Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 14, 2016 at 9:38 pm.
There was an error working with the wiki: Code
There was an error working with the wiki: Code
There was an error working with the wiki: Code
There was an error working with the wiki: Code
'Frequently Asked Questions relating to the OS:CD Motor.'
If this FAQ looks a little long, remember, if over-unity physics was simple, it would have been in production long ago. The CD motor is the simplified version. Anything with pretensions to be commercial, would be substantially more complex again.
As prepared by Tim Harwood, March, 2006.
I sent off for the Aspden-Adams British patent. The validity of the patent, and the extent to which it was derived with any meaningful input from Mr Adams, is open to question, but I hit upon the idea after reading it. So far as I can research, the theory was novel at the time it was proposed.
Well, its certainly true if you don't build them correctly, they do nothing special. I've seen kits with flawed rotor / stator geometry that purported to be exotic pulsed motors. In fact, I was emailed 2/3 times by people who had bought such kits, carried out modifications to bring them closer to the CD motor template, and quickly got vastly improved results i.e. cooler running, more back-emf. The key is having a precise idea of what you are trying to do. Just putting magnets on a rotor and pulsing it, in itself, does nothing special.
No. This one may look similar, but is based upon a very tight theory of operation, centering on the in-register geometry. The concepts being applied in terms of layout, timing, and recovery, are highly specific. The low cost of the apparatus should not hide the care and intellectual precision with which the experiment was conceived.
Mr Adams built MANY prototypes over the years. The Adams motor is NOT a fixed device. It is based upon rotor pms and over-wound stators configured as generator windings. To that extent, a wide variety of motors could be said to be within the Adams 'type.'
The CD motor was an honest attempt to duplicate the characteristics claimed by Mr Adams, namely ambient operation, reduced current draw, voltage / energy gain. No contact was made with Mr Adams for its design and construction. To the extent it does replicate many of these claims it must have similarities to the Adams apparatus, but without inspection of the prototypes Mr Adams had in his possession, it is impossible to make any detailed comment.
Mr Adams started his work in the late 1960s, and clearly has priority in terms of research claims. Since the Nexus article in 1992, other claims have followed for pulse motors, but prior art clearly belongs to Mr Adams. Everyone has their own particular way of building these things, but all designs seem to be derivative in some manner from the 1992 Nexus article. Personally, I have never had any problem acknowledging this.
The stator heads should be about 20% of the surface area of the rotor pm faces. The spacing of the pms physically, should produce a duty of about 20%. There is nothing magic about this i.e. if you deviate from it the motor stops working, but as a rough rule, that seemed to be what offered best voltage gain on the output. Mr Adams stated 4:1 in his original Nexus article, but this appears to have been based upon a current draw analysis, rather than voltage gain.
Strange battery effects were noticed at points during experimentation, but it seemed fairly clear the battery was NOT the source of the phenomena.
Yes. Imagine striking a stone with a flint to create a spark. This is very much like the Adams motor effect. You ensure a clean strike with a fast rise switch and the low pm duty. You make the strike hard, by raising the input voltage. The cleaner and harder the strike, the greater the intensity of the spark shower you create.
Well, take the OS:CD Motor old egroup replications from the old Egroup. It was clearly measured with back-emf as 80% of input. This energy is fully recoverable. Battery charging tests at the time validated this hypothesis.
So the actual energy draw of the system, is really only 20% of what you would measure in conventional current / voltage terms, since 80% of the input is recovered and returned to the source. In strictly mechanical terms, the result is over-unity by a wide margin.
However, electrical energy gain is the real goal. The problem with this, is that commutation will play a very large part in the outcome. You can have an identical motor, but when switched mechanically, it will output far more back-emf than with transistors. In 2012 I updated the circuitry page with additional information. I pointed out an IRF 740 with MOSFET drivers and a discrete Schottky diode provides a way to aproximate this mechanical contact effect.
Feel free to have a go.
Also, if you want 2-D modeling you may like FEMM
If you like 3-D modeling you may like GMSH
The stators are generator windings.
The facts of operation show this not to be the case. Current draw halves in the device around 6.8 ohms, as the negentropy pulse is attracted to resistance. A 3-4 ohm coil made from 24 awg wire has been shown to DROP in temperature below ambient in one replication. Higher ohm coils tend to rise no more than a few degrees above ambient. 2 x coils at 3.5 ohms each in series for 7 ohms total is a nice prctical set.
No hard rule, but about 2 inches is reasonable. Not too deep.
Yes. They started to melt after about 25 seconds. To my mind, proving the stator yaw-demagnetization cycle is critical to the manifestation of the effect.
Depends what you want to achieve. I used mild steel nails. Many experimenters preferred bolts, because they were easy to fix in place, and to adjust the air gap distance.
If you want to optimize for rpms then pure iron was the material Mr Adams historically employed. If the back emf effect is most important, then black sand / magnetite is the best option. I would suggest black sand, as my thesis is that the Adams motor is primarily a pulse platform, rather than a drive motor. This was the opinion of Mr Adams as well.
1-1.2mm. Not critical, but too big or small decreases efficiency i.e. rpms.
This is an educated guess, but Mr Adams talked about "Wattless energy" being stored in capacitors i.e. electrical energy with no measurable current value. From my other research I believe this is derived via fractional distillation of current. This happens via lower ohm primary, and a >7 ohm secondary. So a 3-4 ohm primary, and a >7 ohm secondary, MIGHT be a way to tap this.
Grade VIII ceramics. NIBs only boost absolute output by increasing current draw, and therefore apparatus throughput. The device is no more efficient, and in fact due to possible core saturation, may well end up less efficient.
3/4". Larger magnets result in a longer pulse width, which tends to destroy the over-unity effect, or at least increases the difficulty of manifesting it. Again, you can only scale these devices by MANY smaller stators. Stop using 1" magnets. I told you once, twice, thrice.
Does not seem to make a big difference. Round faced are generally easier to order, but were harder to glue between two CDs.
They boost absolute output, but generally complicate the task of pulsing the coils, and balancing the rotor. I've never adocated anything mroe than dual stator layouts. In addition, the requirement for a 20% pm duty, means the resultant spacing forces relatively large rotor parts. There seems little benefit to 8 poles, before you have even mastered 4 poles.
Of course not. However, when used in pairs, CDs do provide a surprisingly strong rotor for unloaded low voltage experimentation. They key point about CDs, is really that they force proper duty. You can not reduce the physical spacing of the pms. It spoils the back-emf effect. Also, you need hard pressed CDS. CD-RWs are often no good.
Kid's toy wheels.
Easy. Old hard drives. Very low friction, well balanced, cheap. Easily emerged over time as the favorite rotor mounting. Can be ordered off Ebay even if you have none lying around.
Not that I was ever able to observe. Light and well balanced were the keys.
Mr Adams, and Lutec, both employed mechanical switching. Clearly, superior back-emf results are obtained in this manner. The classic mistake of experimenters has been to perform mechanical experiments, and then think the same performance can be transferred to MOSFETS. In this respect, despite intensive research, efforts appear to have failed thus far. However, it certainly seems true to say that MOSFETS with shorter rise times, perform better than ones with longer rise times, and MOSFETS are capable when configured properly of performing better than transistors.
IRF 740 is the best general purpose MOSFET - or similar spec - due to 400v rating, a relatively short rise time, and a reasonably low junction resistance for efficiently handling current. Anything not rated to 400v blows on the back EMF spike.
A 400v rated fast response Schottky Diode can also be considered as discrete diodes tend to perform that little bit better than the one built into MOSFETS.
MOSFET drivers give a cleaner input power to the IRF 740 improving performance i.e. a clean, fast, rise time to circuit activation
For commercial grade work, you really need to examine the components on an oscilloscope, since manufacturer specs are not an absolute guide to performance - the rise needs not just to be fast, but also abrupt
Isolation is important on the circuit board - the energy gain is easily leached away. Components need plenty of space and good quality soldering. Even the best MOSFETs tend to leak current when "off".
Certain types of filtered PSUs kill the effect - another reason to run off lead acid batteries
The aim is really to make the MOSFET perform as close as possible to a mechanical switch i.e. a short fast abrupt on / off, and minimized current leakage while off.
Discrete fast recovery diodes will tend to yield best results. This could be in parallel with a reed switch - a popular combination because of its simplicity. MOSFETS of course have a diode built-in as a byproduct of the manufacturing process, so will re-charge the source battery automatically.
Best device is probably optical. Hall switches can be used, and you simply time off the magnetic field of the rotating pms. However, they are sensitive to high ohm sets. One of the most promising ideas was the induction coil timing system. More work could be done in that direction.
You should use MOSFETS / diodes / FWBRs rated to about 400v. In general, the higher the voltage rating, the less efficiently it conducts current. So you need a high enough voltage tolerance to assure reliability, but an excessive voltage rating just hurts current efficiency of the apparatus. The peak voltage of the back emf surge can be quite high, and thats what the circuit has to be able to withstand.
Pickup coil circuit is interesting, as in theory allows a circuit board not needing an external power source - so a true self runner
A pickup coil driven motor with an IRF 740 (pulled by a transistor - MOSFETS are not rugged enough to be powered by an induction coil imho, plus its a TERRIBLE rise on the switch), with the right rotor / stator geometry, and a light low friction high rpm rotor design, should come VERY CLOSE to being a self running battery charger, if not go over.
Physically sliding the pickup coil further away from the rotor magnets after startup is probably the best strategy to reduce pulse width at speed because its dead simple.
12v is a good basic input for battery charging tests. However, if properly configured, you will find rotor speed increases with voltage harmonics of 9 i.e. 18v, 27v, 36v, etc. No, I can't explain why that is, it merely is. Further up, inputs of 120v, and 240v yield gains, in an apparent 120v linear series. I noted JLN only got over-unity in some of his cold fusion data @ 240v. Above 300v you will get sparking - so watch out! But please, do NOT go to 240v, before you have at least got to break-even at 12v. Only scale an effect once you have mastered it. Common sense.
Negentropy is NOT attracted to low ohm copper. This is contrary to conventional technology which advocates low ohm copper as the way to high efficiency. It is attracted to resistance, especially when iron based. A little bit of resistance and iron "rough" in the device therefore improves performance.
7 ohms via opposite 2x 3.5 ohm stators in a series set is probably the best coil resistance. Higher resistances blows the MOSFETS in any case.
Robert Adams used 3/8" pure iron cores. Best for rpms, but in terms of acting as a transducer of negative energy from the pm face, I think magnetite cores (also high iron content) would work best.
A small amount of iron wire as part of the pulse coil will attract negentropy to the input coil. That should also provide a 15-20% voltage gain increase over all copper. The ideal wire would be some kind of custom copper / iron alloy.
Lead acid 4 Ah is a good basic spec. Offers a high recharge efficiency.
Yes. Use a fwbr. If you got within 5-10% self runner with the back-emf alone, this could tip you over the edge. However, the generator winding should NOT of coruse be part of any of the stators. Discrete integrated 400v fwbrs can be bought cheaply enough - there is no need to connect up 4 diodes manually.
Play about with MOSFETs with fast rise times, and get hold of some black sand / magnetite for the stator cores. Once the rotor has been physically built and mounted, those are probably the two biggest areas of gains.
You can use your PC soundcard as an Oscilloscope. Use an induction coil, and divide the number of traces by 4 (the number of pms) to get rpm. Obviously, keep the induction coil away from the pms, as excessive electrical input to your soundcard could damage it.
Mr Adams never disclosed it, but one of the pictures showed a dual rotor operation. Counter rotating high voltage discs are anti-gravitational. The diameter that emerged from other research was 7 metres, and the upper disc 6.5 metres. Clearly impractical for a motor design, but taking the ratio, a dual rotor counter spun Adams motor, where the upper disc is 16% smaller in diameter than the lower rotor, might be a layout that generates lift.
Increasing the voltage in 9v increments 18, 27, 36, etc, then to 120v and 240v, eventually rpms hit a 3,600 rpm cieling. The fact that increased input energy no longer increases rpms, is your clue you are on the brink of exotic physics. At this point the pulse timing point has to be adjusted, and a runaway acceleration then occurs, that is in fact very difficult to stop, short of pulling out the power cables - literally - just flicking the input switch to off is not necessarily enough as the energy negentropy effect seeks to suck in the power it needs, across switch junctions if necessary. You have been warned. At high rpms apparatus may distinegrate, causing a danger to the experimenter.
The CD motor was never really finished, in the sense that all the best practise that was learned during the Egroup, was ever put into one single device. Sadly, time is limited, and other projects and lines of research took priority. Hopefully this PESWIKI instance will open up pulse research to a new generation of researchers, and the project can be concluded. Key points as follows:
IRF 740 + quality low rise time MOSFET drivers + discrete Schottky Diode pulse control
12v 4Ah lead acid battery PSU
2x 3.5 ohm stators in opposite series for 7 ohms total
High iron magnetite cores
I think the performance of such a device will pleasantly suprise you, and will be quantifiably different in performance to the traditional transistor based timing circuits most people were / are using. The Adams motor is fundamentally a negentropy pulse platform, and the pulses must be as clean as possible to get the best from the device. Before 2012 I had not fully disclosed the pulse methodology.
I will say research was taken beyond what is presented, and the CD motor should not be taken as actual apparatus I would ever put forward for commercial funding. It is a simple, scaled down experiment, designed primarily to be easy to replicate, rather than offering best performance. Please see and understand what is presented in that light.
Nope. You really can build a proof-of-concept negative entropy pulsed motor device for $50 from household items. In fact, you could have done so almost as easily in 1880, as 2007. The issue is not the technology, it is the generational banking interests that stopped Tesla, stopped Robert Adams, and thwarted my good self, as well as countless others. I would recommend watching the film End Game: Blueprint For Global Enslavement. You may then begin to understand what is really happening in the world.
This is now more or less a full disclosure as of 2012. The Holy Grail for the Adams motor is the runaway over-unity configuration that exponentially self accelerates. That was the commercial configuration for the steam apparatus Mr Adams pursued in the 1990s. The write up gives enough detail to understand the 3,600 rpm wall, and how to get through it.