I've posted a feature page about Honk's work at http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:_Flux_Boosted_Dual_Induction_Split_Spiral_Motor_%28F.B.D.I.S.S.M.%29

Amazing workmanship.

Hi Honk,

I have seen an interesting setup shown by allcanadian at energeticforum.com. He used a H shaped core for his stator cores and oriented one of the sides of the H to face the rotor magnets when it passed by.
See this link for the text and I uploaded the drawing here because it can only be seen over that forum if you log in:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/2790-no-bemf-motor.html

This way the induced voltage by the passing rotor magnets could significantly be reduced in the electromagnets because most of the flux would go through the side part of the stator core where there is no coil winding. Maybe you could build such H core for the two electromagnets? Even a T shape would work I think if you position the head part of the T to face the rotor magnets.

rgds,  Gyula

Sorry to say this but a Magnetic Wankel with tilted rotor magnets as shown in the picture
will not make use and develop torque from the attraction between stator and rotormagnets.
There will still be quite a lot of induced voltage, yet it will have another shape and level, but the
absence of heavy duty torque (for shaft connected energy production) will deteriorate any gain.
I've seen this configuration of core attraction in other attempts but induced voltage always wins....

You see, a tilted magnet facing an Electromagnet core is actually having a serious problem.
It will be brake in very hard due to both poles of the rotor magnet being attracted to the EM core with minimal airgap.
There is yet another problem, how will you pulse it....a negative pulse will both attract and repel the rotor magnet,
and the same goes for a positive pulse, both attraction and repulsion will occur. Gain zero.
If you delay the pulse until the rotor magnet has bounced a bit past the EM core, then all gain is lost due to the
heavy braking effect, all torque & power seen is being developed from the pulsed EM spot minus the losses. Gain zero.

Honk,

In my experience, I have found that as long as you use a coil directly in a motor (with magnets swinging by), the coil will act as a decent power generator and fight the power that you are trying to feed into the motor to drive it, just as you have well said in your post. 

If you can use a coil indirectly in the motor, (such as an actuator moving a magnet) I think you will overcome your electrical efficiency issue. 

A working example of this can be found at http://www.dynamaticmotors.com in the motor movie section.  It uses a speaker coil for an actuator, but is capable of well over 1500 rpm using a couple of 12" speakers.  The dual rotor version utilizes an actuator circuit that is powering the 12 " speakers continuously, and still achieves about 70% efficiency.  (But could run in pulse mode with a different actuator [pulse with magnet hold] and would most likely exceed 100% electrical efficiency, using an estimated 25% of the amount of input power as before) .  Neo Magnets are in the rotor and stator on this style motor and provide most of the rotary force.

I have really enjoyed reading your posts and progress on your motor.
Wishing you all the best,

Liberty

Honk ... what a great build, lovely workmanship.

Good luck in the future.


Gary.

@bolt

Sorry but I do not agree with you about using off-the-shelf motor.

What @honk has in hand is not a boat anchor and i do not know why you guys are saying this.

The main problem is turning the rotor with the magnets and trying to pick-off energy output from those two coils. Since the magnets and the coil are at the same radius there is no advantage of leverage.

If you can make the rotor turn by pulsing the two coils as drive coils, then remove the outer magnets and remove some of the rotor magnets to tune the best rotation speed and strength, then you can make a second level where the rotor second level would have more magnets but in a smaller diameter where you can place more pick-up coils on the outer rim. If the pick-up coils are in a smaller diameter compared to the drive radius, then you can start working with a leverage advantage and work on the speed of rotation to maximize the output.

Sorry if this sounds complicated but the point I am trying to make is that if the design uses drive magnets and pick-up coils that are on the same radius, then chances are great that you will never see any major advantage.

I had posted something along those lines that will better explain it here;
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7833.msg261177#msg261177

Extending the idea further, now imagine if your rotor was shaped like a cone that starts 15" diameter at the base a goes upwards a good 15" high that you mark off into 5 levels of 3" each. As you go higher, you eventually get to the tip of the cone. So imagine putting the drive magnets on the rotor at 15" diameter level 1 that has corresponding drive coils on the outside of the rotor radius. Then you go to level two and put more magnets and this time you put pick-up coils (instead of drive coils) around the outer radius, same with level three, two and one.

All the pick-up coils in levels 2-5 would produce energy output and the drive coils being on the 15" diameter level 1 would have the greatest leverage potential to keep the rotor turning while the pick-up coils generate some drag but never enough to stop the driving of the rotor. Yes, each level would produce a different output level but being DC, not of it would be lost.

Anyways, I still say great work and don't give up. I am sure @JackH would be proud to see your works. Hmmmmmm. Speaking about @JackH, I never was able to reach his wife or his brother. I tried many times but there was no answer and I am always wondering where his motors have wound up. What a darn pity if his works are lost.

wattsup

Sorry but your full of crap, Bolt.

If it was as easy as your claims (by imagined theories) then OU would be reality by now.
Of course there is no way getting OU by lowering the losses of a device.
When all losses are down to zero, all you have is a 100% efficient device, not overunity.

Making a self looped system would require at least COP 2 before it could work.

And what do I read
Do you actually believe that Magnacoaster have made anything but lies, talk and promises.
He's got nothing going. It's all a scam from a very lousy guy only being able to fool the ignorants.

When you actually bring up such theories and use MagnaCrook as example, then I actually believe
your the perfect example of an extreme free energy fanatic or just a simple hillbilly ignorant.

@bolt

I agree with your position but the main point here is how to help @honk with some more constructive ideas instead of just leaning back on a comfy sofa saying "it can't be done". There are always other angles to consider.

My attempt to explain the importance of leverage in these types of builds is only to show that there is another step that can be tried with what is already in hand. Trying to join constructive help with what is already practical and in hand.

Going off on this OU is this and that bit is simply just repeating what we already know. @honk already knows the cards are already stacked against him like we all already know this 1 million times over in whatever we do. So what is the point in rubbing his face into it is my question.

I think @honks build has the perfect size and weights that can enjoy some advantage with leverage, momentum, inertia, etc. He has one hell of a toy in his hands and the ways to play with it are many. And, the more you play, the more you learn. It's all part of the process.

What would happen if you had a three foot wheel that turns from the outer edge forces and you have a 4" center shaft that extends from each side outwards 10 feet. On that shaft you put magnets and around that shaft you put pick up coils. The rpm at the shaft will be lower because of the lower speed per degree of spin but if those coils are put into series then in parallel it should produce some interesting output while the big wheel provides tremendous leverage to counter any drag. @honks build should be able to take advantage of this with very minor changes.

wattsup

Beautiful build, those magnets alone must have cost a small fortune.
Nevertheless, one look at those coils told me all I needed to know about your low COP. Winding coils with a very small number of turns and relatively large wire guage, guaranteed a low efficiency. It's not a large B field you need.
Using much smaller wire and a hundred times more turns you could have used 1/10th the power and generated a large H field instead. Even driving the coils with 200 watts you could recapture most of it back with the right kind of recovery circuit.
All you did was spend a lot of time and money to prove the coils you designed didn't work efficiently. Why stop there? Why not try a pair of high H field coils. Use a much smaller diameter core with a large steel cap on the end facing the rotor. Then pack the space the coil fits in with as many turns as you can. Use 26 or 28 awg, and wire the two coils in series. Start with a high voltage pulse, around 200 VDC, and work up from there. Your COP should improve dramatically.
But then again, maybe you really didn't want it to work in the first place...

Ted