Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

You have probably already researched a bit into it, but I keep bringing up the zero force motor. There are similarities for sure. I am not saying there is no back emf for sure yet of course as bedini claims, but I do see some key similarities here. I'm just posting this in case you have not seen it as similar designs you may follow to get ideas of small things to try with yours. The current draw sure looks way better in this video than many others I have seen with the zero force motor design, and it pretty much matches what you are seeing in your setup. I note this because something is different with the tiny current yours and bedinis draws compared to many others. There is clearly a subtle difference that makes this happen and you seem to be hitting on it as well.
.......

 

Regarding the no backemf claim for the zero force motor (ZFM), you can notice the induced backemf in the same video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpDMMcNQxc John B. himself made on it,  see the two snapshots I attached. In this simplest ZFM, the magnets move and induce voltage in the coil from sideway like Naudin showed in the right hand side coil positioning here http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/magconfig.gif   
The induced voltage (I indicated it by the arrow) in John's coil was around 2.5 to 3 V peak with no core (scope setting was 5V/DIV in that snapshot) and was around 5 to 6 V peak with the iron pipe core (scope was already in 10V/DIV).
 
These are low values with respect to the 12-13 V supply voltage and their effect is surely low accordingly, for sure, but backemf was present.  If you ponder on why it was low, IMHO the low induced values were due to the big coil sizes with respect to the moderate sized magnets used and the air gap size between the coil top side and the rotating magnets (see this gap at video time 1:20 - 1:21). The 200 mA current (the analog ampmeter showed) went down to around 20-30 mA (as I estimate it, the 5 Amper FSD meter makes it hard to estimate...).  The iron pipe increased the coil AC inductance hence its inductive reactance, this explains the lower current draw and the increased RPM. 

Regarding the other ZFM setup https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TICXxP1jI4 John showed it as an advanced version built and presented to him by Peter L, you can find all the important details in these posts by Peter as Retep: 

https://www.energyscienceforum.com/forum/alternative-energy/john-bedini/1861-zero-force-motor-replication-project?p=35942#post35942

https://www.energyscienceforum.com/forum/alternative-energy/john-bedini/1861-zero-force-motor-replication-project?p=35947#post35947

https://www.energyscienceforum.com/forum/alternative-energy/john-bedini/1861-zero-force-motor-replication-project?p=35958#post35958

https://www.energyscienceforum.com/forum/alternative-energy/john-bedini/1861-zero-force-motor-replication-project?p=35975#post35975

https://www.energyscienceforum.com/forum/alternative-energy/john-bedini/1861-zero-force-motor-replication-project?p=35984#post35984

In his closing post on the ZFM:  https://www.energyscienceforum.com/forum/alternative-energy/john-bedini/1861-zero-force-motor-replication-project?p=35986#post35986   he wrote this: 

"I am not going to go into Operational Theory concerning this motor in this thread, so don't ask. No one's speculations so far are even close.  I will say this. In this machine, Lenz's Law is FULLY OPERATIONAL, as is Ohm's Law,  Kirchhoff's Law,  Faraday's Law of Induction,  and  Newton's Third Law of Motion.  Anyone who says different does not know how the machine works!" 

Unfortunately, there have been no any performance measurements shown on this advanced ZFM setup, to date. Member Yaro's tests with his own replications I referred to earlier yielded around 51 % measured efficiency.

Gyula

Please review before I build this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4qQh_nsBg8

Would like to understand your term "no polarity flip"   because the induced voltage waveform changes polarity from negative to positive as the SN magnet comes from the left hand side coil edge to the center of the coil and beyond.

With a single magnet passing over the entire coil- you get 1 complete sinewave.  half is 1 polarity- half is the other polarity.
Sliding 1 magnet 1/2 the coil without crossing center gives 1 polarity.

Sliding 2 magnets over a coil gives 1 polarity if you do not cross the edges of the coil in or out.

SLiding 2 magnets completely accross gives the same signal as sliding 1 magnet 1/2 way.

"Polarity flip" only happens when the voltage crosses the zero line.  Going up and down on the same side of the zero line is all still one polarity.  Just weaker on either side and stronger in the middle.


The image you posted shows a very slight flip at the very end because I was stopping the magnet.  In non-stopping motion- the wave is completely on 1 side of the line

Russ explains about the zero line and polarity at mark 12:14 of this video- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6H3RymQC7g

It is difficult to show when changing directions like reciprocation.  And also very difficult when we're going slow and stopping. So let me post a snap when I pass two magnets over the entire coil.

Two magnets passing entirely over the coil including edges produces that signal.  The only time we get a polarity flip is when the magnets enter and exit the edges of the coil.

The signature is like the exact same as if we pass the coil at the other 90° angle

Okay, I understand now.  Unfortunately I did not realize earlier that your tests with the two magnets joined as SN (or NS of course) corresponds to the improved  case shown by member partzman here https://overunity.com/19069/holcomb-energy-systemsbreakthrough-technology-to-the-world/msg565002/#msg565002  Naudin showed the coil at other 90° angle indeed. 

Now you can load the coil by say a 10 or 20 Ohm resistor and somehow check Lenz counter to motion.  A pendulum-like setup where the movement of the bob (that includes the two magnets)  would be confined to the edges of the coil and count the number of swings?  One possibility.
Thanks for explaining.

The pendulum idea is good, except that the coil would have to be cut when the leading magnet is aligned with the middle. Because we have attraction in that one spot

Perhaps with a normally closed reed switch? which would open at the right moment? would it be enough? 

EDIT:  if you have only a normally open reed switch, and have two  n-channel power mosfets rated for say 100V drain-source breakdown voltage, you could use this circuit I attached. Just swap R1 and the reed, the latter should short circuit the gate-source points at the right moment to switch the conducting mosfets off.

Maybe. The pendulum would have an arcing motion which would bring one magnet closer than the other at different points adding variables.

I might as well just print a rotor that passes the coil top like an axial flux alignment. and use hall sensors to cut the coil.

Increased RPMs and lower input wattage would confirm if using an air coil.

Edit. I won't have much of a problem working with arduinos and Hall sensors.

Okay, I agree.  Have it your way of course.  Use a pendulum comes member Norman here, also an excellent experimenter.

The two mosfets constitute a bidirectional switch, AC current can go in any direction when they are switched on.  In case of one mosfet the body diode may conduct when a reverse current is present. But you surely know these. 

Yes 2 MOSFETs or I got a bag of triacs .  I usually just rectify it first then switch the DC with one MOSFET. Is there any downfall doing that?

I do thank you for taking the time to read and offer advice.