence enormous amounts of what people assume is 'back emf' can be
extracted from Adams motors, with 97% of input already seen with magnetite
cores. You treat it as if it is back emf, it looks like back emf, but it is not.
To get the best out of this motor, you have to figure out a system to remove the
'back emf' ( also called counter emf, cemf) from the stator windings. A mosfet
is in this case extremely helpful, because a simple pnp transistor does not
manifest the return to source current flow - only the cold running, reduced
current draw, and increased speed. In this case, most effective use is made of
the 'back emf,' by gating it into a 250v+ capacitor, rather than simply shunting
it back to recharge the source.

Visualizing the Permanent Magnet Negative
Impulses

The following is kindly taken from Bill's mathematical analysis of the
Dragone equations, as both devices force permanent magnets to deliver the exact
same brief negative impulses. This graphic illustrates how the strength of the
negative impulse, decays from the moment of switch closure. This is why smaller
magnets (3/4" being about optimal) work better than larger ones, and why the
motor runs colder at higher rather than lower speeds. It is all about pulse
width.

In Search of
Nikola Tesla
The Quest for Cold Electricity
(Tesla Radiant
Energy)

Having introduced you to how the Adams motor manifests
cold current, at this point I would like to introduce you to the scientific
pre-history of cold current. The great pioneer of this new form of electricity
was the renowned genius Nikola Tesla. To understand negative energy two
simple new scientific terms are required.

Hot Current: This is the normal form of electrical charge.
Since 101 textbooks abound, no further discussion is required.

Cold current: This is simply the time reversed counterpart
of normal hot current.

Discussion of cold current:

A device that time reverses an electromagnetic wave is called
'phase conjugate mirror,' in the standard scientific literature. The concept is
not in any way new or outlandish, but it is the key to 'free energy.' The
mistake made by the academic establishment was to assume a constant increase in
entropy is the inevitable result of all physical interactions. This is only true
so long as time flows forward. Entropy is in fact a process governed by local
time flow. Entropy increases when time flows forward, and decreases when time
flows backwards. While the universe as a whole has a well documented time
forwards entropy increase bias, local entropy with time flow engineering can be
slowed, or reversed. If time flows backwards, then a decrease in entropy is
possible, and indeed is predicted by standard equations. That is a negentropic
physical interaction will take energy from a disordered state, and convert it to
an ordered state, giving a net energy gain to a technological system above
supply.

For the historical background on Tesla's work, we are entirely indebted to
Gerry Vassilato's classic text Secrets of Cold War Technology: Project HAARP
and Beyond. The following is some choice quotes from this text.

Through successive experimental arrangements, Tesla discovered several
facts concerning the production of his effect.  First, the cause was
undoubtedly found in the abruptness of charging. It was in the switch closure,
the very instant of "closure and break", which thrust the effect out into
space. The effect was definitely related to time, impulse time. Second, Tesla
found that it was imperative that the charging process occurred in a single
impulse. No reversal of current was permissible, else the effect would not
manifest. In this, Tesla made succinct remarks describing the role of capacity
in the spark-radiative circuit. He found that the effect was powerfully
strengthened by placing a capacitor between the disrupter and the dynamo.
While providing a tremendous power to the effect, the dielectric of the
capacitor also served to protect the dynamo windings. Finally, the effect
could also be greatly intensified to new and more powerful levels by raising
the voltage, quickening the switch "make-break" rate, and shortening the
actual time of switch closure.

Not yet sure of the process at work in this phenomenon, Tesla sought the
empirical understanding required for its amplification and utilization. He had
already realized the significance of this unexpected effect. The idea of
bringing this strange and wondrous new phenomenon to its full potential
already suggested drilling new possibilities in his mind. He completely
abandoned research and development of alternating current systems after this
event intimating that a new technology was about to unfold.

Thus far, Tesla employed rotating contact switches to produce his
unidirectional impulses. When these mechanical impulse systems failed to
achieve the greatest possible effects, Tesla sought a more "automatic" and
powerful means. He found this "automatic switch" in special electrical arc
dischargers. The high voltage output of a DC generator was applied to twin
conductors through his new arc mechanism, a very powerful permanent magnet
sitting crosswise to the discharge path. The discharge arc was automatically
and continually "blown out" by this magnetic field.

Imperative toward obtaining the desired rare effect, the capacitor and its
connected wire lines had to be so chosen as to receive and discharge the
acquired electrostatic charge in unidirectional staccato fashion. The true
Tesla circuit very much resembles a pulse jet, where no back pressure ever
stops the onrushing flow. Electrostatic charge rises to a maximum, and is
discharged much more quickly. The constant application of high voltage dynamo
pressure to the circuit insures that continual successions of "charge-rapid
discharge' are obtained. It is then and only then that the Tesla Effect is
observed. Pulses literally flow through the apparatus from the dynamo. The
capacitor, disrupter, and its attached wire lines, behave as the flutter
valve.

Tesla found that impulse duration alone defined the effect of each succinct
spectrum. These effects were completely distinctive, endowed with strange
additional qualities never purely experienced in Nature. Moreover, Tesla
observed distinct color changes in the discharge space when each impulse range
had been reached or crossed. Never before seen discharge colorations did not
remain a mystery for long. Trains of impulses, each exceeding 0.1 millisecond
duration, produced pain and mechanical pressures. In this radiant field,
objects visibly vibrated and even moved as the force field drove them along.
Thin wires, exposed to sudden bursts of the radiant field, exploded into
vapor. Pain and physical movements ceased when impulses of 100 microseconds or
less were produced. These latter features suggested weapon systems of
frightful potentials.

Transformer

By 1890, after a period of intense experimentation and design development,
Tesla summarized the components necessary for the practical deployment of a
radiant electrical power distribution system. Tesla had already discovered the
wonderful fact that impulse durations of 100 microseconds or less could not be
sensed and would do no physiological harm. He planned to use these in his
power broadcast. Furthermore, shocking waves of 100 microsecond duration
passed through all matter, a fitting form of electrical energy to broadcast
throughout the stone, steel, and glass of a power-needy city. Tesla would not
expect distortions with specially adjusted energy fields, vectors which
permeated matter without interactive effects.

Tesla made a most startling discovery the same year, when placing a long
single-turn copper helix near his magnetic disrupter. The coil, some two feet
in length, did not behave as did solid copper pipes and other objects. The
thin walled coil became ensheathed in an envelope of white sparks. Undulating
from the crown of this coil were very long and fluidic silvery white
streamers, soft discharges which appeared to have been considerably raised in
voltage. These effects were greatly intensified when the helical coil was
placed within the disrupter wire circle. Inside this "shockzone", the helical
coil was surrounded in a blast which hugged into its surface, and rode up the
coil to its open end. It seemed as though the shockwave actually pulled away
from surrounding space to cling to the coil surface, a strange attractive
preference. The shockwave flowed over the coil at right angles to the
windings, an unbelievable effect. The sheer length of discharges leaping from
the helix crown was incomprehensible. With the disrupter discharge jumping I
inch in its magnetic housing, the white shimmering discharges rose from the
helix to a measured length of over two feet. This discharge equaled the very
length of the coil itself'. It was an unexpected and unheard
transformation.

Here was an action more nearly "electrostatic" in nature, although he knew
that academes would not comprehend this term when used in this situation.
Electrostatic energy did not fluctuate as did his shockwaves. The explosive
shockwave had characteristics unlike any other electrical machine in
existence. Yet Tesla stated that the shockwave, during the brief instant in
which it made its explosive appearance, more nearly resembled an electrostatic
field than any other known electrical manifestation. just as in electrostatic
friction machines, where current and magnetism are negligible, a very
energetic field component fills space in radiating lines. This 'dielectric"
field normally launches through space in a slow growth as charges are
gathered. Here was a case where a DC generator provided the high voltage. This
voltage charged an insulated hoop of copper, growing to its maximum value. If
all values in the circuit were properly balanced, in the manner prescribed by
Tesla, a sudden charge collapse would then occur. This collapse was
necessarily very much shorter than the interval required to charge the hoop.
The collapse comes when the magnetic disrupter extinguishes the arc. If the
circuit is properly structured, no backrush alternations ever occur.

This unidirectional succession of charge-discharge impulses causes a very
strange field to expand outward, one which vaguely resembles a "Stuttering' or
'staccato" electrostatic field. But these terms did not satisfactorily
describe the conditions actually measured around the apparatus, a powerful
radiant effect exceeding all expectable electrostatic values. Actual
calculation of these discharge ratios proved impossible. Implementing the
standard magneto-inductive transformer rule, Tesla was unable to account for
the enormous voltage multiplication effect. Conventional relationships
failing, Tesla hypothesized that the effect was due entirely to radiant
transformation rules, obviously requiring empirical determination. Subsequent
measurements of discharge lengths and helix attributes provided the necessary
new mathematical relationship.

He had discovered a new induction law, one where radiant shockwaves
actually auto-intensified when encountering segmented objects. The
segmentation was the key to releasing the action. Radiant shockwaves
encountered an helix and "flashed over" the outer skin, from end to end. This
shockwave did not pass through the windings of the coil at all, treating the
coil surface as an aerodynamic plane. The shockwave pulse auto-intensified
exactly as gas pressures continually increase when passing through Venturi
tubes. A consistent increase in electrical pressure was measured along the
coil surface. Indeed, Tesla stated that voltages could often be increased at
an amazing 10,000 volts per inch of axial coil surface. This meant that a 24
inch coil could absorb radiant shockwaves which initially measured 10,000
volts, with a subsequent maximum rise to 240,000 volts! Such transformations
of voltage were unheard with apparatus of this volume and simplicity. Tesla
further discovered that the output voltages were mathematically related to the
resistance of turns in the helix. Higher resistance meant higher voltage
maxima.

He began referring to his disrupter line as his special "primary", and to
the helical coil placed within the shockzone, as his special "secondary". But
he never intended anyone to equate these terms with those referring to
magnetoelectric transformers. This discovery was indeed completely different
from magneto-induction. There was a real and measurable reason why he could
make this outlandish statement. There was an attribute which completely
baffled Tesla for a time. Tesla measured a zero current condition in these
long copper secondary coils. He determined that the current which should have
appeared was completely absent. Pure voltage was rising with each inch of coil
surface. Tesla constantly referred to his "electrostatic induction laws", a
principle which few comprehended. Tesla called the combined disrupter and
secondary helix a 'Transformer".

Tesla Transformers are not magnetoelectric devices, they use radiant
shockwaves, and produce pure voltage without current. No university High
Frequency Coil must ever be called a "Tesla Coil", since the devices usually
employed in demonstration halls are the direct result of apparatus perfected
by Sir Oliver Lodge and not by Nikola Tesla. The Tesla Transformer is an
impulse apparatus, and cannot be as easily constructed except by strict
conformity with parameters which Tesla enunciated. Tesla Transformers produce
extraordinary white impulse discharges of extreme length and pressure, which
exceed the alternating violet spark displays of Lodge Coils. This is
illustrated by noting the manner in which Tesla Transformers are actually
constructed. While looking and seeming the same, each system actually performs
very different functions. Lodge Coils are alternators. Tesla Transformers are
unidirectional impulses. The most efficient Tesla Transformations were
obtained only when the disruptive radiating wire line equaled the mass of the
helical coil.

Construction Guide: How to Build an Adams
Motor for Under $50

Having briefly covered the history and theory of device operation, I will now
present a simple guide to construction. This is a genuine cold current motor I
have built and tested myself.

Costing a 4 Pole Adams Motor - List of Parts You Need for
Construction

Part

Price US$

Description and comments

2 CDs

Free

Can be taken from old computer magazine covers, for example

4 magnets

14

Basic ceramic / ferrite parts are just fine

Circuitry

10

Hall ic, transistor / mosfet, general purpose wire

12v battery

4

Basic 12v unit is fine

1 reel 24awg stator wire

5

Enameled copper required to wind stator (0.56mm)

4 mild steel nails

2

1 for the stator, 1 for central shaft, 2 to hold wood crossbar
down

Washers / nail head covers

5

Needed to mount CD, end stators, etc

Wood

5

To fix rotor

2,500 psi epoxy glue

5

To fix magnets

TOTAL COST

$50

Cheap by any definition

Note: You may misorder parts, and find you have to order in bulk above the
quantity strictly required for your motor. The point remains however, you can
build a cold electricity device for $50 on a per unit basis. No question. That
includes absolutely EVERYTHING.

The first step is filling in the center of the CD. I illustrate with two
methods I used. The first did not deliver complete rotor stability, the second a
simple doorstop made of hard shiny plastic, did. I only mount the lower CD. The
upper CD provides rotor stability, completing the magnet 'sandwich.' Other
people have used parts from old video recorders, hard drives, record players,
1/4" bike bearings, etc - any decent mounting is fine. Use parts to hand and
common sense. Plastic parts are to be preferred because they are non conductive
and offer only frictional losses.

The magnets are fixed with 2,500 psi epoxy glue (comes in 2 syringes,
resin and hardener). Be sure to mix thoroughly for best results, and try and get
an exothermic brand for faster setting. I now apply it in layers. One thin
application, 12 hours to set, then another, etc. Magnets are all S poles out.
This is mainly for the benefit of the Hall ic timing circuit, but S poles also
seem to deliver a small performance gain over N poles. Note: CDs only make
stable rotors when used in epoxy magnet sandwich pairs, and you need a classic
hard pressed CD, not a flimsy CD-R type.

This is the rotor fitted onto a wooden board, with a nail hammered through a
wooden crossbar as the central shaft. You have to do this bit in the right
order.

First I hammered the main shaft nail into the base board to depth of 1cm
or so, leaving a 1 cm deep hole

Then I removed the nail and hammered it through the crossbar - be neat!

Newly embedded crossbar nail threaded on rotor

Nail head cover supports placed on lower part of nail as pivot for rotor

Glued crossbar underside to fix itself on side supports when put in
position, this is backed up by nails

Shaft nail pushed into previously established hole in base board made in
stage one, but which is newly filled with sealer glue. Give one tap to drive
the nail in a little deeper. Leave to set for 1 hour.

Stators. Many people ignore Mr Adam's 4:1 instruction, and do not build
stators with the geometry suggested (stator head HALF width / height of rotor
magnet - VERY IMPORTANT ). The stator wind is the most critical part of the
motor, and while I appreciate conventional theory says these stators are
wrong in several respects, I can assure you this is what is required. The reason
everyone has been having such TERRIBLE trouble replicating the Adams motor, and
there must have been a reason somewhere, is that none of the people with the
academic skills to do this properly, will countenance using such an apparently
bizarre and dysfunctional rotor / stator geometry. It is a high ohm mess
frankly, and I am fully aware this design would just burn up in a conventional
motor. If in any doubt, just copy what you see in the pictures above. A
mild steel nail about 100mm long with an 8.5mm head makes a most excellent and
highly cost effective stator core, and I used a tap washer (bathroom section in
your local hardware store, a non conductive part) to 'end,' my stator. Pair that
with rotor magnets about 18mm ( 3/4" approx ) in diameter. Works great. Please
only try something else once you have got the motor already running cold /
ambient. Many people are trying to 'improve' this motor with ferrite cores etc,
and usually end up with inferior results. The stators MUST be wound solid to
90-100% of the rotor magnet width, with as many turns as possible to maximize
current induction on each rotor pass and precharge / potentialize / the stator
windings. I have found 24 awg (0.56mm) wire to be a helpful base to work from in
this respect. If you do not massively over wind the stators, the over-unity
effect when motor speed doubles and current draw halves, DOES NOT FULLY
MANIFEST. Basically the trade off here is a loss in efficiency due to poor rotor
/ stator geometry from a strictly conventional point of view, but you more than
get it back because the same design 'flaws' facilitate the over-unity effect.
You just have to take the hit, and do what is required to manifest the
over-unity effect. No way round it.

Construction Notes:

Stator construction is where most people building an Adams motor screw up.
A properly engineered Adams motor requires a stator that to conventionally
trained eyes, looks like an utterly  horrific I2R loss
inducing mess. How can such a badly designed stator possibly be used on a high
efficiency motor? Well, the answer is of course that the o/u feature of the
motor is the Lenz current freely induced in the stator windings. The stator is
therefore designed from the point of view of optimizing current induction, all
other design parameters are rescinded.  The stator therefore has an
integrated generator functionality, and is NOT a classical motor pure drive
device as such.

Ultra low ohm sets perform much worse, and the inability to grasp
this simple fact, is one reason why most scientifically educated people find
it almost impossible to build Adams motors. 24 awg wire is a suggested
sensible starting point for experimentation (0.56mm). No lower.

S poles seem to work a little better. Mr Adams generally illustrates with
N poles, the difference is not large enough for him to have noticed it,
apparently.

Circular or square faced magnets are not critical. Both have now been
shown to work. Square magnets like mine are easier to fix down, but only
circular faced magnets are sold in suitable sizes it would appear. If thin
magnets are obtained, glue 2/3 together to make one longer magnet.

The magnets should 'yaw' into register. Tiny button magnets do not do
this. Make sure you have built a demagnetization motor, and NOT just a push
motor. While you can get over-unity results of sorts with push motors, cold
running has yet to be demonstrated. Optimizing for a 'yaw' effect, also
requires proper rotor balance and low friction. Pay attention to that.

In its most basic manifestation, negative energy offers halved current
draw, with NO LOSS IN DELIVERED POWER. This is a very large part of the
over-unity effect, and the coldness of your motor is an excellent real time
guide as to whether your are getting reduced current draw or not. This is not
to be confused with the return to source current flow, which is separate.
Increased speed is also noted.

The motor uses simple ferrite / ceramic magnets. You should only try
working with NIB magnets once you have experience.

Keep the motor SMALL, for the critical short pulse duration cold current
demands. Use 3/8 cores and 6/8 magnets (mine are 8.5mm cores and 18mm magnets
- to be precise. All numbers refer to diameter). Size matters. The o/u
mode seems a bit on/off in its performance, and hence extra turns does not
give you extra resonance. Current draw is either halved or it is not. Yes / no
type situation. Also, it seems to be better to make the motor smaller
than this suggested size, rather than larger, in general.

Apart from the stator cores, keep as much metal out of the design as
possible. It acts as a drag upon the rotor, lowering efficiency. For example,
wood is a useful material, despite the fact it may appear to be low tech and
'primitive.'

A standard household power supply that was previously running my computer
speakers was used for initial testing purposes, specd at 3,6,9,12v and 500 ma
regulated, with 13W power. These units are readily available from any decent
hardware store. However, *NOTE* while the chill factor fully manifests with
these regulated power units, and they are great for testing because they do
not run down, if doing serious efficiency testing, an unregulated battery
power supply will generally produce superior results.

It is not illustrated above, but tape two tape insulation layers are both
simple and beneficial in construction. Put one insulation layer on the stator
core (nail body), and a second round the finished and fully wound stator, to
enclose it between the two non conductive tap washers.

Expect to build 2/3 CD rotors before you get it right. Small rotor
instability problems can really kill the rpms, and you never quite know how
the rotor will perform until it is actually up and running. You need to be
very neat and careful.

When firmly pushed your rotor should spin for 8-20 seconds (no stators
present of course!), depending upon rotor mass and flywheel effect manifested,
of course. If not, maybe you need to think some more on executing properly on
the mechanical basics....

Hall ic timing is done directly off the S pole faces of the magnets.
Branded side of Hall ic faces rotor magnets.

Air gap somewhere in the range 1-1.5 mm. The high end of that range
is fine. NOTE: if you use NIB magnets you will have to use 24-30v to enable
this (only at 24-30v do you get full stator demagnetization). Which is one of
several reasons why NIB motors are much harder to build, unless you use small
1/2" NIB magnets.

Understand the 4:1 ratio. Basically this just means your stator core is
half as wide/tall as your rotor magnet. Does not matter if you have round
stator, square rotor magnets. Do not fixate on the area, rather the twice as
aspect of it. And point to note: this is not sacred geometry! The 4:1 rule is
not precise, it is a rule of thumb. There is no reason why 3:1 or 5:1 could
not in the right setup be made to work, but 4:1 is a sensible ratio with
margin for error to aim for. The conversion to cold current is a probability
function, and a 3:1 configuration may mean that not all the current is
properly converted, sharply reducing the amount of 'back emf' you can pull
off.

I used 24awg wire (0.56mm), which is small enough to offer decent
performance, while being large enough to be fairly easy to wind. Also, point
to note, high ohm sets and tend to blow Hall ics. 24awg is within the limits
of Hall ics. It is a good place to start - other higher ohm sets and
additional stators can be tried later if desired.

Run the motor at multiples of the 9v negative energy harmonic for optimal
current draw results e.g. 12 is the minimum required to fully close the air
gap down, but after that 18v, 27v, 36v, 45v, etc should be used.

Bifilar winds on the stators, while not in any way essential to
manifesting the over-unity effect, deliver stronger electromagnets and hence
superior results

DO NOT put a mechanical load on the rotor

Oil the rotor shaft (basic but necessary). With 30-40 minutes use you may
also find your rotor improves and 'works itself in.' Then try adding a little
more oil.

Mild / bright steel nails are to be preferred as stator cores because of
the reduced carbon content

Stators wound to paperclip test depth described below

Tuning to Obtain 'Resonance' Operation

Mr Adams refers to using batteries to 'tune,' his motor at low voltage
(9-12v), before taking his motor up to the 120v or 240v range, which is where
the real action happens. No exact guidance is given on how to do this however.
Now I have built my motor, I have found a very simple way to tune an Adams
motor. Basically you just put your finger on the power transistor. It is that
simple. With tuning I have found you can always eliminate the heat from the
transistor. Now, that may mean closing the air gap, increasing rotor stability,
rewiring the stator, or improving the timing circuit, etc. Whatever. I am just
pointing out that having assembled something, you should expect to spend 3/4
nights, or more, fiddling with it to get best results. Only when you have built,
detested (sic), shaken down, and tuned a basic 1 / 2 stator 'soft,' design,
should you move onto something harder with more poles, stronger magnets and so
on.

'It was in the switch closure, the very instant of closure and
break, which thrust the effect out into space' - Nikola Tesla

Does it Like Speed?

Yes. I have seen no evidence whatsoever with my motor that there are any
'difficult' rpms. At 12v it runs smooth, fast, and stone cold. The dynamic
pulse duration optimization my motor delivers by timing directly off the faces
of the magnets must help in this respect. It 'wants' to go as fast as possible,
and seems much 'happier,' and indeed colder, at higher speeds than lower speeds.
This is in line with statements made by Tesla and others on the properties of
cold current, where short pulses (read high rpms) are to be
preferred.

Choosing a Stator Core - Mild Steel Nails Are
Fine

The nails need to be sensibly picked. What I mean is too large and a ferrite
/ ceramic magnet can not permeate them properly and the rotor gets 'stuck' in
register, too small, and the initial attraction of the magnet to the nail head
is too weak. BALANCE. Basically you need to buy 3/4 packs of suitable looking
nails and play around. My nails were carefully picked with these design
parameters in mind. I observed with simple hand experiments that the 125mms
tended to get 'stuck' in front of magnet faces, the 75 mms offered less initial
rotor attraction, so that basically left me with the 100mm long 8.5mm head
nails, because they offered all the qualities I was looking for. Excellent rotor
magnet initial attraction, easy demagnetization, with no 'stuck' in register
problem. Everything I wanted. Basically, about 3/8" head diameter is a good
size to pair up with 6/8" ceramic magnets, combined with a 12v pulse. I also
used nails with a sloping transition from body to head, and NOT straight right
angle. I figured this would make flux passage from nail body to head
easier.  Lightly sanding down the nail head is probably not a bad idea
either. I also used mild / bright / soft steel nails because of the reduced
carbon content and improved magnetic conduction properties. All these little
things add up, take every tiny optimization you can.

'It was in the switch closure, the very instant of closure and
break, which thrust the effect out into space' - Nikola Tesla

Magnets

The negative impulse delivered by the pms rapidly decays to zero as soon as
the timing switch is closed. Hence the larger your magnets, the longer the pulse
duration required, the harder it becomes to obtain 'cold current.' However, too
small a magnet, and no 'yaw to register' is manifested - ESSENTIAL for the
generation of the negative impulse in the first place. Push only motors can only
ever be hot current devices. My basic conclusion is that magnets of diameter
15-20mm are the sweet spot for the Adams motor. They yaw to register nicely, but
also deliver reasonably short pulse lengths. Some people have complained these
magnets are hard to find - so I have proved they are not, and produced this list
of suppliers. I have not ordered or used these magnets, so I can not vouch for
them, but they all look fine to me. Also I can not vouch for whether grade 5 or
8 magnets are better, since I have not done that experiment. But anything other
than the inferior grade 1 ceramics should work okay. The only downside is that
they are thin - in which case just carefully epoxy 4 of them together to make
one long magnet. The result should closely approximate to my rather nice 18mm x
18mm x 25mm custom cut magnets.

Circuits

Basic Hall ic circuit. Make sure you buy 5 extra Hall ics. I've already blown
2. They are a little fragile if mistreated. Banded side of Hall ic faces the S
pole rotor magnets. I suggest starting with just one stator - these things can
be a pain to wind, although 24awg is fairly easy to work with, and two stators
in series can be tried once you are up and running. Bifilar winds are worth the
hassle. They do perform better. In order to send the 'back emf' back to source,
you simply need to substitute the pnp for a mosfet. Try both to see the
difference. It is considered good practice to wire a diode in parallel with a
mosfet, to protect it from reverse voltage spikes. When fitted with a mosfet and
an appropriate rechargeable battery, source drain is minimal. Because timing is
done directly off the pole faces of the magnets, pulse duration is dynamically
reduced automatically as speed increases, which is very helpful. And yes, the
pnp / mosfet is wired backwards, but this is because the current flows
backwards. The emf pulse leaves the battery, enters the stator windings, where a
transduction operation is performed upon the current, turning it into time
negative emf, which then flows BACKWARDS into the source. Finally, this circuit
is only suitable for magnets of 18mm diameter, or very close to that value. If
using 25.4mm magnets (1"), you will be forced to use 555 circuitry to adjust the
pulse width down to get proper results.

Bill offers the following advice based upon his research and analysis with
Dragone cores:

The PNP needs a diode to gate the current back to the battery.
Mosfets have this diode built in. Because you are using a PNP, the negative
energy has nowhere to go but remain in the coil and ring. If the negative
energy were high enough, it could breakdown the transistor. Keep in mind that
negative energy appears as a high voltage when the transistor FIRST turns on!
Don't confuse this with the Lenz's Law effect when the transistor turns off
(back emf). I should also mention that this negative energy is a time-reversed
current flow coming from the coil back to the battery. Ideally, a switch
should be used instead of a transistor, and this is what he means by
commutation (Mr Adams is still using commutation timing). I think a mosfet
will do very nicely instead of a PNP transistor with commutation diode. My
latest device uses a very good mosfet (MTY100N10E) and a commutation schottky
diode (MBR6045WT) in parallel.

Basic Aims for Experimenters

Wind one or two solid 24awg stators in series, and get the stator/s
running slightly chilled, the power transistor ambient, and the stator supply
wire cold. Any rotor instability, air gaps over 1.5mm, etc, will kill off the
cooling effect fairly quickly. The basic low tech mechanical stuff most
certainly has to be done correctly, and the over-unity effect is quite
sensitive to the rotor / stator geometry, which is where the 'action' happens.
In my experience, the real test of the depth of resonance you obtain, can be
found in the stator supply wire - it should have a very clear ambient thermal
sink effect. THIS IS THE COLD PART. Do not expect the whole device to
be universally cold, it is not. Simple ambient running for extended periods is
a very good result.

Once the stator supply wire chill effect is fully manifested and
any rotor instability issues attended to, try seeing how much 'back emf' you
can pull off. You will be most pleasantly surprised by your results. The
record to date is 97% of input using NIB magnets and magnetite cores, although
it is not suggested NIB magnets and magnetite is necessarily suitable for CD
motors. Of more immediate relevance an AVERAGED 80% of input has been recorded
in the hard drive motor using permalloy cores. Finally note: it is of course
time reversed emf and not back emf. This does mean that a circuit which looks
fine from a conventional point of view is not always guaranteed to work.
Please keep that in mind. But optimize for coldness before you bother
attempting any numbers. Always first things first.

COP Figures - Mechanical not electrical over-unity

If properly wired to send the emf back to an appropriate rechargeable source
battery, mechanical COP figures of 3-6 are possible with the CD motor unit. That
depends upon such factors as quality of construction, stator winds, and
measurement methodology. Given the problematic nature of mechanical efficiency
calculations, many prefer to use the crude 'back emf to supply' metric, to
measure the performance of their units. As a rough guide, allowing for the
halved current draw effect and the increased rotor speed documented by Mr Adams,
an 80% of back emf to input number, indicates a mechanical COP of about 6 to me,
and an electrical COP of 0.8.

What is a 'true' Adams motor?

There have been some sour grapes from people who say I have not built a
'true' Adams motor. Well, allow me to point out that the early Adams motor
prototypes used star wheel timing systems and alnico magnets. It hardly needs to
be said star wheel is a very primitive mechanical timing system, and alnico
magnets demagnetize very easily, and are inferior to ceramic magnets for motor
applications. Not even Mr Adams builds such 'true' Adams motors any longer. The
Adams motor is a system of physics - it does not specify construction materials.
The basic principals are a switched reluctance pulsed DC electric motor, whose
rotor magnets are wider than the stator core faces, and whose stators contain an
integrated generator functionality. The result of this is the delivery of a
brief negative impulse from the rotor magnets when in register, that converts
the delivered current to time reversed emf, that flows backwards to the source.
The logical cut down home edition of those principals, is the experiment given
on this web page.

Is the Adams motor a free energy device?

Depends how you define free energy. Let me quote from the learned Mr Aspden's
outstanding patent abstract:

An electrodynamic motor-generator has a salient pole permanent
magnet rotor interacting with salient stator poles to form a machine operating
on the magnetic reluctance principle. The intrinsic ferromagnetic power of the
magnets provides the drive torque by bringing the poles into register whilst
current pulses demagnetize the stator poles as the poles separate. In as much
as less power is needed for stator demagnetization than is fed into the
reluctance drive by the thermodynamic system powering the ferromagnetic state,
the machine operates regeneratively by virtue of stator winding
interconnection with unequal number of rotor and stator poles. A rotor
construction is disclosed (Fig 6, 7). The current pulse may be such as to
cause repulsion of the rotor poles.

As stated above, it requires less energy to demagnetize the pm field in the
stator cores, than you gain in the 'yaw to register' stator attraction phase,
because of the 'free precharge' Lenz effect manifested in the over-wound
generator configured stator coils. Is that free energy? You tell me. Sounds just
like a scientific effect to me, rather than something 'free' and magical. What
Mr Aspden was unable to state because his unit for unknown reasons was not
capable of the necessary high rpms, was that the 12-15% energy gain you make
from that asymmetry, causes a brief negative impulse to be issued from the
central pole face of permanent magnets, a process clarified by the recent
disclosure of the POD magnetic schematic. This is conducted along the length of
the stator core, hence the current pulse is converted to a time negative
polarity. It then promptly flows BACKWARDS to the source, which it recharges. To
this extent, it is perhaps more accurate to describe the Adams motor as a
mechanical transductor, rather than a free energy device as such. I do not see
the term 'free energy' as scientifically helpful here. The Adams motor simply
converts energy from one form to another, in so doing reversing the direction of
current flow, enabling a high speed rotor to be run essentially for 'free.' Mr
Adams has quoted an unloaded mechanical efficiency of 600% - getting within
striking distance of that kind of number is actually fairly easy, you may be
surprised to learn, when wired with an appropriate mosfet and rechargeable
battery. Hence in the basic setup massive unloaded mechanical over-unity in the
hundreds of percent, yes, electrical over-unity, no. It is the Adams motor - not
the Adams generator.

Brian's CD Motor Replication

Comments

I was most gratified to see Brian finally get a result with this motor. He
really did put a lot of genuine hard work into this device, and he most
definitely deserved a positive result. I think the fact he opted for 1" magnets
with a longer pulse duration complicated this motor, but the problems that
created have recently been solved with 555 circuitry to adjust the pulse width
down. Instead of running hot and slow, it now runs fast and cold - as it should.
Pulse width is key, and even if he is using 25.4mm magnets verses my 18mm
magnets, it just goes to prove you can design round potential problems that crop
up in Adams motor construction. Brian did not try to be clever, he did not
'improve' aspects which looked wrong, he just built what I said, including the
bizarre over-wound stators. If you do the same, your motor will also run off
negative energy. Note, Brian also used disc magnets, proving square faced
magnets are not critical to the manifestation of negative impulses

CD Motor Design Template
Replication

The above motor was built to test a speculative cold
current theory, and indeed this motor runs very cool. When in operation the
Transistor has no temperature increase. It always remains just below room
temperature.

The stators were made as per the specifications
provided by Tim Harwood. While using these ratio specs the motor ran
cool.

To test this theory I built a number of coils, some
larger, some smaller. When undersized or over sized coils were used, the
transistor began to warm up.

Having a qualified electrician examine the device he
informed me that should I raise the voltage above 12 volts it would burn up
the transistor. Having the motor running at the time I raised the voltage up
to 32v (Power supply maximum) and there was not change in temperature.
(Obviously rotor speed increased..)

A few other minor oddities occur. Rotor speed increase
in steps based upon multiples of 9. So at 9volt, 18volt and 27volt increments
the rotor speed increases on a non linear fashion.

From the Homestead of AdeOne-KonAde. 3 motors were required before the proper
layout was perfected and cold current delivered.

Another Cold Running Adams Motor
(Using
A Hard Drive Platter to Make an NIB Motor)

This fascinating motor was based upon a rotor scavenged from an old computer
hard drive. Hence as one would expect, it is almost entirely frictionless, and
also very well calibrated. Between the dual hard drive platters reside 4 1/2 "
(12.7mm) square faced NIB magnets, fixed in place with high strength epoxy glue,
at 90 degrees apart. The diameter of the hard drive platters (disks) is 130mm.
The stator cores are made from permalloy (these were found to produce better
results than relay cores). The dimensions of stator cores are as follows =
6x6x45mm. Each stator has 450 turns of enameled copper wire of 0.56mm diameter /
24awg. The switch timer circuitry was borrowed from one of John Bedini's
motors.

In the above picture you can see the oscilloscope reading. The back EMF
(cemf) was connected to the power supply (car / automobile battery 12V). The
duration of the pulse command and back EMF spike was measured on an
oscilloscope, and as can be seen, the back EMF is a full 80% of the delivered
pulse width! Hence the constructor of this motor believes the efficiency of his
motor is 80% and NOT OVER-UNITY. The motor runs at about 2800 RPM, and does so
ABSOLUTELY COLD, as does the circuitry.

The initial motor test results were as follows:

The battery started with a rating of 12.38V

Then a load (the motor) was placed on it, and the battery voltage fell to
12.32V

After 2 hours the battery voltage rose to 12.35V

After 20 hours battery voltage was recorded slightly lower at 12.32V

Then the battery was then disconnected

Conclusions:

As Sweet noted with his SQM unit many years ago now, the efficiency of
negative energy devices fluctuates for reasons that are still not properly
understood. The time reversed 'back emf' from this motor is at times enough to
compensate for current draw, at other times not, giving an overall averaged
battery recharging efficiency of about 80%.

For comparison, a previous motor managed 10000 RPM - but it ran hot, and
efficiency was only about 20%. It had larger magnets (NIB) and fewer stator
turns. So this this constructor had to build 2 motors before he obtained cold
current.

Fully Independent Adams Motor
Replication

This motor is a successful over-unity cold current design. The
constructor wishes to remain anonymous. He also warned me, these pictures show
an early version, and significant modifications were
subsequently undertaken. Exact mechanical efficiency numbers are not
available, but they are clearly well over 100%. The constructor so far measures
his performance by the amount of back-emf he can pull off relative to input -
97%. Which is absolutely astonishing! Secondary windings could most easily be
added to the stators to push that number well past 100% - battery charging in
excess of motor draw, is clearly no problem. The constructor also notes the
benefits of alternate N/S Muller type setups. But I was most interested to read
his comments on pulse duration, and the importance of fine tuning this parameter
for best results.

Construction Notes:

Timing and pulse width are critical.

To obtain best results, patience and perseverance may be required.

A timer and rheostat was used to control pulse duration. 555
circuitry can also be useful.

When you get up to 2-3 thousand RPM, you must adjust the pulse width
down.

The higher the voltage, the shorter the pulse width.

The higher the voltage, the more efficient the unit becomes.

Best results were obtained using magnetite cores and bifilar
windings

I have two connected rotors, one is all N faces out, and the other
alternate N/S faces.

The alternate N/S configuration, has proved itself to be capable of
manifesting a greater electrical output than the N/N configuration.

If one dumps the back EMF directly into a secondary coil you can achieve
about 1/3 more torque, which allows you to take more off the back end.

I have not quite been able so far to run the unit on one rotor, and
collect enough back EMF to keep a battery up. When I get the unit up to about
3-4 thousand RPM with 80-100 volts with no load, I can recover 97% of the
input simply from the back emf spikes. At this point you must balance any load
on the back end to push the unit into o/u.

The bifilar windings make it much easier to take the back EMF off, single
windings require capturing then separating and switching the
back EMF back to the source. Which I found not to be very efficient. It
is much easier to just dump the secondary windings onto a bridge then to
the source.

I have not yet been able to properly measure the mechanical output of the
unit, but I believe it is a significant o/u result.

I believe based upon my results to date, that the configuration given in
the Adams patent of 8 rotors and 7 stators is more efficient. I note with
interest, Mr Muller has incorporated this type of setup into his units.

Conclusion

I believe Mr Adams has most certainly unlocked the secrets of over-unity
physics for us all, discovering a method of forcing magnets to deliver a short
negative impulse, offering an alternative method for the generation of Tesla's
'radiant energy.' But one has to approach this subject in this correct manner.
Recall, these motors are really no more than switching devices, and some kind of
solid state derivation of the Adams motor principals, must be the ultimate goal.
This whole process is not to be taken lightly, as these negative impulses are so
short and brief, that trying to nail them down, and produce repeatable results,
is extremely difficult. The majority of people trying to build Adams motors,
will most likely continue to fail to generate these negative impulses.

Harwood-Jankowski POD
(Power On
Demand)
$40 Solid State Over-Unity COP 2.0
Transductor

Costing a Solid State Transductor - List of Parts You Need
for Construction

Part

Price US$

Description and comments

Permanent magnet

10

Basic ceramic / ferrite parts are fine

Ring permanent magnet

8

Basic ceramic / ferrite parts are fine, can use3/4 thin magnets glued
together

Battery

4

To power device

Jumpers

4

Connections

Enameled wire

4

To wind stators

Electric Motor

3

To provide a pulsed DC load

Full wave bridge rectifier

2.50

For output conversion to DC, 4 diodes, essentially

Diode + capacitor

2.50

Circuitry

Nails

2

Stators

TOTAL COST

$40

Solid state o/u for $40 with Radio Shack
parts!

The Basic Device Schematics and
Concept

The project reasoning, methodology, and underlying field depletion
theory, was directly copied from my successful over-unity CD motor project. We
wanted to generate negative energy in a solid state setup, and initially cold
running was made the primary device optimization parameter - all other
priorities were rescinded. The assumption was made that if the thermal
properties were as desired, the numbers would consequently be excellent. So we
were initially disappointed to discover a simple static Adams stator would not
produce the time reversed cold current we were looking for, as illustrated
directly above. Additional energy yes, cold running and halved over-unity
current draw, no. Hence we learned that the loss of the additional kinetic
over-unity vectors when the magnet 'yaws' into register, was a greater blow than
we had anticipated. However, at this point, John came up with what turned out to
be a excellent idea - place a ring magnet round the stator coils. This concept
is not transferable back to my original CD motor unit, but works wonders in a
static setup, providing exactly the kind of performance boost we needed to be
successful. The resulting device modification is illustrated below.

This modified setup has indeed been found to deliver true 'cold current,' and
excellent over-unity results have already been observed and replicated. They are
summarized in the below table. That such strong over-unity results can be
delivered for such little cost, is nothing short of remarkable. This document
proves you can build an over-unity motor AND and an over-unity solid state
transductor, for a combined total of under $90!

Summary of Device Testing Results To Date

3.7 W average

1 hour power consumption of  isolated motor when
connected directly to the battery source, with no other connected
circuitry (drop the reading across the battery terminals)

41.3 W

Disconnected battery prior to over-unity test:

39.4 W

Disconnected battery after test over-unity:

1.9 W

Total power consumption with John's transductor device

COP 2.0

50% of normal draw using a DC electric motor as a load -
basic setup

COP
1.4

A lower figure was obtained with an incandescent lantern
bulb

Testing notes: the above figures are an average of several
tests, each conducted for a time period under load of 1
hour. The motor used was an unloaded 12vdc motor rated at 1.3 amps and
11,500 rpm loaded, and 15,200 rpm unloaded. Performance with a loaded motor
is currently untested. A different battery was used in each test series,
one fully charged and the others slightly undercharged. The arrangement was
tested using 6v alkaline battery sources to determine total power consumption as
indicated across the disconnected terminals before and after each test. The
COP figures refer to device current draw.

John Jankowski's Transductor Device :
Important General Construction Notes

The coils must be wound directionally as indicated and connected in series
as shown.

Counter clockwise wind is determined by facing the nail core head or PM
directly and proceeding back as noted.

The use of the thin double sided tape as insulation is convenient and
beneficial.

Best results were obtained at 9v - the first negative energy
harmonic value

Stator wind depth can be set by placing a paper clip in front of a magnet
pole face, and moving it closer until such time as frictional forces are
overcome, and it flies into the face of the permanent magnet. Note this
length, and wind stator core to this depth.

*DO NOT USE A REGULATED POWER SUPPLY* Results to date have been
disappointing.

Air cores do not appear to work. Slightly counter intuitively, iron / mild
steel is essential to device operation - without it, this device cooks, and
the sharply reduced current draw over-unity effect is not manifested

Stator windings should be about 10 ohms for optimal results

It has been found S pole faces work slightly better than N pole faces

Device Schematics

This is John's very own schematic of his device, which gives more detailed
and precise technical information about the device, than the previous simple
background and introduction to principal images offered.

John's second image gives precise circuitry details. Again, nothing
especially complicated here - but very precisely intellectually reasoned,
nonetheless.

Picture of Device

Operation Procedure

Disconnect the load and pulse the unit at approximately 60hz for
approximately 5 seconds until the dc voltage across the capacitor reads 40-50
volts.

Connect the load.

Pulse the device at approx. 60 hz for approx. 5 seconds every 30+ minutes.
There is no need to disconnect the load during this re-charge. Motor rpm will
drop noticeably during this time then immediately return to normal.

Be advised that a vom across the charge cap will slightly increase the
time required to reach the desired voltage at pulse.

Voltage indicated across the cap was kept in the 20-50v range, although a
dissipation to under 20v, but above supply, may work as well or more
efficiently.

Other Notes and Observations

With a confined circuit configuration, the unit would generally charge the
cap as high as 75vdc with a 12 volt supply, but amperage reading never
exceeded 1.2 (see below)

Amperage would decline with increasing voltage, but 45-50v at 1 amp was
the median across the cap in the isolated circuit.

The coils could be connected in reversed-series, but capacitor voltage
failed to exceed 40 volts in a timely manner with any but the final
arrangement.

The above 3 tests were all unloaded and used a modified circuit. A
clamping diode directly across the load apparently did no harm but no
extraordinary benefit could be concluded.

Various diode and capacitor arrangements across the ac/dc leads of the
full wave bridge rectifier were also tried but were either detrimental or of
no obvious benefit.

An increase in motor rpm during operation was occasionally noted, the
cause of which is undetermined. The increase would generally be sustained for
10-15 minutes, but this increase was not observed at all during 1 test.

A crude manual arrangement was used to pulse the cap.

Incorporation of solid state momentary PB and/or sensing/timing strategies
is discretionary - if not advised. Of course, this will alter the net
efficiency for better or worse.

Drop across the battery terminals during pulse is nominal. (<.1
W)

Resistance of the series connected coils is approximately 10 ohms.

Substitution of the device with a small step-up transformer produced 60v @
20ma across the cap which rapidly dissipated, while use of the device
typically yields 40-50v @ 2.5-3 amps and amps hold steady.

The cap normally showed a 20v drop at shutoff with amps steady, implying
that the arrangement is still grossly inefficient versus dissipated potential,
an element which needs to be addressed.

Although the margin of error is large, the results so far are enough to
suggest an operational gain.

Voltage Notes

The unit charges the cap most efficiently with a 9v supply, less efficiently
with a 6v supply, and least efficiently with a 12 volt and 18 volt supply. The
above figures were determined with the device unloaded, so loaded results may
vary. It is projected this device will run best at
precise negative energy voltage harmonics, and this is another interesting
avenue for future experimentation. In particular, numbers to highlight for
investigation would be 120v, 240v, and 350v.

John's Commentary on Device Development

The
biggest thing I missed early on was the importance of series connection. The
first units had isolated input and output coils keeping the input and output
separate. When Bill pulsed his output coil, I knew we had to do that also
(provide a carrier current). It is essential to manifest the over-unity effect,
and is basic to the operation of the Adams motor. I did not want to make an
entirely separate active supply circuit to do this, so the obvious solution was
simply to hook up the inputs and outputs in series. Naturally that instantly
worked, and I had nothing to lose by trying it. So my main error was to worry
about losing potential, which if everything is routed to the eventual output
anyway, is never going to happen! I then connected the device in parallel with
supply, which never allowed the load to see less than supply
potential.

The final trick was to prevent the charged cap potential from
instantly and totally dumping into the load. This is what everyone does and, of
course, it never works. So I coupled the (-) charge indirectly to the load
circuit by inserting a diode BACKWARDS of normal. This does 2 things: allows the
diode trickle access to the load, but only on demand (as nature sees fit) and,
because (-) supply terminal must be a LOWER potential than the (-) leg of the
charge cap, then the charge can reach ground when any natural aberration
dictates, but ONLY through the load. Finally hooking in parallel to the (+) leg
apparently allows the amperage components to couple with the device so total
watt (amp) potential in the storage cap is 50-125 times higher than a common
transformer would produce.

In sum all the fields are coupled and
uncoupled without wasting any potential to do so. All the gains are then stored
in the charge cap, and dissipated JUDICIOUSLY by nature, which probably no human
could ever match in effectiveness. Then we just sit back and let nature perform
the implementation, which apparently, it does rather nicely.

Feedback notes:

Q: What sort of cct is used to pulse the coil with 60Hz?

I initially used a crude mechanical "commutator" made from a small dc motor,
but a solid state arrangement could / should be tried. Or, if a 60hz line supply
setup were used, one could utilize the non filtered pulsing dc from that with no
further frequency manipulation needed. 555 circuitry can also be employed. Motor
variations are so simple I do not understand how anyone could have trouble
fixing a basic 60hz supply.

Pat in the AM Egroup: I found this quick and dirty pulse generator circuit in
the July 1988 electronics now magazine. I am building one to use to test the POD
device. See the attached photo. Sorry about the picture quality. Also
corrections were posted to the circuit in Sept. 1988 edition. The circuit is
based on the TLC556 dual timer One of the timers sets the period and the other
sets the pulse width. There is a better "Precision Pusle Generator" in the
December 1998 edition but it is quite a bit more involved to build.

Precision Pulse generators. Note: I have not bought or used these products,
these links do not constitute an endorsement, and you deal with the vendors
entirely at your won risk.

'The 555 timer is one of the most remarkable integrated circuits
ever developed. It comes in a single or dual package and even low power cmos
versions exist - ICM7555. Common part numbers are LM555, NE555, LM556, NE556.
The 555 timer consists of two voltage comparators, a bi-stable flip flop, a
discharge transistor, and a resistor divider network. The 555 timer is ideal for
astable free running oscillators as well as the one shot monostable
mode.'

4khz works well with POD - much improved results over the basic
60hz input. Since I've given you one of the switching harmonics, you can be
fairy sure that if you rig a non variable 4 khz 555 circuit, that should work
quite nicely. 555 calculators are provided to determine the required part
values.

555
Timer ic guide

The 555 Timer - Tim
Surtell

The 555
chip

Counting
/ timing

The
555 as table circuit in detail

Astable
circuit

Analog /
digital circuits

Oscillators,
pulse generators

Pulse
generator circuits

'one
of the most popular ics of all time'

Example
application

555 to
power a 12v led

555 startup

Solid
state Tesla Coil with 555 timer

555
calculator - Javascript applet

555
calculator (2)

555
data sheet

555
application note

Mims, Forrest M., 555 Timer IC Circuits, 3rd Ed, Engineer's
Mini-Notebook, Radio Shack

Q: I used a single layer #30 around the nail core. none of the
windings are bi-filar. They are series connected, unidirectional on the outer pm
ring only, i.e. wind 1 layer #30 and connect the end to a 2nd 175t #30 layer at
the start of that layer. (front to back from nail head)

So you will
have 175t #30 on the nail, series connected to 175t around the ring pm then
another 175t around that. This will give you a total series resistance of around
10 ohms. Be certain to wind all coils counterclockwise as indicated and include
the insulating tape layer between each. This
eliminates capacitive coupling
effects. See Doug
Konzen's unidirectional winding methods.

Q: How does the 175 turns relate to the POD construction? Is it
just 175 turns x 1 on the inside layer? How many layers on the outside?
1
layer of #30 and 1 layer of #18 ?

core: 175t 1 layer

ring: 175t 1st layer, 175t 2nd layer

Series
connect all unidirectional (back to front) (or finish to start) core-ring1-ring2
as per Konzen, not Tesla (thanks for that 10 spot, Doug). Check at 10 ohms nom.
POD II outer insulated steel same <40t (your option) if used, connect front
to back ring2. Should then be just under 11 ohms.

Q: Also do you happen to know what happens if all of the coils are
inside the ring magnet instead of one being on the outside?

No. It might work just as well - if the total resistance remains around 10
ohms. That part is important. Originally, the inner (core) coils were used as
"inputs" with the outer (ring pm) coils as outputs. But that was abandoned and
they were then all series connected which produced a much higher potential
across the charge cap.

Q: What happens if the tape is too thick?

I have not tried various tape thicknesses. I imagine that capacitive coupling
would be reduced but net output might also be reduced with thicker tapes.

Q: I have built a POD and I am in the process of building a circuit
to test it. I noticed the addition of the steel wire winding on the POD II. It
appears to be connected in series with the other coils. Can you tell me how you
attached the steel wire to the copper wire?

Just wrap the end of the 2nd ring coil around the start of the steel winding
- all unidirectional series ccw. The only tough part is placing shrink tubing
over the bare wire, although insulated steel wire is available at some sources.
Used for thermocouples and some other applications. I would avoid a stranded
wire, though, not having tried it at this point. I used common 18ga. baling
wire. Otherwise, just wind tape on it.

Q: Is magnet size important?

It is not irrelevant, but you must understand the reason magnets of about
3/4" size are required with the Adams motor, is because rotor magnet size
approximates to pulse width. Small pulse widths are required because the
negative energy impulses produced by the permanent magnets rapidly decay to
zero. In the POD unit, magnet size does not determine pulse width, hence magnet
size is not going to be so important. The bottom line here is use common sense.
It is impossible for myself and John to try every combination of everything with
everything else. In fact, such an approach would be extremely stupid and
wasteful of time and energy. Rather we use our intelligence, and go after the
variables that seem most interesting.

Q: I can't easily get the 1" ceramic cube magnets described, are
stacked ring magnets ok? Does the end magnet diameter have to be larger than the
coils or just the metal core nail?

There is no absolute proof cube magnets are needed at this time - but since
there is need to alter what works, that experiment has not been performed.
Recent successful replications of Tim's CD Adams motor suggest circular faced
magnets can also deliver negative impulses without problem. But other device
parameters seem more interesting and worthy of study at this time. However,
ceramic magnets have been demonstrated to manifest negative impulses more
readily than the much more powerful NIB magnet type, hence are to be preferred.
allmagnetics.com
offer a decent range of ceramic parts. And yes, stacked ring magnets do indeed
seem to work just fine.

Q: I don't understand how this can possibly work? If the coil is
disconnected from the circuit it wouldn't have any effect on power consumption
and wouldn't improve COP.

The device is used to charge the storage capacitor. At that point, what to do
with the charge? Do you just dump it carelessly into the load, as everyone else
has tried to do? It is mindless! Instead, you allow it to trickle into the load
on demand as supply fluctuates. That is how you reduce the burden on supply -
even with a battery source. Battery sources also fluctuate during loading
regardless of what someone may have assumed or postulated. That is also why an
incandescent bulb will benefit. Of course, although any fluctuation in supply
will instigate impedance/reluctance cycles in the filament, the bulb itself is
not the cause, but the effect of the supply fluctuations. This in turn will
trickle charge potential into the supply line, although understandably at a
lesser rate than with an actively fluctuating load such as the dc motor. It's
really very simple. ALL power supplies fluctuate. Even the most highly filtered
and regulated ones. How does a regulated supply work? It DUMPS excess
voltage/amperage to ground. In other words, they PURPOSELY waste power. The term
"regulated" is therefore something of a misnomer. "Dumpulated" would be a more
accurate description.

Q: Does it make more sense to use an Adams motor in an automobile
(car), or a POD driven conventional DC motor?

I would say the latter. In pursuit of optimizing the over-unity effect, the
final design of Adams motors is rather strange, struggles with a mechanical
load, and can only be regarded as heavily compromised from a conventional point
of view. In this case, I think it makes more sense to build a motor optimized as
per conventional physics, and then feed it solid state POD input. POD 2 has
now finally made that proposal worthwhile.

Q: Does this device have any similarity to Nikola Tesla's U.S.
patent 568,176 that Bill has recently highlighted as a possible radiant energy
device?

Maybe. This is something I have attempted to investigate recently. The Tesla
unit relies on self oscillation within the core, as each pulse is delivered when
the magnetic polarity in the core has only partially decayed from that
established by the previous pulse. You therefore get a form of flux movement and
'free precharge,' to the main circuit. Hints of cold current are contained in
the patent which talks of 'converting and supplying electrical energy in a form
suited to the production of certain novel electrical phenomena' and more
importantly 'around the break or point of interruption I place a condenser or
condensers to store the energy of the discharge current, ' and a 'high
electromotive force which is induced at each break of the main circuit furnishes
the proper current for charging the condenser, which may therefore be small and
inexpensive.' This is in line with the observed properties of the POD
technology, which is also able to store large amounts of charge in capacitors
much more quickly and reliably than conventional science teaches is possible. My
current gut feeling is that Tesla's setup is basically the same thing, just much
harder to tune. But since the Tesla patent hints that it may be possible to
completely eliminate the magnets from the POD layout further decreasing costs,
it is worth keeping in mind.

Response to detailed questions from successful POD
constructor:

Q: The unit is not cold running. It actually runs quite warmly. I
am not (yet) using the circuit that was provided on the web page. I am using a
555 timer circuit with which I use variable resistors to change the frequency
and duty cycle, with a MOSFET switch. I am trying to understand the functioning
of this device by using this setup and monitoring the effects with my
oscilloscope.

When constructed per the site, the arrangement runs
room temp to cool. This varies between components with the only element
exhibiting any warmth being a loaded output (drive) motor. There will be no heat
whatsoever in the pod coil or other electrical components. Keep in mind that
with a 10 ohm set in there, simply being room temp involves a substantial net
cooling effect.

Q: The pm ring stack is approx 2 inches in
length. 4 segments doesn't sound right unless they were 1/2" in thickness
each.

All the dimensions are posted in the construction diagram. Just
follow that. The unit and circuit have been replicated by several other people
to date. The pod is actually 2 parts:

The pod device itself which is only used to generate potential and charge
the storage capacitor. Thus the pod device itself is only pulsed 5-10 seconds
at approx 1/2 hour run-time intervals. (unloaded motor)

The distribution circuit which is used to dispense that stored potential
into a useful load "on demand". It is useless to simply dump the potential
carelessly into the load circuit. Hence, "Power On Demand".

- sounds as if you are pulsing the pod device continuously.

Q:
Also, my local hardware store does not carry soft or mild steel nails, so
right now I am using a standard steel nail. Is a mild steel core necessary for
the cold current effect?

Nails can be purchased at any Home Depot or
Lowes. Just don't inadvertently grab any of the aluminum ones. Get a 6000 ft.
spool of #30 at www.mcmaster.com - around $15 and will last forever. The pm ring
diameter sounds fine. That is not critical. You can get the ring pm magnets at
any Radio Shack or mail order. BaFe magents as used in the old Sweet SQM / VTA
unit are not necessary. Exotic magnets are not required at all. In fact,
they should be avoided because they require higher voltages. If further
experimentation is the strategy, be aware that supply voltage should be
substantially higher if going with nibs, samarium, etc. The SQM was a flawed
device, beset with several major problems, that would have in all probability
prevented commercial development, even if Sweet had lived longer and been more
sensible in the contracts he signed. Yes, the SQM is useful background reading,
but please do not bring the flaws of the SQM unit across to the POD
technology.

Q: Also, your comment about the capacitor charging
voltage...for some reason, the back EMF from this coil system rises instantly to
almost exactly 100V, stays there to form a short plateau, then falls down
normally. I am not sure why there is a plateau there at 100V, but I think it
could be connected to my MOSFET setup. The MOSFET has a built in shunt diode. So
I  have not been able to charge a cap up to anything past 99.8V or so
(using a bridge just like the schematic on your web page).

This is
due to capacitance. 15uF will get you to around 95v max. 4.7uF to 150v. 2uF to
200v+ and 1 uF up to 250v. use 250v capacitors (for pod II) since higher
voltages will be obtained in the next version. As for your circuit and
components, anywhere you provide a leak, it will leak. same goes for regulated
power supplies. They dump excess to ground by design. Use a battery supply and
(later) a battery re-charge at output or experiment with a pulsing dc variant
from line.

Q: I have been pulsing it all throughout the audio
spectrum, from about 50 hz to maybe 10-15 kHz or so. Most of my tests were
conducted in the 1-5  kHz range (most of the peculiarities of the device
seemed most prominent in this range).

Go for it.

Q:
Also, I have been using some fairly low-grade/low-cost (less  than
$100) DMMs for some readings, and while I know that these are not going to be
very accurate, they seem to convey relations pretty well, i.e. if they record a
voltage increase then when measured with the oscilloscope there is an increase
observed as well. So keeping this in mind, I tried pulsing one of the inner
coils and measuring the voltage and the current on another one of the inner
coils (remember, I have 3 inner coils in this device).

The coils are
all series connected. separating the coils as input or output entities does not
work. Build it as shown and alter or experiment from there.

Q:
I had one meter measuring input current and one measuring output voltage
and current (the output voltage and current being measured separately, of
course) Generally, my meters recorded a halving of input current when the end
magnet was added, and a doubling of output current and voltage when measured
separately. When one of the coils is loaded, the input current drop is less
remarkable (i.e. the greater the load, the higher the input current and the less
the current drop when the end magnet is added). I have been pulsing it with
about 10-12V unregulated low-ripple DC - that is, a step-down transformer from
the power line with a 60000MFD cap and bridge on it.

Let me know if
the unregulated DC supply is successful since I have not yet tried this. You
should be able to use this (pulsing dc) as the pulse frequency / source as well.

Harwood-Jankowski POD 2
(Power On
Demand)
Solid State Transductor
Technology

Comments:

The POD technology is astonishingly cheap, simple, flexible,
robust, and effective. Too many possible configurations and applications exist
for this web site to even attempt to cover a fraction of them. This being the
case, the POD 2 layouts on this page, present only some of the most obvious
further optimizations that can be undertaken. I highlight the following features
for particular attention:

The circuitry switch closed only during the pulse

Increasing the capacitor voltage to 250v

Increasing the switching speed to 4khz

Adding 40 turns of steel wire to the circuit (adds about 35v to
cap charge)

The performance increase delivered by applying all those
optimizations together genuinely has to be seen to be believed. POD 2 is a
multi layered over-unity technology, with many carefully devised optimizations
now seamlessly integrated into one package. Each of these optimizations can be
added individually or collectively to the basic physical POD layout, and all
greatly benefit performance. Future development might include raising the
switching speed even higher, taking the capacitor voltage into the 350v-600v
range, and using improved core materials such as permalloy or
magnetite.

No Patents: Finally, I would remind you all that POD was
freely placed into the public domain. It is therefore now utterly impossible for
any aspect of this technology to be patented. Tom Bearden took out 30 patents
for his MEG - we give it all away for free.

Example application: Monster Truck Madness

Radio Control Full Function Nissan Frontier with 9.6V Battery and Charger (27 MHz)
by Scientific Toys Ltd

A POD unit could be fitted onto the back of this truck, significantly
extending the rather short battery life of 30-45 minutes. The POD enhanced
battery life would really be dependant upon the quality of your engineering, so
much as any inherent limitation in the POD performance curve. This is a simple
example of how much good clean fun is to be had with POD technology - I am sure
you can think up many others.

Suppliers of interest - Links do not
constitute an endorsement, use at own risk

Ring
magnet supplier

Nice range offered

http://www.mcmaster.com/

Useful general supplier, enameled wire, etc

Radio Shack

Well known supplier - but not the cheapest

http://www.newark.com/

1uF 250v metal film caps - capacitor
type guide

http://www.digikey.com/

Electronics supplier - 'Quality components superior service'

http://www.allelectronics.com/

Electronics supplier - 'Serving the electronics industry since
1967'

http://sales.goldmine-elec.com/

Electronics supplier 'The lowest prices available on components'

http://www.vishay.com/products/capacitors/

Capacitor product guide with regional supplier info

Farnell | Magnetsales

2 English suppliers, for electric components and ceramic
magnets

The Tesla Connection (a
reminder)

Secrets of Cold War Technology: Project HAARP and Beyond, by Gerry
Vassilatos.

This book is well worth the money, and I don't say that about many. Much
wonderful original research on Tesla. Genuinely very helpful. Obtaining a copy
of this book appears to have transformed Mr Adams' research in the mid to late
1990s, with his latest models gating the 'back emf' into high voltage capacitors
(250v), which then deliver the pure voltage / wattless / zero amp, state of
energy Tesla documented over a century ago now. POD 2 was carefully designed to
conform to Tesla's clear and specific negative energy optimization instructions,
with in consequence, vastly improved results.

Through successive experimental arrangements, Tesla discovered
several facts concerning the production of his effect. First, the cause
was undoubtedly found in the abruptness of charging. It was in the switch
closure, the very instant of "closure and break", which thrust the effect out
into space. The effect was definitely related to time, impulse time. Second,
Tesla found that it was imperative that the charging process occurred in a
single impulse. No reversal of current was permissible, else the effect would
not manifest. In this, Tesla made succinct remarks describing the role of
capacity in the spark-radiative circuit. He found that the effect was
powerfully strengthened by placing a capacitor between the disrupter and the
dynamo. While providing a tremendous power to the effect, the dielectric of
the capacitor also served to protect the dynamo windings. Finally, the effect
could also be greatly intensified to new and more powerful levels by raising
the voltage, quickening the switch "make-break" rate, and shortening the
actual time of switch closure.

100% Independent POD Replication

Comments

POD using 2 magnetite cores from the Adams motor

Showed O/U at certain frequencies

Also employed a pulse width modulator

555 circuitry can be used to advantage

Takes time and patience

Difficult to maintain constant results and repeat the frequency and pulse
width

Fundamentally works as claimed with sufficient applied experimental skill

Second 100% Independent POD
Replication

The following post was made entirely unsolicited to an Egroup
recently. I have been unable to procure a photo, but the replication claim
remains fully valid. Since no photo has been offered, I have decided not to give
a separate web page to this device. I must say this is one area of
misunderstanding. Some people seem to think I have the power to force people to
buy webcams and post their full names, address, and telephone numbers on the
internet. In reality, most people replicating the technology on this website
dislike attention, which is something I always respect.

Message ***** of 21870 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] Message
Index

From: "<******************>"
Date: Sun *** **, 2002
7:26 am
Subject: POD units

Hello all, I am wondering if anybody out
there has looked at the
solid-state "Power-On-Demand" / POD modules
that are at URL

www.geocities.com/theadamsmotor/pod.html

Has
anyone tried experimenting with this type of device? It is very easy
to
build. I have built one myself and it exhibits some
interesting
properties like halving (or better) the current draw when
the "end" magnet
is added. I do not fully understand the device's
functioning or the effects
it creates.

I would love to hear
about anybody's experiences or insights concerning
this device.

Third 100% Independent POD
Replication

futuresky123 posted this to the Adams motor Egroup:

Greetings, I've recently been experimenting with Parallel Path but
decided to set it aside for now and replicate POD. I have already built a
working Adams motor that runs cold, but have yet to measure cop. So I took one
of the stators from my Adams motor and wired it per POD specifications, and
low and behold the current draw halves. The POD I built uses ring magnets
stacked from speakers that are rather large, 3/8" bolt for core. I built the
POD unit very quickly not counting wire turns etc. Now let's get to the
numbers. I performed two tests

IN .16A,17.3V OUT .2A,17.3V @ 252hz = cop of
1.25

IN .1A,18.1V OUT .2A,18.0V @ 450hz = cop of
1.99

So I would say with the numbers there is no doubt about over-unity and these numbers can only get
better with improved materials and further experimentation.

Comments:

The reason we say 60hz to 5khz, is that depending upon rotor /
stator geometry, core materials, magnet type, and other factors, optimal
switching speeds vary from one unit to the next.

Try 1-5khz switching for significantly improved results above
the basic COP 2 result, in particular 4khz.

Appendix

2001 Update From Mr Adams

The cardinal mistake being made here is that most of these
experimenters are concerned about I²R losses!  If you are seeking
high/super performance with these powerful magnets, then discard all concerns in
relation to Ohms Law, for in the Adams technologies Ohms Law becomes a
non-entity.  Instead of expecting results of a high order with stators of
very low resistance, such as under 10ohms, increase the total series electrical
resistance instead to 72ohms and instead of expecting spectacular results using
these powerful magnets with only 12 - 24 volts, increase the voltage
to a minimum of 120v.  Upon having done this you must give attention to
other important factors, i.e., stator to magnet air gap should be
1 - 1.25mm, impulse duty cycle should be 0.25 - 0.35,
"mosfet" gate signal impulse 10 - 20v of good clean stable D.C.
Upon initial experimental tests, I have always used batteries.  Reduce the
face area of stators to 75% of the magnet face.Now having said all this, choose
your own method of signal switching, whether it be photo, hall, magnetic, reed
or mechanical, etc.Upon fine tuning, and now having reached greatly increased
power and performance, 'DOUBLE' the power supply voltage to 240v and you will
have a machine in the "kilowatt" range, the exciting stage of your
progress.

Nikola Tesla's Patented Classic 1894 Bifilar Coil
Schematic.

All magnetic fields have 4 poles - a possible mechanism
for negentropy

My friend John Jankowski has very kindly supplied a diagram of the
possible true nature of magnets, putting solid pictorial form to my
theories. Even if this graphic turns out to be wrong, the temporarily
enlarged time reversed secondary poles, are an excellent way to visualize the
field depletion process manifested in the Adams motor. One can model the
negative impulse mathematically, but that is different from the actual physics
of how the effect is in reality manifested.

Important Recent experimental validation of secondary vortex
pole theory

Solid state experiments have now shown that air cored stators are not capable
of delivering cold current. This conclusively proves it is not the flux field of
the magnet that becomes time reversed negative - only a relatively small part on
on the magnet pole faces, that does not ordinarily extend far from the physical
limits of the magnet, even when field depletion has occurred. An iron core
attracts this secondary pole, and conducts it along its length over the
generator turns, enabling phase conjugation of the delivered current pulse.

Sweet VTA

This device appears to have manifested the same negative energy as
the Adams motor.

'Negative energy is fully capable of lighting incandescent lights,
running motors, and performing all of the functions of positive energy tested
to date. When run in parallel with positive energy however, cancellation
(annihilation) of opposing power types occurs. This has been fully tested in
the laboratory.'

'The coils are very small diameter copper wire but are capable of
producing in excess of 5 kilowatts of useful power; this in itself is a clear
indicator that the type of electrical energy provided by the device is not
conventional. The wire sizes employed by the device would not be capable of
carrying such large currents without excessive heat gain, however, the
triode's coils actually run cooler when loaded at 5 kW.'

The Space Energy Newsletter (1993), Vol. IV, I, also offered some
fascinating insights

Floyd's experiments demonstrated that the VTA loses weight in proportion to
the amount of generated "Negative Energy". This was carefully documented by
Floyd on a kitchen scale. The machine weight was observed decreasing with
increased load in a quite orderly fashion until a point was suddenly reached
when Floyd heard an immense sound, as if he were at the center of a giant
whirlwind but without actual air movement. The sound was heard by his wife
Rose in another room of their apartment and was heard by others outside the
apartment. The experience was very frightening and the experiment has not been
repeated (These power levels perhaps took Sweet right up to the edge of
ripping open a worm hole - as Tesla's equipment did in 1943, with the infamous
and tragic  'Philadelphia experiment' - Ed).

One frustrating aspect of the VTA has been its failures, evidenced by the
output voltage slowly decaying to zero over a few seconds or minutes. There
also has been spontaneous instances of the voltage rising above 120 VRMS as
observed by the increased lamp load bank brightness. The volt meters, ammeter,
and power meter did not correlate with the brightness change except when the
machine would the fail to produce any power.

The 20 gauge magnet wire in the output coils consisting of several hundred
turns has significant DC resistance which is not correlated with the unvarying
output terminal voltage at different loads. It is speculated that this energy
does not travel within the copper wire or its passage through the copper wire
does not generate a voltage drop - a most useful feature when transferring
energy from one place to another.

Many times the VTA was normally left on powering a lamp load bank 24 hours
a day. During a period of time when it appeared to be functioning properly all
day long, Floyd got up at 3:00 AM to go to the bathroom. As he walked past the
room where the VTA was located, he noticed that the lights appeared dim. He
measured the voltage at 70 VRMS. Being tired at the moment, he returned to
bed. The next morning when he rose, the voltage was back to the normal 120
VRMS and stayed there all day. The next night Floyd got up at 4:30 AM. The
voltage was measured at 85 VRMS. Floyd returned to bed. The voltage was normal
the entire next day.

The reliable conditioning of the magnets in a manner that assures long time
operation is the Achilles heel of this device.

Some observers of the light emanating from ordinary 120 volt 100 watt
incandescent bulbs powered by the VTA claim the light is different, softer,
than normal incandescent light. The VTA magnets and coils when powering loads
of over a kilowatt become cold and temperatures of 20 degrees Fahrenheit below
ambient have been observed.

When the VTA output wires had been accidentally shortened, first an
extremely brilliant flash occurred. When the wires involved were examined
shortly afterward, they were found covered with frost.

Conventional instruments used to measure volts, amps, or watts appear to
correlate machine output as coupled to loads, but only up to approximately 1
KW; above that value they may indicate zero or some other value not related to
the known actual load. Floyd's attempts to use conventional electrical design
formulas relating number of coil turns, amp turns on drive coils, and any
other parameter to predict observed outputs have all resulted in failures with
calculations. Empirical formulas based on actual tests have been
documented.

Magnet size seems to be secondary to volume of the windings wire, diameter,
input voltage and current.

Quality of oscillator is important- there should be no harmonic distortion
i.e. pure sine wave output.

The VTA "likes" to always see a minimum load of 25 watts.

The effect is manifested at 9v and above (this agrees with my
results - Ed).

Electrical shock to humans from the VTA may be more damaging than contact
with a 120 VRMS 60 HZ conventional powerline voltage. Floyd has accidentally
had VTA current pass from his thumb to his smallest finger. It appears to
freeze the flesh and was extremely painful for at least two weeks. The
mechanism by which negative energy makes copper conductors cold but will also
heat light bulb filaments is not understood.

Bill's Leon Dragone Metglas
Core Cold Current Unit

Below are pictures of Bill's working unit. The first device
produced an impressive COP 1.93 as planned, COP 4.03 has already been obtained
with proper adjustment. Vastly superior results are most certainly possible,
because the output is time reversed 'cold current.'

A most fascinating mathematical analysis, that demonstrates the
negative impulse manifested by the permanent magnets, begins to decay the moment
the switch is closed. The Adams motor is based upon the exact same physics of
course.
Bill's
mathematical analysis of the Dragone equations

The original Dragone papers are also available on-line for
reading
Original
Dragone Equations

The below diagram is just one of the several graphs provided in
Bill's analysis, and illustrates how the negative impulse generated at switch
closure rapidly decays.

And finally, Bill has recently published a most fascinating analysis, that
suggest that Nikola Tesla's U.S. patent 568,176, is in a fact a cold current
generation device. I have decided to omit it for space reasons, but this
document contains sufficient insight into the physics of negative energy
generation, for anyone with talent to properly interpret the schematics.

Full patent text. Note certain
statements are in error e.g. that large Adams motors made of huge magnets could
be used to power commercial liners. The pulse duration for such a device would
be much too long for effective operation, of course.

ELECTRICAL
MOTOR-GENERATOR
GB2282708

DATE OF A PUBLICATION:
12.04.1995

Applicant(s):
Harold Aspden-
SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom
Robert George Adams-New Zealand

Date of
Filing: 30.09.1993

Application No:
9320215.8

INTeL6:
HO2K 29/0823/5223/66/I HO2K
1/27

UKCL(Edition N):
H2A AKC2 AKR 1 AK1O8 AK12O AK12 1 AK200
AK214R AK2 165 AK217R AK3O2B AK3O3R AK800

Documents Cited:
GB
0547608 A US 5258697 A US 4972112 A US 4873463 A

Field of
Search:
UK CL (Edition M) H2A AKRR AKR1 AKR6 AKR9
INT CL5
HO2K 23/62 29/08 29/10 29/12 53/00 57/00
ONLINE DATABASES : WPI.
CLAIMS

Agent and/or Address for Service:
Harold Aspden,
SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT

An electrodynamic motor-generator has a salient pole permanent magnet rotor
interacting with salient stator poies to form a machine operating on the
magnetic reluctance principle. The intrinsic ferromagnetic power of the magnets
provides the drive torque by bringing the poles into register whilst current
pulses demagnetize the stator poles as the poles separate. In as much as less
power is needed for stator demagnetization than is fed into the reluctance drive
by the thermodynamic system powering the ferromagnetic state, the machine
operates regeneratively by virtue of stator winding interconnection with unequal
number of rotor and stator poles. A rotor construction is disclosed (Fig 6, 7).
The current pulse may be such as to cause replusion of the rotor pole

FIELD OF INVENTION

This invention relates to a form of electric motor which serves a generating
function in that the machine can act regeneratively to develop output electrical
power or can generate mechanical drive torque with unusually high efficiency in
relation to electrical power input.

The field of invention is that of switched reluctance motors, meaning
machines which have salient poles and operate by virtue of the mutual magnetic
attraction and / or repulsion as between magnetized poles. The invention
particularly concerns a form of reluctance motor which incorporates permanent
magnets to establish magnetic polarization.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

There have been proposals in the past for machines in which the relative
motion of magnets can in some way develop unusually strong force actions which
are said to result in more power output than is supplied as electrical
input.

By orthodox electrical engineering principles such suggestions have seemed to
contradict accepted principles of physics, but it is becoming increasingly
evident that conformity with the first law of thermodynamics allows a gain in
the electromechanical power balance provided it is matched by a thermal
cooling.

In this sense, one needs to extend the physical background of the cooling
medium to include, not just the machine structure and the immediate ambient
environment, but also the sub-quantum level of what is termed, in modern
physics, the zero-point field. This is the field associated with the Planck
constant. Energy is constantly being exchanged as between that activity and
coextensive matter forms but normally these energy fluctuations preserve, on
balance, an equilibrium condition so that this action passes unnoticed at the
technology level.

Physicists are becoming more and more aware of the fact that, as with
gravitation, so magnetism is a route by which we can gain access to the sea of
energy that pervades the vacuum. Historically, the energy balance has been
written in mathematical terms by assigning 'negative' potential to gravitation
or magnetism. However, this is only a disguised way of saying that the vacuum
field, suitably influenced by the gravitating mass of a body in the locality or
by magnetism in a ferromagnet has both the capacity and an urge to shed
energy.

Now, however, there is growing awareness of the technological energy
generating potential of this field background and interest is developing in
techniques for 'pumping' the coupling between matter and vacuum field to derive
power from that hidden energy source. Such research may establish that this
action will draw on the 2. 7K cosmic background temperature of the space medium
through which the Earth travels at some 400 km/s. The effect contemplated could
well leave a cool vapour trail' in space as a machine delivering heat, or
delivering a more useful electrical form of energy that will revert to heat,
travels with body Earth through that space.

In pure physics terms, relevant background is of recent record in the August
1993 issue of Physical Review E, vol. 48, pp. 1562-1565 under the title:
'Extracting energy and heat from the vacuum', authored by D.C. Cole and H. E.
Puthoff. Though the connection is not referenced in that paper, one of its
author's presented experimental evidence on that theme at an April 1993
conference held in Denver USA. The plasma power generating device discussed at
that conference was the subject of U. S. Patent No. 5,018,180, the inventor of
record being K. R. Shoulders.

The invention, to be described below, operates by extracting energy from a
magnetic system in a motor and the relevant scientific background to this
technology can be appreciated from the teachings of E.B. Moullin, a Cambridge
Professor of Electrical Engineering who was a President of the Institution of
Electrical Engineers in U. K.

That prior art will be described below as part of the explanation of the
operation of the invention.

The invention presented here concerns specific structural design features of
a machine adapted for robust operation, but these also have novelty and special
merit in a functional operation. What is described is quite distinct from prior
art proposals, one being a novel kind of motor proposed by Gareth Jones at a
1988 symposium held in Hull, Canada under the auspices of the Planetary
Association for Clean Energy. Jones suggested the adaptation of an automobile
alternator which generates three-phase a. c. for rectification and use as a
power supply for the electrics in the automobile. This alternator has a
permanent magnet rotor and Jones suggested that it could be used, with high
efficiency gain and torque performance, by operating it as a motor with the
three-phase winding circuit excited so as to promote strong repulsion between
the magnet poles and the stator poles after the poles had come into register.
However, the Jones machine is not one exploiting the advantages of the invention
to be described, because it is not strictly a reluctance motor having salient
poles on both stator and rotor. The stator poles in the Jones machine are formed
by the winding configuration in a slotted stator form, the many slots being
uniformly distributed around the inner circumference of the stator and not
constituting a pole system which lends itself to the magnetic flux actions to be
described by reference to the E.B. Moullin experiment.

The Jones machine operates by generating a rotating stator field which, in a
sense, pushes the rotor poles forward rather than pulling them in the manner
seen in the normal synchronous motor. Accordingly, the Jones machine relies on
the electric current excitation of the motor producing a field system which
rotates smoothly but has a polarity pattern which is forced by the commutation
control to keep behind the rotor poles in asserting a continuous repulsive
drive.

Another prior art proposal which is distinguished from this invention is that
of one of the applicants, H. Aspden, namely the subject of U.K. Patent No.
2,234,863 (counterpart U.S. Patent Serial No. (4,975,608). Although this latter
invention is concerned with extracting energy from the field by the same
physical process as the subject invention, the technique for accessing that
energy is not optimum in respect of the structure or method used. Whereas in
this earlier disclosure, the switching of the reluctance drive excited the poles
in their approach phase, the subject invention, in one of its aspects, offers
distinct advantages by demagnetization or reversal of magnetization in the pole
separation phase of operation.

There are unexpected advantages in the implementation proposed by the subject
invention, inasmuch as recent research has confirmed that it requires less input
power to switch off the mutual attraction across an air gap between a magnet and
an electromagnet than it does to switch it on. Usually, in electromagnetism, a
reversal symmetry is expected, arising from conventional teaching of the way
forward and back magnetomotive forces govern the resulting flux in a magnetic
circuit. This will be further explained after describing the scope of the
invention.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

According to one aspect of the invention, an electrodynamic motor-generator
machine comprises a stator configured to provide a set of stator poles, a
corresponding set of magnetizing windings mounted on the stator pole set, a
rotor having two sections each of which has a set of salient pole pieces, the
rotor sections being axially spaced along the axis of rotation of the rotor,
rotor magnetization means disposed between the two rotor sections arranged to
produce a unidirectional magnetic field which magnetically polarizes the rotor
poles, whereby the pole faces of one rotor section all have a north polarity and
the pole faces of the other rotor section all have a south polarity and electric
circuit connections between an electric current source and the stator
magnetizing windings arranged to regulate the operation of the machine by
admitting current pulses for a duration determined according to the angular
position of the rotor, which pulses have a direction tending to oppose the
polarization induced in the stator by the rotor polarization as stator and rotor
poles separate from an in-register position, whereby the action of the rotor
magnetization means provides a reluctance motor drive force to bring stator and
rotor poles into register and the action of the stator magnetization windings
opposes the counterpart reluctance braking effect as the poles separate.

According to a feature of the invention, the circuit connecting the electric
current source and the stator magnetizing windings is designed to deliver
current pulses which are of sufficient strength and duration to provide
demagnetization of the stator poles as the stator and rotor poles separate from
an in-register position. In this regard it is noted that in order to suppress
the reluctance drive torque or brake torque, depending upon whether poles are
converging or separating, a certain amount of electrical power must be fed to
the magnetizing windings on the stator. In a sense these windings are really
'demagnetizing windings' because the polarity of the circuit connections admit
the pulse current in the demagnetizing direction. However, it is more usual to
refer to windings on magnetic cores as 'magnetizing windings' even though they
can function as primary windings or secondary windings, the former serving the
magnetization function with input power and the latter serving a demagnetizing
function with return of power.

According to another feature of the invention, the circuit connecting the
electric current source and the stator magnetizing windings is designed to
deliver current pulses which are of sufficient strength and duration to provide
a reversal of magnetic flux direction in the stator poles as the stator and
rotor poles separate from an in-register position, whereby to draw on power
supplied from the electric current source to provide additional forward drive
torque.

According to a further feature of this invention, the electric current source
connected to stator magnetizing winding of a first stator pole comprises, at
least partially, the electrical pulses induced in the stator magnetizing winding
of a different second stator pole, the stator pole set configuration in relation
to the rotor pole set configuration being such that the first stator pole is
coming into register with a rotor pole as the second stator pole separates from
its in register position with a rotor pole.

This means that the magnetizing windings of two stator poles are connected so
that both serve a 'demagnetizing' function, one in resisting the magnetic action
of the mutual attraction in pulling poles into register, an action which
develops a current pulse output and one in absorbing this current pulse, again
by resisting the magnetic inter-pole action to demagnetize the stator pole as
its associated rotor pole separates.

In order to facilitate the function governed by this circuit 10 connection
between stator magnetizing windings, a phase difference is needed and this is
introduced by designing the machine to have a different number of poles in a set
of stator poles from the number of rotor poles in each rotor section. Together
with the dual rotor section feature, this has the additional merit of assuring a
smoother torque action and reducing magnetic flux fluctuations and leakage
effects which contribute substantially to machine efficiency.

Thus, according to another feature of the invention, the stator configuration
provides pole pieces which are common to both rotor sections in the sense that
when stator and rotor poles are in-register the stator pole pieces constitute
bridging members for magnetic flux closure in a magnetic circuit including that
of the rotor magnetization means disposed between the two rotor sections.

Preferably, the number of poles in a set of stator poles and the number of
rotor poles in each section do not share a common integer factor, the number of
rotor poles in one rotor section is the same as that in the other rotor section
and the number of poles in a stator set and the number of poles in a rotor
section differs by one, with the pole faces According to a further feature of
the invention, the electric current source connected to a stator magnetizing
winding of a first stator pole comprises, at least partially, the electrical
pulses induced in the stator magnetizing winding of a different second stator
pole, the stator pole set configuration in relation to the rotor pole set
configuration being such that the first stator pole is coming into register with
a rotor pole as being of sufficient angular width to assure that the magnetic
flux produced by the rotor magnetization means can find a circuital magnetic
flux closure route through the bridging path of a stator pole and through
corresponding rotor poles for any angular position of the rotor.

It is also preferable from a design viewpoint for the stator pole faces of
this invention to have an angular width that is no greater than half the angular
width of a rotor pole and for the rotor sections to comprise circular steel
laminations in which the rotor poles are formed as large teeth at the perimeter
with the rotor magnetization means comprising a magnetic core structure the end
faces of which abut two assemblies of such laminations forming the two rotor
sections.

According to a further feature of the invention, the rotor magnetization
means comprises at least one permanent magnet located with its polarization axis
parallel with the rotor axis. The motor-generator may include an apertured metal
disc that is of a non-magnetizable substance mounted on a rotor shaft and
positioned intermediate the two rotor sections, each aperture providing location
for a permanent magnet, whereby the centrifugal forces acting on the permanent
magnet as the rotor rotates are absorbed by the stresses set up in the disc.
Also, the rotor may be mounted on a shaft that is of a non-magnetizable
substance, whereby to minimize magnetic leakage from the rotor magnetizing means
through that shaft.

According to another aspect of the invention, an electrodynamic
motor-generator machine comprises a stator configured to provide a set of stator
poles, a corresponding set of magnetizing windings mounted on the stator pole
set, a rotor having two sections each of which has a set of salient pole pieces,
the rotor sections being axially spaced along the axis of rotation of the rotor,
rotor magnetization means incorporated in the rotor structure and arranged to
polarize the rotor poles, whereby the pole faces of one rotor section all have a
north polarity and the pole faces of the other rotor section all have a south
polarity and electric circuit connections between an electric current source and
the stator magnetizing windings arranged to regulate the operation of the
machine by admitting current pulses for a duration determined according to the
angular position of the rotor, which pulses have a direction tending to oppose
the polarization induced in the stator by the rotor polarization as stator and
rotor poles separate from an in-register position, whereby the action of the
rotor magnetization means provides a reluctance motor drive force to bring
stator and rotor poles into register and the action of the stator magnetization
windings opposes the counterpart reluctance braking effect as the poles
separate.

According to a feature of this latter aspect of the invention, the electric
current source connected to a stator magnetizing winding of a first stator pole
comprises, at least partially, the electrical pulses induced in the stator
magnetizing winding of a different second stator pole, the stator pole set
configuration in relation to the rotor pole set configuration being such that
the first stator pole is coming into register with a rotor pole as the second
stator pole separates from its in-register position with a rotor pole.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Fig. 1 presents magnetic core test data showing how the volt-amp
reactance power required to set up a constant magnetic flux action in an air
gap, as assured by constant a. c. voltage excitation of a magnetizing winding,
falls short of the associated power of the potential implicit in the force
action across that air gap.

Fig. 2 depicts the test structure to which Fig. I data
applies.

Fig. 3 depicts the magnetization action at work in causing
magnetic 5 flux to traverse an airgap and turn a corner in a circuit through a
magnetic core.

Fig. 4 shows the configuration of a test device used to
prove the operating principles of the invention described.

Fig. 5 in its several illustrations depicts the progressive
rotor pole to stator pole relationship as a rotor turns through a range of
angular positions in a preferred embodiment of a machine according to the
invention.

Fig. 6 shows the form of a disc member which provides
location for four permanent magnets in the machine described.

Fig. 7 shows a cross-section of the magnetic circuit
structure of a machine embodying the invention.

Fig. 8 shows a six stator pole configuration with a seven
pole rotor and depicts a schematic series connected linking of the magnetizing
windings of diametrically opposite stator poles.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The fact that one can extract energy from the source which powers the
intrinsic ferromagnetic state is not explicitly evident from existing textbooks,
but it is implicit and, indeed, does become explicit once pointed out, in one
textbook authored by F. B. Moullin.

His book 'The Principles of Electromagnetism' published by Clarendon
Press, Oxford (3rd Edition, 1955) describes on pages 168-174 an experiment
concerned with the effect of air gaps between poles in a magnetic circuit. The
data obtained are reproduced in Fig. 1, where Professor Moullin shows a curve
representing a. c. current input for different air gaps, given that the voltage
supplied is constant. In the same figure, Moullin presents the theoretical
current that would need to be applied to sustain the same voltage, and so the
related pole forces across the air gap, assuming (a) no flux leakage and (b)
that there is complete equality between inductive energy input and the
mechanical energy potential for the magnetization that is established in the air
gap in a quarter-cycle period at the a. c. power excitation frequency.

The data show that, even though the level of magnetic polarization is well
below the saturation value, being confined to a range that is regarded as the
linear permeability range in transformer design, there is a clear drop-off of
current, and so the volt-amp reactive power input needed, as current increases,
compared with that predicted by the mechanical potential built up in the air
gaps.

Unless leakage flux is excessive, here was clear evidence of anomalous energy
activity.

Moullin discusses the leakage flux inferred by this experiment but points out
that there is considerable mystery in why the effect of a small gap, which
should certainly not result in much flux leakage in the gap region, nevertheless
has an enormous effect in causing what has to be substantial leakage in the
light of the energy discrepancy.

Moullin did not contemplate that energy had been fed in from the zero-point
field system and so he left the issue with the statement that it was virtually
impossible to predict leakage flux by calculation.

He was, of course, aware of magnetic domain structure and his argument was
that the leakage flux problem was connected with what he termed a 'yawing'
action of the flux as it passes around the magnetic circuit. Normally, provided
the level of polarization is below the knee of the B-H curve, which occurs at
about 70% of saturation in iron cores of general crystal composition, it
requires very little magnetizing field to change the magnetic flux density. This
is assuming that every effort is made to avoid air gaps. The action involves
domain wall movements so that the magnetic states of adjacent domains switch to
different crystal axes of easy magnetization and this involves very little
energy change.

However, if there is an air gap ahead in the flux circuit and the magnetizing
winding is not sitting on that air gap, the iron core itself has to be the seat
of a progressive field source linking the winding and the gap. It can only serve
in that sense by virtue of the lines of flux in the domains being forced to
rotate somewhat from the preferred easy axes of magnetization, with the help of
the boundary surfaces around the whole core. This action means that, forcibly,
and consequential upon the existence of the air gap, the flux must be carried
through the core by that 'yawing' action. It means that substantial energy is
needed to force the establishment of those fields within the iron core. More
important, however, from the point of view of this invention, it means that the
intrinsic magnetic polarization effects in adjacent magnetic domains in the iron
cease to be mutually parallel or orthogonal so as to stay directed along axes of
easy magnetization. Then, in effect, the magnetizing action is not just that of
the magnetizing winding wrapped around the core but becomes also that of
adjacent ferromagnetic polarization as the latter act in concert as
vacuum-energy powered solenoids and are deflected into one another to develop
the additional forward magnetomotive forces.

The consequences of this are that the intrinsic ferromagnetic power source
with its thermodynamic ordering action contributes to doing work in building up
forces across the air gap. The task, in technological terms, is then to harness
that energy as the gap is closed, as by poles coming together in a reluctance
motor, and avoid returning that energy as the poles separate, this being
possible if the controlling source of primary magnetization is well removed from
the pole gap and the demagnetization occurs when the poles are at the closest
position.

This energy situation is evident in the Moullin data, because the constant a.
c. voltage implies a constant flux amplitude across the air gap if there is no
flux leakage in the gap region. A constant flux amplitude implies a constant
force between the poles and so the gap width in relation to this force is a
measure of the mechanical energy potential of the air gap. The reactive volt-amp
power assessment over the quarter-cycle period representing the polarization
demand can then be compared with the mechanical energy so made available. As
already stated, this is how Moullin deduced the theoretical current curve. In
fact, as his data show, he needed less current than the mechanical energy
suggested and so he had in his experiment evidence of the vacuum energy source
that passed unnoticed and is only now revealing itself in machines that can
serve our energy needs.

In the research leading to this patent application the Moullin experiment has
been repeated to verify a condition where a single magnetizing winding serves
three air gaps. The Moullin test configuration is shown in Fig. 2, but in
repeating the experiment in the research leading to this invention, a search
coil was mounted on the bridging member and this was used to compare the ratio
of the voltage applied to the magnetizing winding and that induced in the search
coil. The same fall-off feature in current demand was observed, and there was
clear evidence of substantial excess energy in the air gap. This was in addition
to the inductive energy that necessarily had to be locked into the magnetic core
to sustain the 'yawing' action of the magnetic flux already mentioned.

It is therefore emphasized that, in priming the flux 'yawing' action, energy
is stored inductively in the magnetic core, even though this has been deemed to
be the energy of flux leakage outside the core. The air gap energy is also
induction energy. Both energies are returned to the source winding when the
system is demagnetized, given a fixed air gap. If, however, the air gap closes
after or during magnetization, much of that inductive energy goes into the
mechanical work output. Note then that the energy released as mechanical work is
not just that stored in the air gap but is that stored in sustaining the 'yaw'.
Here, then is reason to expect an even stronger contribution to the dynamic
machine performance, one that was not embraced by the calculation of the
steady-state situation.

Given the above explanation of the energy source, the structural features
which are the subject of this invention will now be described.

The 'yawing' action is depicted in Fig. 3, which depicts how magnetic flux
navigates a right-angled bend in a magnetic core upon passage through an air
gap. By over-simplification it is assumed that the core has a crystal structure
that has a preferred axis of magnetization along the broken line path. With no
air gap, the current needed by a magnetizing winding has only to provide enough
magnetomotive force to overcome the effects of non-magnetic inclusions and
impurities in the core substance and very high magnetic perm abilities can
apply. However, as soon as the air gap develops, this core substance has to find
a way of setting up magnetomotive force in regions extending away from the
locality of the magnetizing winding. It cannot do this unless its effect is so
powerful that the magnetic flux throughout the magnetic circuit through the core
substance is everywhere deflected from alignment with a preferred easy axis of
magnetization. Hence the flux vectors depicted by the arrows move out of
alignment with the broken line shown.

There is a 'knock-on' effect progressing all the way around the core from the
seat of the magnetizing winding and, as already stated, this harnesses the
intrinsic ferromagnetic power that, in a system with no air gap, could only be
affected by magnetization above the knee of the B-H curve. Magnetic flux
rotation occurs above that knee, whereas in an ideal core the magnetism develops
with very high permeability over a range up to that knee, because it needs very
little power to displace a magnetic domain wall sideways and promote a
90°(Degree) or a 180°(Degree) flux reversal. Indeed, one can have a magnetic
permeability of 10,000 below the knee and 100 above the knee, the latter
reducing progressively until the substance saturates magnetically.

In the situation depicted in Figs 2 or 3 the field strength developed by the
magnetizing windings 1 on magnetic core 2 has to be higher, the
greater the air gap, in order to achieve the same amount of magnetization as
measured by the voltage induced in a winding (not shown) on the bridging member
3. However, by virtue of that air gap there is potential for harnessing
energy supplied to that air gap by the intrinsic zero-point field that accounts
for the magnetic permeability being over unity and here one can contemplate very
substantial excess energy potential, give incorporation in a machine design
which departs from convention.

One of the applicants has built an operative test machine which is configured
as depicted schematically in Fig. 4. The machine has been proved to deliver
substantially more mechanical power output than is supplied as electrical input,
as much as a ratio of 7:1 in one version, anc it can act regeneratively to
produce electrical power.

What is shown in Fig. 4 is a simple model designed to demonstrate the
principle of operation. It comprises a rotor in which four permanent magnets
4 are arrayed to form four poles. The magnets are bonded into four
sectors of a non-magnetic disc 5 using a high density polyurethane foam
filler and the composite disc is then assembled on a brass spindle
6between a split flange coupling. Not shown in the figure is the
structure holding the spindle vertically in bearings or the star wheel
commutator assembly attached to the upper shaft of the spindle.

Note that the magnets present north poles at the perimeter of the rotor disc
and that the south poles are held together by being firmly set in the bonding
material.

A series of four stator poles were formed using magnetic cores from standard
electromagnetic relays are were positioned around the rotor disc as shown. The
magnetizing windings 7 on these cores are shown to be connected in series
and powered through commutator contacts 8 by a d. c. power supply. Two
further stator cores formed by similar electromagnetic relay components are
depicted by their windings 9 in the intermediate angle positions shown
and these are connected in series and connected to a rectifier 10 bridged
by a capacitor 11.

The rotor spindle 6 is coupled with a mechanical drive (not shown)
which harnesses the torque developed by the motor thus formed and serves as a
means for measuring output mechanical power delivered by the machine.

In operation, assuming that the rotor poles are held initially off-register
with the corresponding stator poles and the hold is then released, the strong
magnetic field action of the permanent magnets will turn the rotor to bring the
stator and rotor poles into register. A permanent magnet has a strong attraction
for soft iron and so this initial impulse of rotation is powered by the
potential energy of the magnets.

Now, with the rotor acting as a flywheel and having inertia it will have a
tendency to over-shoot the in-register pole position and that will involve a
reverse attraction with the result that the rotor will oscillate until damping
action brings it to rest. However, if the contacts of the commutating switch are
closed as the poles come first into register, the magnetizing windings 7
will receive a current pulse which, assuming the windings are connected in the
right sense, tends to demagnetize the four stator cores. This means that, as the
stator and rotor poles separate, the reverse attraction by the magnets is
eliminated. Indeed, if the demagnetizing current pulses supplied to the windings
4 are strong enough, the stator poles can reverse polarity and that
results in a repulsion giving forward drive to the separating rotor poles.

The net result of this action is that the rotor will continue rotating until
it passes the dead centre angular position which allows the rotor to be
attracted in the forward direction by the stator poles 90°(Degree) forward of
those acting originally.

The commutating switch 8 needs only to be closed for a limited period
of angular travel following the top dead centre in-register position of the
stator and rotor poles. The power supplied through that switch by those pulses
will cause the rotor to continue rotating and high speeds will be achieved as
the machine develops its full motor function.

Tests on such a machine have shown that more mechanical power can be
delivered than is supplied electrically by the source powering the action
through the commutating switch. The reason for this is that, whereas the energy
in the air gap between rotor and stator poles which is tapped mechanically as
the poles come into register is provided by the intrinsic power of the
ferromagnet, a demagnetizing winding on the part of the core system coupled
across that air gap needs very little power to eliminate the mechanical force
acting across that air gap. Imagine such a winding on the bridging member shown
in Fig. 2. The action of current in that winding, which sits astride the
'yawing' flux in that bridging member well removed from the source action of the
magnetizing windings 1, is placed to be extremely effective in resisting
the magnetizing influence communicated from a distance. Hence very little power
is needed to overcome the magnetic coupling transmitted across the air gap.

Although the mutual inductance between two spaced-apart magnetizing windings
has a reciprocal action, regardless of which winding is primary and which is
secondary, the action in the particular machine situation being described
involves the 'solenoidal' contribution represented by the 'yawing' ferromagnetic
flux action. The latter is not reciprocal inasmuch as the flux 'yaw' depends on
the geometry of the system. A magnetizing winding directing flux directly across
an air gap has a different influence on the action in the ferromagnetic core
from one directing flux lateral to the air gap and there is no reciprocity in
this action.

In any event, the facts of experiment do reveal that, owing to a significant
discrepancy in such mutual interaction, more mechanical power is fed into the
rotor than is supplied as input from the electrical source.

This has been further demonstrated by using the two stator windings 9
to respond in a generator sense to the passage of the rotor poles. An electrical
pulse is induced in each winding by the passage of a rotor pole and this is
powered by the inertia of the rotor disc 5. By connecting the power so
generated to charge the capacitor 11 the d. c. power supply can be
augmented to enhance the efficiency even further. Indeed, the machine is able to
demonstrate the excess power delivery from the ferromagnetic system by virtue of
electrical power generation charging a battery at a greater rate than a supply
battery is discharged.

This invention is concerned with a practical embodiment of the
motor-generator principles just described and aims, in its preferred aspect, to
provide a robust and reliable machine in which the tooth stresses in the rotor
poles, which are fluctuating stresses communicating high reluctance drive
torque, are not absorbed by a ceramic permanent magnet liable to rupture owing
to its brittle composition.

Another object is to provide a structure which can be dismantled and
reassembled easily to replace the permanent magnets, but an even more important
object is that of minimizing the stray leakage flux oscillations from the
powerful permanent magnets. Their rotation in the device depicted in Fig. 4
would cause excessive eddy-current induction in nearby metal, including that of
the machine itself, and such effects are minimized if the flux changes are
confined to paths through steel laminations and if the source flux from the
magnets has a symmetry or near symmetry about the axis of rotation.

Thus, the ideal design with this in mind is one where the permanent magnet is
a hollow cylinder located on a non-magnetic rotor shaft, but, though that
structure is within the scope of this invention, the machine described will
utilize several separate permanent magnets approximating, in function, such a
cylindrical configuration.

Referring to Fig. 4, it will further be noted that the magnetic flux emerging
from the north poles will have to find its way along leakage paths through air
to re-enter the south poles. For periods in each cycle of machine operation the
flux will be attracted through the stator cores, but the passage through air is
essential and so the power of the magnets is not used to full advantage and
there are those unwanted eddy-current effects.

To overcome this problem the invention provides for two separate rotor
sections and the stator poles become bridging members, which with optimum
design, allow the flux from the magnets to find a route around a magnetic
circuit with minimal leakage through air as the flux is directed through one or
other pairs of air gaps where the torque action is developed.

Reference is now made to Fig. 5 and the sequence of rotor positions shown.
Note that the stator pole width can be significantly smaller that that of the
rotor poles. Indeed, for operation using the principles of this invention, it is
advantageous for the stator to have a much smaller pole width so as to
concentrate the effective pole region. A stator pole width of half that of the
rotor is appropriate but it may be even smaller and this has the secondary
advantage of requiring smaller magnetizing windings and so saving on the loss
associated with the current circuit.

The stator has eight pole pieces formed as bridging members 12, more
clearly represented in Fig. 7, which shows a sectional side view through two
rotor sections 13 axially spaced on a rotor shaft 14. There are
four permanent magnets 15 positioned between these rotor sections and
located in apertures 16 in a disc 17 of a non-magnetic substance
of high tensile strength, the latter being shown in Fig. 6. The rotor sections
are formed from disc laminations of electrical steel which has seven large
teeth, the salient poles. Magnetizing windings 18 mounted on the bridging
members 12 constitute the system governing the action of the
motor-generator being described.

The control circuitry is not described as design of such circuitry involves
ordinary skill possessed by those involved in the electricalengineering art.

It suffices, therefore, to describe the merits of the structural design
configuration of the core elements of the machine. These concern principally the
magnetic action and, as can be imagined from Fig. 7, the magnetic flux from the
magnets enters the rotor laminations by traversing the planar faces of the
laminations and being deflected into the plane of the laminations to pass
through one or other of the stator pole bridging members, returning by a similar
route through the other rotor.

By using eight stator poles and seven rotor poles, the latter having a pole
width equal to half the pole pitch in an angular sense, it will be seen from
Fig. 5, that there is always a flux passage across the small air gap between
stator and rotor poles. However, as one pole combination is in-register the
diametrically-opposed pole combinations are out-of-register.

As described by reference to Fig. 4 the operation of the machine involves
allowing the magnet to pull stator and rotor poles into register and then, as
they separate, pulsing the winding on the relevant stator member to demagnetize
that member. In the Fig. 4 system, all the stator magnetizing windings were
pulsed together, which is not an optimum way in which to drive a multi-pole
machine.

In the machine having the pole structure with one less rotor pole than stator
poles (or an equivalent design in which there is one less stator pole than rotor
poles) this pulsing action can be distributed in its demand on the power supply,
and though this makes the commutation switch circuit more expensive the
resulting benefit outweighs that cost.

However, there is a feature of this invention by which that problem 15 can be
alleviated if not eliminated.

Suppose that the rotor has the position shown in Fig. 5(a) with the rotor
pole denoted R1 midway between stator poles S1 and
S2 imagine that this is attracted towards the in-register position
with stator pole S2. Upon reaching that in-register position, as
shown in Fig. 5 (c), suppose that the magnetizing winding of stator pole
S2 is excited by a current pulse which is sustained until the rotor
reaches the Fig. 5(e) position. The combination of these two actions will have
imparted a forward drive impulse powered by the permanent magnet in the rotor
structure and the current pulse which suppresses braking action will have drawn
a smaller amount of energy from the electrical power source that supplies it.
This is the same process as was described by reference to Fig. 4.

However, now consider the events occurring in the rotor action diametrically
opposite that just described. In the Fig 5(a) position rotor pole R4
has come fully into register with stator pole S5 and so stator pole
S5 is ready to be demagnetized. However, the magnetic coupling
between the rotor and stator poles is then at its strongest. Note, however, that
in that Fig. 5(a) position R5 is beginning its separation from stator
pole S6and the magnetizing winding of stator pole S6 must
then begin draw power to initiate demagnetization. During that following period
of pole separation the power from the magnet is pulling R1 and
S2 together with much more action than is needed to generate that
current pulse needed to demagnetize S6. It follows, therefore, that,
based on the research findings of the regenerative excitation in the test system
of Fig. 4, the series connection of the magnetizing windings on stators
S2 and S6 will, without needing any commutative switching,
provide the regenerative power needed for machine operation.

The complementary action of the two magnetizing windings during the pole
closure and pole separation allows the construction of a machine which, given
that the zero-point vacuum energy powering the ferromagnet is feeding input
power, will run on that source of energy and thereby cool the sustaining field
system.

There are various design options in implementing what has just been proposed.
Much depends upon the intended use of the machine. If it is intended to deliver
mechanical power output the regenerative electrical power action can all be used
to power the demagnetization with any surplus contributing to a stronger drive
torque by reversing the polarity of the stator poles during pole separation.

If the object is to generate electricity by operating in generator mode then
one could design a machine having additional windings on the stator for
delivering electrical power output. However, it seems preferable to regard the
machine as a motor and maximize its efficiency in that capacity whilst using a
mechanical coupling to an alternator of conventional design for the electrical
power generation function. In the latter case it would still seem preferable to
use the self-excitation feature already described to reduce commutation
switching problems.

The question of providing for machine start-up can be addressed by using a
separate starter motor powered from an external supply or by providing for
current pulsing limited to, say, two stator poles. Thus, for example, with the
eight stator pole configuration, the cross-connected magnetizing windings could
be limited to three stator pairs, with two stator magnetizing windings left free
for connection to a pulsed external supply source.

If the latter feature were not required, then the stator magnetizing windings
would all be connected in pairs on a truly diametrically opposite basis. Thus
Fig. 8 shows a rotor-stator configuration having six stator poles interacting
with seven rotor poles and stator magnetizing windings linked together in
pairs.

The invention, therefore, offers a wide range of implementation
possibilities, which, in the light of this disclosure will become obvious to
persons skilled in the electrical engineering art, all based, however, on the
essential but simple principle that a rotor has a set of poles of common
polarity which are attracted into register with a set of stator poles that are
suppressed or reversed in polarity magnetically during pole separation. The
invention, however, also offers the important feature of minimizing commutation
and providing further for a magnetic flux closure that minimizes the leakage
flux and fluctuations of leakage flux and so contributes to efficiency and high
torque performance as well as durability and reliability of a machine
incorporating the invention.

It is noted that although a machine has been described which uses two rotor
sections it is possible to build a composite version of the machine having
several rotor sections. In the eventuality that the invention finds use in very
large motor-generator machines the problem of providing very large magnets can
be overcome by a design in which numerous small magnets are assembled. The
structural concept described by reference to Fig. 6 in providing locating
apertures to house the magnets makes this proposal highly feasible. Furthermore,
it is possible to replace the magnets by a steel cylinder and provide a solenoid
as part of the stator structure and located between the rotor sections. This
would set up an axial magnetic field magnetizing the steel cylinder and so
polarizing the rotor. However, the power supplied to that solenoid would detract
from the power generated and so such a machine would not be as effective as the
use of permanent magnets such as are now available. Nevertheless, should one see
significant progress in the development of warm superconductor materials, it may
become feasible to harness the self-generating motor-generator features of the
invention, with its selfcooling properties, by operating the device in an
enclosure at low temperatures and replacing the magnets by a superconductive
stator supported solenoid.

CLAIMS

1. An electrodynamic motor-generator machine comprising a stator configured
to provide a set of stator poles, a corresponding set of magnetizing windings
mounted on the stator pole set, a rotor having two sections each of which has a
set of salient pole pieces, the rotor sections being axially spaced along the
axis of rotation of the rotor, rotor magnetization means disposed between the
two rotor sections arranged to produce a unidirectional magnetic field which
magnetically polarizes the rotor poles, whereby the pole faces of one rotor
section all have a north polarity and the pole faces of the other rotor section
all have a south polarity and electric circuit connections between an electric
current source and the stator magnetizing windings arranged to regulate the
operation of the machine by admitting current pulses for a duration determined
according to the angular position of the rotor, which pulses have a direction
tending to oppose the polarization induced in the stator by the rotor
polarization as stator and rotor poles separate from an in-register position,
whereby the action of the rotor magnetization means provides a reluctance motor
drive force to bring stator and rotor poles into register and the action of the
stator magnetization windings opposes the counterpart reluctance braking effect
as the poles separate.

2. A motor-generator according to claim 1, wherein the circuit connecting the
electric current source and the stator magnetizing windings is designed to
deliver current pulses which are of sufficient strength and duration to provide
demagnetization of the stator poles as the stator and rotor poles separate from
an in-register position.

3. A motor-generator according to claim 1, wherein the circuit connecting the
electric current source and the stator magnetizing windings is designed to
deliver current pulses which are of sufficient strength and duration to provide
a reversal of magnetic flux direction in the stator poles as the stator and
rotor poles separate from an in-register position, whereby to draw on power
supplied from the electric current source to provide additional forward drive
torque.

4. A motor-generator according to claim 1, wherein the electric current
source connected to a stator magnetizing winding of a first stator pole
comprises, at least partially, the electrical pulses induced in the stator
magnetizing winding of a different second stator pole, the stator pole set
configuration in relation to the rotor pole set configuration being such that
the first stator pole is coming into register with a rotor pole as the second
stator pole separates from its in-register position with a rotor pole.

5. A motor-generator according to claim 1, wherein the number of poles in a
set of stator poles is different from the number of rotor poles in each rotor
section.

6. A motor-generator according to claim I, wherein the stator configuration
provides pole pieces which are common to both rotor sections in the sense that
when stator and rotor poles are in-register the stator pole pieces constitute
bridging members for magnetic flux closure in a magnetic circuit including that
of the rotor magnetization means disposed between the two rotor sections.

7. A motor-generator according to claim 6, wherein the number of poles in a
set of stator poles and the number of rotor poles in each section do not share a
common integer factor and the number of rotor poles in one rotor section is the
same as that in the other rotor section.

8. A motor-generator according to claim 7, wherein the number of poles in a
stator set and the number of poles in a rotor section differs by one and the
pole faces are of sufficient angular width to assure that the magnetic flux
produced by the rotor magnetization means can find a circuital magnetic flux
closure route through the bridging path of a stator pole and through
corresponding rotor poles for any angular position of the rotor.

9. A motor-generator according to claim 8, wherein each rotor section
comprises seven poles.

10. A motor-generator according to claim 7, wherein there are N rotor poles
in each rotor section and each has an angular width that is 180/N degree of
angle.

11. A motor-generator according to claim 7, wherein the stator pole faces
have an angular width that is no greater than half the angular width of a rotor
pole.

12. A motor-generator according to claim 1, wherein the rotor sections
comprise circular steel laminations in which the rotor poles are formed as large
teeth at the perimeter, and the rotor magnetization means comprise a magnetic
core structure the end faces of which abut two assemblies of 20 such laminations
forming the two rotor sections.

13. A motor-generator according to claim 1 in which the rotor magnetization
means comprises at least one permanent magnet located with its polarization axis
parallel with the rotor axis.

14. A motor-generator according to claim 13, wherein an apertured metal disc
that is of a non-magnetizable substance is mounted on a rotor shaft and
positioned intermediate the two rotor sections and each aperture provides
location for a permanent magnet, whereby the centrifugal forces acting on the
permanent magnet as the rotor rotates are absorbed by the stresses set up in the
disc.

15. A motor-generator according to claim 1, having a rotor mounted on a shaft
that is of a non-magnetizable substance, whereby to minimize 5 magnetic leakage
from the rotor magnetizing means.

16. An electrodynamic motor-generator machine comprising a stator configured
to provide a set of stator poles, a corresponding set of magnetizing windings
mounted on the stator pole set, a rotor having two sections each of which has a
set of salient pole pieces, the rotor sections being axially spaced along the
axis of rotation of the rotor, rotor magnetization means incorporated in the
rotor structure and arranged to polarize the rotor poles, whereby the pole faces
of one rotor section all have a north polarity and the pole faces of the other
rotor section all have a south polarity and electric circuit connections between
an electric current source and the stator magnetizing windings arranged to
regulate the operation of the machine by admitting current pulses for a duration
determined according to the angular position of the rotor, which pulses have a
direction tending to oppose the polarization induced in the stator by the rotor
polarization as stator and rotor poles separate from an in-register position,
whereby the action of the rotor magnetization means provides a reluctance motor
drive force to bring stator and rotor poles into register and the action of the
stator magnetization windings opposes the counterpart reluctance braking effect
as the poles separate.

17. A motor- generator according to claim 16, wherein the electric current
source connected to a stator magnetizing winding of a first stator pole
comprises, at least partially, the electrical pulses induced in the stator
magnetizing winding of a different second stator pole, the stator pole set
configuration in relation to the rotor pole set configuration being such that
the first stator pole is coming into register with a rotor pole as the second
stator pole separates from its in-register position with a rotor
pole.

AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS HAVE BEEN FILED AS FOLLOWS

1. An electrodynamic motor-generator machine comprising a stator configured
to provide a set of stator poles, a corresponding set of magnetizing windings
mounted on the stator pole set, a rotor having two sections each of which has a
set of salient pole pieces, the rotor sections being axially spaced along the
axis of rotation of the rotor, rotor magnetization means disposed between the
two rotor sections arranged to produce a unidirectional magnetic field which
magnetically polarizes the rotor poles, whereby the pole faces of one rotor
section all have a north polarity and the pole faces of the other rotor section
all have a south polarity and electric circuit connections between an electric
current source and the stator magnetizing windings arranged to regulate the
operation of the machine by admitting current pulses for a duration determined
according to the angular position of the rotor, which pulses have a direction
tending to oppose the polarization induced in the stator by the rotor
polarization as stator and rotor poles separate from an in-register position,
whereby the action of the rotor magnetization means provides a reluctance motor
drive force to bring stator and rotor poles into register and the action of the
stator magnetization windings opposes the counterpart reluctance braking effect
as the poles separate, the machine being characterized in that the stator
comprises separate ferromagnetic bridging members mounted parallel with the
rotor axis, the ends of which constitute stator poles and the core sect ions of
which provide cross-section disposed antiparallel with the unidirectional
magnetic field polarization axis of the rotor magnetizing means.

2. A motor-generator according to claim 1, wherein the circuit connecting the
electric current source and the stator magnetizing winding a is designed to
deliver current pulses which are of sufficient strength and duration to provide
demagnetization of the stator poles as the stator and rotor poles separate from
an in-register position.

3. A motor-generator according to claim 1, wherein the circuit connecting the
electric current source and the stator magnetizing windings is designed to
deliver current pulses which are of sufficient strength and duration to provide
a reversal of magnetic flux direction in the stator poles as the stator and
rotor poles separate from an in- register position, whereby to draw on power
supplied from the electric current source to provide additional forward drive
torque.

4. A motor-generator according to claim 1, wherein the electric current
source connected to a stator magnetizing winding of a first stator pole
comprises, at least partially, the electrical pulses induced in the stator
magnetizing winding of a different second stator pole, the stator pole set
configuration in relation to the rotor pole set configuration being such that
the first stator pole is coming into register with a rotor pole as the second
stator pole separates from its in-register position with a rotor pole.

5. A motor-generator according to claim 1, wherein the number of poles in a
set of stator poles is different from the number of rotor poles in each rotor
section.

6. A motor-generator according to claim 1, wherein the stator configuration
provides pole pieces which are common to both rotor sections in the sense that
when stator and rotor poles are in-register the stator pole pieces constitute
bridging members for magnetic flux closure in a magnetic circuit including that
of the rotor magnetization means disposed between the two rotor sections.

7. A motor-generator according to claim 6, wherein the number of poles in a
set of stator poles and the number of rotor poles in each section do not share a
common integer factor and the number of rotor poles in one rotor section is the
same as that in the other rotor section.

(c) Tim Harwood and John Jankowski 26 May 2002. All rights are fully
reserved. This document is an update to an earlier release, and is marked
version 2. Many thanks to everyone who made contributions such as submitting
experimental results to me etc. This is an edited and condensed version of
content that was published on my web site in the 12 months preceding the
aforementioned date. This document is freeware, and may be distributed for non
profit private research purposes only. In no circumstances should any financial
charge be made for distribution this document, or any of the content used in a
commercial publication, or for commercial research purposes, without the express
prior consent of Tim
Harwood. All research done at own risk. Keelynet.com and associates
are specifically denied permission to host this document, or any part of it. No
alterations of any kind should be made to this document. It is to be distributed
'as is.'