Like us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter


Directory:Syncopetra Motor

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:16 am.

  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.

Company claims to have discovered a method that could result in stronger motor forces. They are calling it a Torque Generator. The challenge is to embody it in a 365 rotating device.

Official Websites

none yet

Launching the Project

On March 28, 2008 9:18 PM mountain, Vilma Cinco wrote:

(slightly edited)

Dear Mr. Allan,

We are almost finished the pioneer test work on our magnet motor.

In our case it means that our success rate on experiments has gone from one per year to two successes per day. We have achieved 800+ ' VIRTUAL AMPS' in a 32 cubic centimeter space. We have measured 0.8 N-M of torque. Assuming a Faraday force motor with the same volume and a 10,000 gauss field, 869 amps would be required to produce the same torque. In reality our field was only in the 5-6k gauss range which would then require even more 'Virtual Amps'. It is the best frame of reference we have. Our second best frame of reference is 16 pairs of 4.5 sq cm magnets would produce 4.5 kW at 3600 rpm.

This technology has evolved from what Tom Bearden calls asymmetric magnets. His prediction on how they would behave was exactly correct. He was a bit short sighted in believing an asymmetric magnet required nano technology. Asymmetric magnets are very easy to produce as permanent and electro magnets. Tom wrote that these magnets were the quantum leap that was required for free energy and we discovered them accidentally.

We eventually figured out to use them and measured, in Tom's terms, 25% more forward EMF than back EMF. Britt and Christie would quickly assert that it is no where near enough because the back EMF rupturing is still converted to eddy losses and the potential maximum speed is less than 300 rpm. A Howard Johnson flea power PMM is the best that can be expected. Virtual amps would be less than 10A, quite low mostly due to an impulse duty cycle.

Our second quantum leap eliminated the impulse and sits on the other side of the asymmetric magnet 'cause and effect fence.' It was also an accidental discovery and is somewhat anti-intuitive.

[...] Best regards,

Vilma G. Cinco


Introductory Links

SYNCOPETRA announces its discovery by Vilma G. Cinco (KeelyNet_Interact Mar 10, 2008)



(5:03 minutes)

SYNCOPETRA Discoveries - Part 3 - Torque Testing (YouTube May 05, 2008)


SYNCOPETRA Background.

A little more than two years ago, I was visiting Hong Kong and watched two engineers discussing a magnetic levitation toy at a social gathering. I knew the engineer who invented the toy he had a MSEE degree from MIT. I later learned that the other guy had nothing more than a night school BSMET degree from an unaccredited Rhode Island college.

But there was something wrong with the picture the ME asked numerous simple, but enigmatic, questions that the EE could not answer about his toy. One’s approach seemed to be to solve the enigma while the other’s was to ignore it and be happy that the toy benefited from the mystery. Apparently there are many mysteries in the world of magnetics. Eventually the discussion ended with the EE walking away with his academic tail between his legs.

Curiosity prevailed so I became more acquainted with the ME and learned that he had some crazy ideas about building free energy motors and generators. In November 2006 he lost his job partly because his company lost an IP battle in court and partly because of the low quality of his education. He decided to spend a few months working on his motors before seeking another job. Within a month, he discovered a magnetic device that produced a flux density gradient on poles that inherently produced TORQUE. I quickly learned from him the phrase, ‘TORQUE is the only requirement to make a motor spin,’ and I began helping to fund his work.

[...] The concepts of the agreement are not new. Howard Johnson earned the honor of being featured as the cover article in Science & Mechanics magazine. The myths and truths regarding Johnson’s work are intertwined but the article raised a very important point. Johnson asserted the problem of achieving commercial power was overshadowed by acceptance of the existence of perpetual motion. The understanding between the inventor and me reflects the opposing point of view.

We have failed to find answers to the big three questions that validate perpetual motions in the records of Johnson’s work. 1. How is torque generated, or why is the force when spinning in one direction greater than the force in the other? In essence, the same question was asked by an onlooker in PESN’s Bedini motor demonstration. This question is more a spin requirement than a free energy requirement. 2. Where is the free energy reaction? In the field of magnetics the two known free energy reactions are changing the flux force vector and moving a transformer coil. 3. Where is the non-Newtonian reaction? Newton’s law asserts conservation of energy when it is interpreted as exactly equal and opposite reactions. The opportunity for inexact reactions in the field of magnetics comes from the perpendicularity of attractive to repulsive forces and an interrelated propensity for flux to be orientated along curved, vector altering, paths. and may be examples where another inexact reaction achieves perpetual motion. A spinning armature reacting with the different inertia of an oscillating pseudo stator seems to be the driving mechanism of these devices.

The inventor is amazed by the reversibility and simplicity of the example reaction and believes that the reversibility comes with a sacrifice of commercial power potential. Philosophically he suggested that tradeoffs are a requirement of all free energy systems except hydroelectric power where potential energy is converted to kinetic energy at nearly 100% efficiency with no pollution. He recanted on the exception from a more macroscopic viewpoint realizing the hydroelectric cycle gets the potential energy from a thermodynamic reaction with less than 1% efficiency.

Commercial power is all about efficiency and adds two more requirements absent from the examples. First, flux densities must be greater than 4,000 gauss so gaps are basically limited to one millimeter. Second impulse motors, classified as synchronous, cannot meet power density requirements while conserving energy and should not be expected to meet the requirement with free energy reactions. The term ‘homopolar’ is used to conceptually describe the requirement. Paradoxically, proponents of Rotating Field Theories must debate constant flux and asynchronous attributes of typical DC motors where the armature has homopolar properties. We take the middle ground in the debate with conjecture that the DC motor’s armature is homogeneous and that is the reason for a typical DC motor’s superior power density. A typical AC induction motor also employs a homogenous armature, is also asynchronous, and has high power density potential. Homogeneous armatures and small gaps seem to be requirements for commercial power torque levels.

Thus the scope of our research has narrowed to developing high torque using homogeneous armatures. A logical question, how would we take this approach if we were going to develop, from scratch, a typical DC motor utilizing the forces discovered by Faraday? Somewhat obvious because we know the outcome, the answer is simple fixture to measure static torque. Our fixture is identical except we develop torque without passing current through wires that are effectively in the gap between a stator and armature.

A Faraday force test fixture and our test fixture are pictorially represented along with a functional schematic:


The reaction bar is homogeneous and extends well beyond the magnet faces to minimize end effects. The fixture is adjusted with shims between the magnets and the reaction bar enabling consistent air gaps and magnet alignment. The shims are removed and replaced by ‘L’ shaped pivots at opposing ends of the magnet faces. Torque is determined from hanging weights on the extended hook until the bar disengages from the pivots.

Experiments of the Faraday forces would encounter a slight problem. Applying current would distort the flux density in the air gap and produce a secondary torque. The secondary torque could be ignored because it has no effect in a motor because it resolves to net radial vectors. OR it might be considered enigmatic from an energy viewpoint. The secondary torque is null in a motor but is absolutely part of the work requirement to disengage the reaction bar. The secondary torque seems to have potential energy with no apparent source. Faraday’s forces only account for the primary torque. Perpendicularity principles of a toy gyroscope seem to apply.

Relatively speaking the secondary torque is enormous in the SYNCOPETRA fixture. Multiple experiments are required to quantify both of the torques. The potential torque could hardly be considered secondary because, in the best cases, the potential torque is 5-10 times greater than the spin torque that can be utilized in a motor. However spin torque in our fixture was an order of magnitude higher than what would be expected from the same size Faraday fixture.

In the approximately 35 cm^3 envelope of our experiment and with ~7000 gauss, a Faraday force motor would be hard pressed to produce 0.01 N-M torque mostly limited by the resistance of copper wire and brushes. 20 Amps are required the space envelope where copper to iron core ratios are critical. We have consistently produced 0.1-0.2 of spin torque in concert with 0.5-1.2 N-M of potential torque. An equivalent spin torque would require 200-400 Amps in a Faraday motor.

The primary difference between the Faraday SYNCOPETRA models is Faraday’s forces are perpendicular to an unaltered flux vector and our reaction block alters the flux vector. The similar and dissimilar properties of light and magnetic flux enable the vector changing reaction. Magnetic flux, like light can be refracted at boundaries. Snell’s law may be applicable for both forms of energy. Dissimilar properties may be more important. Unbounded light has a propensity to propagate along straight lines while unbounded flux has a propensity to propagate along curved paths of least resistance. The inertial properties of magnetic flux are somewhat non-Newtonian.

Potential/spin torque proportionality in the field of motors may be synonymous with potential/kinetic energy in the field of hydro electrics. This conjecture is made because our spin torque comes from establishing a torque potential and converting it to an oblique linear force using a reaction bar that incorporates another magnetic enigma. Our resulting theory is that our reaction is identical with every other reaction involving potential energy. Converting potential energy to any other form yields net work input or output.

Our strategy opposing Johnson’s point has worked. Our experiments have defined the parameters of a powerful patent. So now in addition to taking on Johnson’s other recognized challenge, validation, we must take on a manufacturing challenge. A simple application of our patent would have a high magnetic critical speed and a low critical speed due to destructive centrifugal forces. We need to bond steel to aluminum. A few years ago we would have used a surface chromate to improve the adhesion to aluminum. Today a more robust stainless steel ‘barrel hoop’ is more environmentally friendly. We just need to find someone who can make 200 mm diameter, 0.4 mm thick, precision barrel hoops. We may need to make them ourselves.

I will be very happy on the day when meeting one challenge doesn’t just bring on the next one. While we work on the new challenge we still need to work on the validation challenge. We will disclose that are at least two more ways to make PMM which will support our theories and a video of torque being measured in our fixture. The first PMM utilizes free energy required to move a coil in a transformer in conjunction with the equivalence of permanent and electro magnets. The second PMM utilizes potential torque evident in our first discovery.

We called our first discovery a ‘flux gradient’ device and have since found that Tom Bearden has long understood the associated principles which can develop free energy from what he calls ‘asymmetric magnets’. He classified our magnets as skewed rather than asymmetric but acknowledged that they would produce free energy. We would argue that our discovery could not get more asymmetric because it has a maximum gauss vector on one side and a zero gauss vector on the other. Flux at a perpendicular vector that might have been viewed as problem by Bearden is our source of free energy. demonstrates potential torque in our discovery and shows my hands in an experiment disclosing how PMM using the free energy discovery would meet the requirement for spin. It might be observed that the net peak torque in the experiment was 20% of the gross torque and this yield is consistent with the fixture experiments.

That’s my story and, because I have witnessed these incredible experiments, I’m most certainly sticking with it.

Comments, suggestions, and criticism are all welcomed.

Vilma G. Cinco



Company: Syncopetra
Founder: Vilma G. Cinco
Image:Vilma Cynco.jpg

Vilma G. Cinco is CEO of Syncopetra. She dubs herself a "high risk business woman".


Another PMM (Steorn Forum May 5, 2008)

Other Coverage

SYNCOPETRA announces its dsicovery - SYNCOPETRA is now able to make 2 different pure magnet motors, free energy generators, and linear magnet motors. This capability comes from the discovery of the true mechanisms of electric motors. Interesting enough, we will only make one each of all but one these devices solely for experimental purposes. (ZPEnergy Apr. 29, 2008)


Vilma Cinco

Hong Kong

email: syncopetra {at}