Like us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter


Directory: Flux Boosted Dual Induction Split Spiral Motor (F.B.D.I.S.S.M.)

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:08 am.

  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.
Image:Honk FBDISSM 400.jpg

by Congress:Founder:Sterling D. Allan

Pure Energy Systems News

December 16, 2010

User Honk over at has posted a bunch of photos and videos from a project he did last Spring building a version of the Flux Boosted Dual Induction Split Spiral.

Though unfortunately the results were not anywhere near overunity, which is what he was hoping for, it does show amazing machining ability – definitely deserving of honorable mention. It could be an illustration of someone highly skilled in modern techniques but lacking the basic intuition required to defy some of the typical ways things are normally done and thus tap into some new phenomenon.

Below are some thumbnail views of the photos posted at For the next 29 days, you can download a zip file with the photos and three videos from After that, feel free to download from our site (32 Mb zip).

Image:FBDISSM collage a jp60.jpg
Image:FBDISSM collage b jp60.jpg
Image:FBDISSM collage c jp60.jpg

On December 15, 2010, Honk wrote:

The story of FBDISSM development:

All stuff was laser cut for precision and speeding up development. The motor was built like a pancake in layers. Pretty fun actually.

I tried several types of electromagnets, from narrow to wide with heavy duty winding to slash copper losses to a minimum. Each electromagnet was calculated to achieve maximum performance. But the main problem is the induced voltage in the windings of the electromagnet when the rotor magnet passes by. This increases the input power by a least 4-6 times higher, perhaps a lot more, just to be able to overcome the sticky spot.

I built 3 different controllers that recycled BEMF for max efficiency. It made no difference with the BEMF recycling, it was still no good. I even tried adding large N45SH magnets to the back of the solenoid electromagnets but it had no effect whatsoever on motor performance.

The videos show two of the many test runs I made during development. The last test run with Solenoid v3.0 I achieved a puny 150 RPM. Input power was approx 1700-1900W while the motor could deliver approx 400-500W from a shaft load, meaning 'a 25% efficient motor'.

My findings reveal the Magnetic Wankel being far from overunity. I don't regret taking this journey as I have learnt a lot about magnetism. I feel the magnetic cycle is 100% conservative as long as there is no magic "pulse generators" coming along that can match the force field from NdFeb's at low input while it doesn't get affected by the moving magnetic fields.

Regards / Honk

Btw, Directory:Harry Paul Sprain magnet motor has failed in his research as well. See these links, they direct you to some statements from Terry Blanton. His was one of Sprains engineers during development.

In the News

Image:Honk FBDISSM 95x95.jpg
Latest: Directory:Electromagnetic / Directory:Magnet Motors > Directory: Flux Boosted Dual Induction Split Spiral Motor (F.B.D.I.S.S.M.) - User Honk over at has posted a bunch of photos and videos from a project he did last Spring building a version of the Flux Boosted Dual Induction Split Spiral. Though unfortunately the results were not anywhere near overunity, which is what he was hoping for, it does show amazing machining ability – definitely deserving of honorable mention. (PESWiki December 16, 2010)


See further below as well for more comments, and to post one if you would like.

One hell of an engineering job Bad execution of magnetic effects

''On December 16, 2010 1:57 PM MST, GG wrote:

This is one of the most physically beautiful OU attempts made public recently.

Although it's pretty physically and mechanically, I feel the magnetic design is very poor! It looks as if the engineer did a great job with the mechanics, and perhaps the circuit layout -- but never got a handle on the magnetics.

Look at the lamination thickness inside the wire coils. Those laminations are very thick -- so the eddy current losses in them will be huge, relatively speaking, compared to even a cheap DC motor or cheap AC transformer. A great quantity of energy is being lost there. Only in car alternators do you ever see laminations this thick -- where thermal losses don't really matter and wasting energy as heat is "OK". But the laminations here are even thicker than that! The thicker the lamination, the larger the area of the induced eddy current loop within it, so the greater its Lenz Law effect, opposing the flux it is supposed to carry. Thin laminations squish the induced current loops so thin their effect begins to disappear.

Silicon iron, of the type used for efficient laminated cores, is not even made that thick due to this very issue, so the iron within this motor's coils is probably a rolled steel, or another non-silicon alloy. All non silicon steels have relatively high magnetic coercivity (so, high hysteresis loss) and low resistivity (so, high eddy losses!) -- again, relative to what an efficient design must have.

If you look at the rotor of a conventional DC motor, or the shape of an ordinary AC transformer, the volume of the copper windings is often between 1/2 ... 2/3 the volume of the iron it is wrapped around. The higher this ratio -- the more copper per iron -- the more efficient the copper coil becomes. The ratio here between copper and core iron is maybe 1/6 or less, so the copper coil is inefficient too.

From the perspective of minimizing energy losses, it doesn't look good at all..

The circular stator frame and the rotor arms are made of cut steel plates that are tiered, or stacked with non-magnetic spacing (aluminum, or air) between each layer.

There is non-magnetic spacing between each steel plate in the frame -- equal to or greater than the thickness of each steel plate...

If we look at the net cross sectional area (CSA) of the magnets in either the rotor or the stator, we can compare it to the net cross sectional area of the steel plates behind those magnets, carrying their return flux.

Since the steel plates are separated widely, the net CSA of the steel portion will be rather small. For instance, if steel plates 1/8" thick are separated 1/8" apart by air spaces, then a 1"x1" area of this form only equals 0.5"x1" steel area (plus 0.5"x1" air area).

It's clear the magnets have a greater total CSA than the CSA of the steel they are coupled to.

Have you ever merged from a 4-lane freeway into a 3 lane freeway? Then you know how the traffic backs up. That's what's happening to the flux here!

The magnetic system is likely to be saturating. Steel saturates at around 1.6T, and NdFeB magnets do about 1.1T. When steel is attached to a NdFeB magnet, the steel must have at least some 2/3 the CSA of the magnet, in order to avoid saturation from this bottlenecking effect. If the steel has less area than that, it will saturate -- flux spills out. I believe that is likely to be occurring here. This effect is visible in FEA magnetic simulators (where I get this 2/3 rule) such as the freeware FEMM (

Maybe this was all intentional. Pointing out flaws in others' work is so easy to do. Saturation isn't always a bad thing, and I personally believe some nonlinearity (such as the type called saturation, among others) is likely required in a magnetic system to create measurable OU.

But if that type of thing was the goal here, the nonlinear saturation was strangely placed, since it occurs in places that reduce the flux density required to produce strong torque, or invites additional losses in the aluminum interleave. Personally, whether aiming for OU or conventional action, I would never design a motor this way.

- - - -

On December 16, 2010 4:01 PM MST, Honk posted a reply

I'd like to clarify some issues regarding the functionality of the motor.... more...