And I would go with the top design because airgap betwen coil and magnets can be less than in bottom design.

Hi Frenky,

I would like to understand why you think so,  I have read your next letter on this too (Reply#222) but I do not get it.

If I see Laurent's both drawings correctly, then assuming for both we would use the same coils, magnets and the same distances I think we would get the same torque.  And both designs let the same distances and material use, don't they?  Maybe I miss something, please tell.

I agree, the smaller the distances between the two facing magnets, the bigger the torque can be, this would involve using very flat / thin coils.

By the way, Laurent first drawing recalls Garry Stanley's pulse motor setup, and if I remember well back to 2003 or so you also built it, right?  Or was that guy another 'futuristic', I do not know. Sorry if I am mistaken.

Nevertheless, Garry used about 10mm gap between the facing magnets and he took the pancake-like air core coils from old floppy disk drives back then. And he used two such coils, the thickness of one such coil was 3-4mm, and he sandwiched two such coils one over the other as the stators, thus the total coil thickness was max 8mm, just passing between the facing magnets. He connected such two coils in parallel and he had 12 such coil pairs and 12 facing magnet pairs. The 12 (parallel connected) coil pairs (24 air core coils alltogether) were connected in series and switched on and off together by a power transistor from a 96V battery bank. He stated a COP of around 1.6 but unfortunately he never did a real torque measurement, and there were some others building his setup, but never reported real torque measurements I am aware of.
Garry always tried to explain that his paralleled coil pairs has no Lenz effect because he connected the start of one coil to the end of the other coil and vice versa (or say the + of the first is tied to the - of the other and the - of the first is tied to the + of the other) and fed them between the two start-end joint wires. He stated that by connecting them like that, in 'backwards' parallel, the induced voltages would mutually ruin each other, hence no Lenz.  This explanation was rejected by many people.
My understanding is that (say we use such a coil pair in attraction) when we switch on the current to the coil pair, there is normal backemf developed all the time the magnets are attracted towards the coil pair but when we switch the current off at the TDC, then the magnets can continue moving away freely, there will be no any further interaction against their movement.  However, I also say this is the same case for using only one such flat coil and not a pair of them. And for using one flat coil, the facing magnet pairs may get even closer, incresing flux density in the gap. The very good thing is you use both sides of the coil, no waste for one unused pole on the other side you also paid for in the input power.

rgds, Gyula

Thanks to all and especially at Gyula for taking so long time to answer my questions and each time i learn something and it is why this thread is for me very interesting.

And to be very clear.  i  am looking for something usefull and this motor  IMO has something that can be usefull. (By the way Gyula any internet link to usefull Garry's work please)

I feel the torque with my fingers and i make some comparison with high end electric motor i have    and the  effect of Lenz law is very different . I mean when i brake very slightly those very efficient motor , the current immediately climbs very high   and with my ossie very crude version, by braking the shaft,   i feel a good torque until very low RPM  and the current goes up but never so high as for standard electromotor.

That is why i will try this sandwitch config to get a strong torque with the minimum current    i don't know if it is OU and it is not my  beer at the present.

I will choose the flat coil config, because the magnets passes on the center of the coil without speed difference as it would be on the drum config


last update after 9 hours spinning   battery voltage at 4.20 volts   and supercap at 4.54 volt and Rpm between 171 and 172 RPM  I feel that the supercap pumps  all the generative induced wave which seems to be higher in votage than the battery voltage.   But of course if have to loose  a part of this stored energy  through a DC/DC converter to be able to use it  and ofcourse it is not very usefull   yet

but perhaps with sandwitch config we can get double generation of energy for the same input and in this case   !!!!!!!!!  ??

good luck at all

Laurent

Hi Laurent,

What current consumption do you think you have now from that 4.2V battery?

And what type of supercap do you have, make or type, Farad and voltage value?

Unfortunately Garry "disappeared" from mail groups he used to write to. His own yahoo group is inactive for years now and most of his work is there.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Pulse_Motor_Group/

Many good info is also included by Garry in Stefan Hartmann earlier yahoo group before he opened this overunity.com site:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/free-energy/

Maybe a membership is still possible for these non-active groups, to see the uploaded relevant photos or files. I can access both if you need help.

Last week I wrote an e-mail to Garry I wanted to ask something but his earlier address is not valid any more. What is more his own website (in New Zeeland) where he originally started to publish openly his tests is already taken down. His site was at www.cable.net.nz he took it down in 2006.

rgds,  Gyula

@Gyula:
Yes I was writing about Garry Stanley on energeticforum. I was in contact with Garry back then and I believe that his invention of flipped pancake coils eliminates lenz drag. It took me some time to understand the principle even tough its very simple when you get it. I was using the same coils from 5.25" floppy drive and the first time I powered on my motor it was torn apart in just a few seconds due to such high rpm. And magnets were flying all over the place. 

About the two rotor designs... You can see on picture below that drum rotor has bigger air gap when using the same coils and magnets.

...
About the two rotor designs... You can see on picture below that drum rotor has bigger air gap when using the same coils and magnets.

Ok I understand it now and I agree with you.

One more question: after your Garry motor fell apart, did you rebuild it for a more robut setup and if so did you measure torque on it?  Or are you aware of anybody who did some torque measurements on his motor?  Thanks, Gyula

Ok I understand it now and I agree with you.

One more question: after your Garry motor fell apart, did you rebuild it for a more robut setup and if so did you measure torque on it?  Or are you aware of anybody who did some torque measurements on his motor?  Thanks, Gyula

Yes I did build more robust version, but I have made smaller diameter rotor and I used different bearing and motor performed poorly. After that failure I started building Newmans motor and never went back to Garrys motor.

This is getting to be a better picture for me. Currently at 895RPM I'm thinking that to try & get this running off a super cap is going to be a lot harder than either charging another battery or running a 6v Globe on it. When I put a 6v globe on it now my analogue meter drops about 0.5v slowly (haven't timed it yet). I'm wondering what is a better 'proof'. Having the rotor do work or running a globe for an indefinite period?
Thanks

I'm attempting to create what was explained to me as
 a tank circuit in the coils. I have placed a 2 variable resitors 180deg apart in the coils at 10ohm waveform below & setup. Voltage at 4.72 rpms 540. If anything interesting happens I'll report back.