A Practical Guide to ‘Free-Energy’ Devices
This document contains most of what I have learned about this subject after researching it for a number of years. I am not trying to sell you anything, nor am I trying to convince you of anything. When I started looking into this subject, there was very little useful information and any that was around was buried deep in incomprehensible patents and documents. My purpose here is to make it easier for you to locate and understand some of the relevant material now available. What you believe is up to yourself and none of my business. Let me stress that almost all of the devices discussed in the following pages, are devices which I have not personally built and tested. It would take several lifetimes to do that and it would not be in any way a practical option. Consequently, although I believe everything said is fully accurate and correct, you should treat everything as being “hearsay” or opinion.
Some time ago, it was commonly believed that the world was flat and rested on the backs of four elephants and that when earthquakes shook the ground, it was the elephants getting restless. If you want to believe that, you are fully at liberty to do so, however, you can count me out as I don’t believe that.
The Wright brothers were told that it was impossible for aeroplanes to fly because they were heavier than air. That was a commonly believed view. The Wright brothers watched birds flying and since, without question, birds are considerably heavier than air, it was clear that the commonly held view was plain wrong. Working from that realisation, they developed aeroplanes which flew perfectly well.
The years passed, and the technology started by the Wright brothers and their careful scientific measurements and well-reasoned theory, advanced to become the “science” of aeronautics. This science was used extensively to design and build very successful aircraft and “aeronautics” gained the aura of being a “law”.
Unfortunately, somebody applied aeronautic calculations to the flight of bumblebees and discovered that according to aeronautics, bumblebees couldn’t possibly fly as their wings could not generate enough lift to get them off the ground. This was a problem, as it was perfectly possible to watch bees flying in a very competent manner. So, the “laws” of aeronautics said that bees can’t fly, but bees actually do fly.
Does that mean that the laws of aeronautics were no use? Certainly not - those “laws” had been used for years and proved their worth by producing excellent aircraft. What it did show was that the “laws” of aeronautics did not yet cover every case and needed to be extended to cover the way that bees fly, which is through lift generated by turbulent airflow.
It is very important to realise that what are described as scientific “laws” are just the best working theories at the present time and it is virtually certain that those “laws” will have to be upgraded and extended as further scientific observations are made and further facts discovered. Let’s hope those four elephants don’t get restless before we have a chance to learn a bit more!
It should be stressed at this point, that this material is intended to provide you with information and only that. If you should decide, on the basis of what you read here, to build some device or other, you do so solely and entirely at your own risk and on your own responsibility. For example, if you build something in a heavy box and then drop it on your toe, then that is completely your own responsibility (you should learn to be more careful) and nobody other than yourself is in any way liable for your injury, or any loss of income caused while your toe is recovering. Let me amplify that by stating that I do not warrant that any device or system described in this document works as described, or in any other way, nor do I claim that any of the following information is useful in any way or that any device described is useful in any way or for any purpose whatsoever. Also, let me stress that I am not encouraging you to actually construct any device described here, and the fact that very detailed construction details are provided, must not be interpreted as my encouraging you to physically construct any device described in this document. You are welcome to consider this a work of fiction if you choose to do so.
I apologise if this presentation seems very elementary, but the intention is to make each description as simple as possible so that everybody can understand it, including people whose native language is not English. If you are not familiar with the basic principles of electronics, then please read the simple step-by-step electronics Tutorial in Appendix 1 which is intended to help complete beginners in the subject.
At this point in time - the early years of the twenty-first century - we have reached the point where we need to realise that some of the “laws” of science do not cover every case, and while they have been very useful in the past, they do need to be extended to cover some cases which have been left out until now.
For example, suppose a bank robber broke into a bank and stole all of the cash there. How much could he take? Answer: “every coin and every note”. The limit is the sum total of all cash in the building. This is what the “Law” of Conservation of Energy is all about. What it says is very simple – you can’t take out any more than there is there in the beginning. That seems pretty straightforward, doesn’t it?
As another example, consider a glass tumbler filled completely with water. Using common sense, tell me, how much water can be poured out of the glass? For the purposes of this illustration, please take it that temperature, pressure, gravity, etc. all remain constant for the duration of the experiment.
The answer is: “the exact volume contained inside the tumbler”. Agreed. This is what present day science says. To be strictly accurate, you will never be able to pour all of the water out as a small amount will remain, wetting the inside of the glass. Another way of putting this is to say that the “efficiency” of the pouring operation is not 100%. This is typical of life in general, where very few, if any, actions are 100% efficient.
So, are we agreed with current scientific thinking then – the maximum amount of water which can pour out of the tumbler is the total volume inside the tumbler? This seems simple and straightforward, doesn’t it? Science thinks so, and insists that this is the end of the story, and nothing else is possible. This arrangement is called a “closed system” as the only things being considered are the glass, the water and gravity.
Well, unfortunately for current scientific thinking, this is not the only possible situation and “closed systems” are almost unknown in the real world. Mostly, assumptions are made that the effects of anything else around will cancel out and add up to a net zero effect. This is a very convenient theory, but unfortunately it has no basis in reality.
Let’s fill our glass with water again and begin to pour it out again, but this time we position it underneath a source of flowing water:
So, now, how much water can be poured out of the tumbler? Answer: “millions of times the volume of the tumbler”. But hang on a moment, haven’t we just said that the absolute limit of water poured from the tumbler has to be the volume inside the tumbler? Yes, that’s exactly what we said, and that is what current science teaching says. The bottom line here is that what current science says does in fact hold true for most of the time, but there are cases where the basic assumption of it being a “closed system” is just not true.
One common misconception is that you can’t get more energy out of a system than you put into it. That is wrong, because the sentence was worded carefully. Let me say it again and this time, emphasise the key words: “you can’t get more energy out of a system than you put into it”. If that were true, then it would be impossible to sail a yacht all the way around the world without burning any fuel, and that has been done many times and none of the driving energy came from the crews. If it were true, then a grain mill driven by a waterwheel would not be able to produce flour as the miller certainly does not push the millstones around himself. If that were true, then nobody would build windmills, or construct solar panels, or tidal power stations.
What the statement should say is “more energy can’t be taken out of a system than is put into it” and that is a very different statement. When sailing a yacht, the wind provides the driving force which makes the trip possible. Notice that, it is the environment providing the power and not the sailors. The wind arrived without them having to do anything about it, and a lot less than 100% of the wind energy reaching the yacht actually becomes forward thrust, contributing to the voyage. A good deal of the energy arriving at the yacht ends up stretching the rigging, creating a wake, producing noise, pushing the helmsman, etc. etc. This idea of no more energy coming out of a system than goes into it, is called “The Law of Conservation of Energy” and it is perfectly right, in spite of the fact that it gets people confused.
“Free-Energy Devices” or “Zero-Point Energy Devices” are the names applied to systems which appear to produce a higher output power than their input power. There is a strong tendency for people to state that such a system is not possible since it contravenes the Law of Conservation of Energy. It doesn’t. If it did, and any such system was shown to work, then the “Law” would have to be modified to include the newly observed fact. No such change is necessary, it merely depends on your point of view.
For example, consider a crystal set radio receiver:
Looking at this in isolation, we appear to have a free-energy system which contradicts the Law of Conservation of Energy. It doesn’t, of course, but if you do not view the whole picture, you see a device which has only passive components and yet which (when the coil is of the correct size) causes the headphones to generate vibrations which reproduce recognisable speech and music. This looks like a system which has no energy input and yet which produces an energy output. Considered in isolation, this would be a serious problem for the Law of Conservation of Energy, but when examined from a common sense point of view, it is no problem at all.
The whole picture is:
Power is supplied to a nearby transmitter which generates radio waves which in turn, induce a small voltage in the aerial of the crystal set, which in turn, powers the headphones. The power in the headphones is far, far less than the power taken to drive the transmitter. There is most definitely, no conflict with the Law of Conservation of Energy. However, there is a quantity called the “Coefficient Of Performance” or “COP” for short. This is defined as the amount of power coming out of a system, divided by the amount of power that the operator has to put into that system to make it work. In the example above, while the efficiency of the crystal set radio is well below 100%, the COP is greater than 1. This is because the owner of the crystal radio set does not have to supply any power at all to make it work, and yet it outputs power in the form of sound. As the input power from the user, needed to make it work is zero, and the COP value is calculated by dividing the output power by this zero input power, the COP is actually infinity. Efficiency and COP are two different things. Efficiency can never exceed 100% and almost never gets anywhere near 100% due to the losses suffered by any practical system.
As another example, consider an electrical solar panel:
Again, viewed in isolation, this looks like (and actually is) a Free-Energy device if it is set up out of doors in daylight, as current is supplied to the load (radio, battery, fan, pump, or whatever) without the user providing any input power. Again, Power Out with no Power In. Try it in darkness and you find a different result because the whole picture is:
The energy which powers the solar panel comes from the sun.. Only some 17% of the energy reaching the solar panel is converted to electrical current. This is most definitely not a contravention of the Law of Conservation of Energy. This needs to be explained in greater detail. The Law of Conservation of Energy applies to closed systems, and only to closed systems. If there is energy coming in from the environment, then the Law of Conservation of Energy just does not apply, unless you take into account the energy entering the system from outside.
People sometimes speak of “over-unity” when talking about the efficiency of a system. From the point of efficiency, there is no such thing as “over-unity” as that would mean that more power was coming out of the system than the amount of power entering the system. Our trusty bank robber mentioned above would have to take out of the bank vault, more money than was actually in it, and that is a physical impossibility. There are always some losses in all practical systems, so the efficiency is always less than 100% of the power entering the system. In other words, the efficiency of any practical system is always under unity.
However, it is perfectly possible to have a system which has a greater power output than the power input which we have to put into it to make it work. Take the solar panel mentioned above. It has a terribly low efficiency of about 17%, but, we don’t have to supply it with any power to make it work. Consequently, when it is in sunlight, it’s Coefficient Of Performance (“COP”) is it’s output power (say, 50 watts) divided by the input power needed to make it work (zero watts) which is infinity. So, our humble, well-known solar panel has terrible efficiency of 17% but at the same time it has a COP of infinity.
It is now generally accepted that “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy” form more than 80% of our universe. There is nothing sinister about the adjective “Dark” as in this context, it merely means that we cannot see it. There are many useful things which we utilise, which we can’t see, for example, radio waves, TV signals, magnetism, gravity, x-rays, etc. etc.
The fact of the matter is, that we are sitting in a vast field of energy which we can’t see. This is the equivalent of the situation for the crystal set shown above, except that the energy field we are in is very, very much more powerful than the radio waves from a radio transmitter. The problem is, how to tap the energy which is freely available all around us, and get it to do useful work for us. It can definitely be done, but it is not easy to do.
Some people think that we will never be able to access this energy. Not very long ago, it was widely believed that nobody could ride a bicycle faster than 15 miles per hour because the wind pressure on the face of the rider would suffocate him. Today, many people cycle much faster than this without suffocating - why? - because the original negative opinion was wrong.
Not very long ago, it was thought that metal aircraft would never be able to fly because metal is so much heavier than air. Today, aircraft weighing hundreds of tons fly on a daily basis. Why? - because the original negative opinion was not correct.
It is probably worth while, at this point, to explain the basics of Zero-Point Energy. The experts in Quantum Mechanics refer to how the universe operates as “Quantum Foam”. Every cubic centimetre of “empty” space is seething with energy, so much in fact, that if it were converted using Einstein’s famous equation E = mC2 (that is Energy = Mass x a very big number), then it would produce as much matter as can be seen by the most powerful telescope. There is actually nothing “empty” about space. So why can’t we see anything there? Well, you can’t actually see energy. All right then, why can’t you measure the energy there? Well, two reasons actually, firstly, we have never managed to design an instrument which can measure this energy, and secondly, the energy is changing direction incredibly rapidly, billions and billions and billions of times each second.
There is so much energy there, that particles of matter just pop into existence and then pop back out again. Half of these particles have a positive charge and half of them have a negative charge, and as they are evenly spread out in three-dimensional space, the overall average voltage is zero. So, if the voltage is zero, what use is that as a source of energy? The answer to that is “none” if you leave it in it’s natural state. However, it is possible to change the random nature of this energy and convert it into a source of unlimited, everlasting power which can be used for all of the things we use mains electricity for today - powering motors, lights, heaters, fans, pumps, ... you name it, the power is there for the taking.
So, how do you alter the natural state of the energy in our environment? Actually, quite easily. All that is needed is a positive charge and a negative charge, reasonably near each other. A battery will do the trick, as will a generator, as will an aerial and earth, as will an electrostatic device like a Wimshurst machine. When you generate a Plus and a Minus, the quantum foam is affected. Now, instead of entirely random plus and minus charged particles appearing everywhere, the Plus which you created gets surrounded by a sphere of minus charge particles popping into existence all around it. Also, the Minus which you created, gets surrounded by a spherical-shaped cloud of plus-charge particles popping into existence all around it. The technical term for this situation is “broken symmetry” which is just a fancy way of saying that the charge distribution of the quantum foam is no longer evenly distributed or “symmetrical”. In passing, the fancy technical name for your Plus and Minus near each other, is a “dipole” which is just a techno-babble way of saying “two poles: a plus and a minus” - isn’t jargon wonderful?
So, just to get it straight in your mind, when you make a battery, the chemical action inside the battery creates a Plus terminal and a Minus terminal. Those poles actually distort the universe around your battery, and causes vast streams of energy to radiate out in every direction from each pole of the battery. Why doesn’t the battery run down? Because the energy is flowing from the environment and not from the battery. If you were taught basic physics or electrical theory, you will probably have been told that the battery used to power any circuit, supplies a stream of electrons which flows around the circuit. Sorry Chief - it just ain’t like that at all. What really happens is that the battery forms a “dipole” which nudges the local environment into an unbalanced state which pours out energy in every direction, and some of that energy from the environment flows around the circuit attached to the battery. The energy does not come from the battery.
Well then, why does the battery run down, if no energy is being drawn from it to power the circuit? Ah, that is the really silly thing that we do. We create a closed-loop circuit (because that’s what we have always done) where the current flows around the circuit, reaches the other battery terminal and immediately destroys the battery’s “dipole”. Everything stops dead in it’s tracks. The environment becomes symmetrical again, the massive amount of readily available free-energy just disappears and you are back to where you started from. But, do not despair, our trusty battery immediately creates the Plus and Minus terminals again and the process starts all over again. This happens so rapidly that we don’t see the breaks in the operation of the circuit and it is the continual recreation of the dipole which causes the battery to run down and lose it’s power. Let me say it again, the battery does not supply the current that powers the circuit, it never has and it never will - the current flows into the circuit from the surrounding environment.
What we really need, is a method of pulling off the power flowing in from the environment, without continually destroying the dipole which pushes the environment into supplying the power. That is the tricky bit, but it has been done. If you can do that, then you tap into an unlimited stream of inexhaustible energy, with no need to provide any input energy to keep the flow of energy going. In passing, if you want to check out the details of all of this, Lee and Yang were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1957 for this theory which was proved by experiment in that same year. This book includes circuits and devices which manage to tap this energy successfully.
Today, many people have managed to tap this energy but no commercial device is readily available for home use, though it is quite likely that there will be in the next six months as some are going through mandatory government testing for safety and reliability ahead of production being approved. This situation has been a long time coming.
The reason for this is human rather than technical. More than 3,000 Americans have produced devices or ideas for devices but none have reached commercial production due to opposition from influential people who do not want such devices freely available. One technique is to classify a device as “essential to US National Security”. If that is done, then the developer is prevented from speaking to anyone about the device, even if he has a patent. He cannot produce or sell the device even though he invented it. Consequently, you will find many patents for perfectly workable devices if you were to put in the time and effort to locate them, though most of these patents never see the light of day, having been taken by the people issuing these bogus “National Security” classifications.
The purpose of this book is to present the facts about some of these devices and more importantly, where possible, explain the background details of why and how systems of that type function. As has been said before, it is not the aim of this book to convince you of anything, just to present you with some of the facts which are not that easy to find, so that you can make up your own mind on the subject.
The science taught in schools, colleges and universities at this time, is well out of date and in serious need of being brought up to date. This has not happened for some time now as people who make massive financial profits have made it their business to prevent any significant advance for many years now. However, the internet and free sharing of information through it, is making things very difficult for them. What is it that they don’t want you to know? Well, how about the fact that you don’t have to burn a fuel to get power? Shocking, isn’t it !! Does it sound a bit mad to you? Well, stick around and start doing some thinking.
Suppose you were to cover a boat with lots of solar panels which were used to charge a large bank of batteries inside the boat. And if those batteries were used to operate electric motors turning propellers which drive the boat along. If it is sunny weather, how far could you go? As far as the boat can travel while the sun is up and if the battery bank is large, probably most of the night as well. At sun-up on the next day, you can continue your journey. Oceans have been crossed doing this. How much fuel is burned to power the boat? None !! Absolutely none at all. And yet, it is a fixed idea that you have to burn a fuel to get power.
Yes, certainly, you can get power from the chemical reaction of burning a fuel - after all, we pour fuel into the tanks of vehicles “to make them go” and we burn oil in the central heating systems of buildings. But the big question is: “Do we have to?” and the answer is “No”. So why do we do it? Because there is no alternative at present. Why is there no alternative at present? Because the people making incredibly large financial profits from selling this fuel, have seen to it that no alternative is available. We have been the suckers in this con trick for decades now, and it is time for us to snap out of it. Let’s have a look at some of the basic facts:
Let me start by presenting some of the facts about electrolysis. The electrolysis of water is performed by passing an electric current through the water, causing it to break up into hydrogen gas and oxygen gas. This process was examined in minute detail by Michael Faraday who determined the most energy efficient possible conditions for electrolysis of water. Faraday determined the amount of electric current needed to break the water apart, and his findings are accepted as a scientific standard for the process. I can see no reason for doubting Faraday’s results.
We now bump into a problem which scientists are desperate to ignore or deny, as they have the mistaken idea that it contradicts the Law of Conservation of Energy – which, of course, it doesn’t. The problem is an electrolyser design by Bob Boyce of the USA which appears to have an efficiency twelve times greater than Faraday’s maximum possible gas production. This is a terrible heresy in the scientific arena and it gets the average “by the book” scientist very up-tight and flustered. There is no need for this worry. The Law of Conservation of Energy remains intact and Faraday’s results are not challenged. However, an explanation is called for.
To start with, let me show the arrangement for a standard electrolyser system:
Here, current is supplied to the electrolyser by the electrical supply. The current flow causes breakdown of the water contained in the electrolyser, resulting in the amount of gas predicted by Faraday (or less if the electrolyser is not well designed and accurately built).
Bob Boyce, who is an exceptionally intelligent, perceptive and able man, has developed a system which performs the electrolysis of water using power drawn from the environment. To a quick glance, Bob’s design looks pretty much like a high-grade electrolyser (which it is) but it is a good deal more than that. The practical construction and operational details of Bob’s design are shown in Chapter 10, but for here, let us just consider the operation of his system in very broad outline:
The very important distinction here is that the power flowing into the electrolyser and causing the water to break down and produce the gas output, is coming almost exclusively from the environment and not from the electrical supply. The main function of Bob’s electrical supply is to power the device which draws energy in from the environment. Consequently, if you assume that the current supplied by the electrical supply is the whole of the power driving the electrolyser, then you have a real problem, because, when properly built and finely tuned, Bob’s electrolyser produces up to 1,200% of Faraday’s maximum efficiency production rate.
This is an illusion. Yes, the electrical input is exactly as measured. Yes, the gas output is exactly as measured. Yes, the gas output is twelve times the Faraday maximum. But Faraday’s work and the Law of Conservation of Energy are not challenged in any way because the electrical current measured is used primarily to power the interface to the environment and nearly all of the energy used in the electrolysis process flows in from the local environment and is not measured. What we can reasonably deduce is that the energy inflow from the environment is probably about twelve times the amount of power drawn from the electrical supply.
At this point in time, we do not have any equipment which can measure this environmental energy. We are in the same position as people were with electrical current five hundred years ago – there was just no equipment around which could be used to make the measurement. That, of course, does not means that electrical current did not exist at that time, just that we had not developed any equipment capable of performing measurement of that current. Today, we know that this environmental energy exists because we can see the effects it causes such as running Bob’s electrolyser, charging batteries, etc. but we can’t measure it directly because it vibrates at right-angles to the direction that electrical current vibrates in. Electrical current is said to vibrate “transversely” while this zero-point energy vibrates “longitudinally”, and so has no effect on instruments which respond transversely such as ammeters, voltmeters, etc.
Bob Boyce’s 101-plate electrolyser produces anything up to 100 litres of gas per minute, and that rate of production is able to power internal combustion engines of up to 2 litre capacity. The vehicle alternator is perfectly capable of powering Bob’s system, so the result is a vehicle which appears to run with water as the only fuel. This is not the case, nor is it correct to say that the engine is powered by the gas produced. Yes, it does utilise that gas when running, but the power running the vehicle is coming directly from the environment as an inexhaustible supply. In the same way, a steam engine does not run on water. Yes, it does utilise water in the process, but the power that runs a steam engine comes from burning the coal and not from the water.
Chapter 1: Magnet Power
One thing which we are told, is that permanent magnets can’t do any work. Oh yes, magnets can support themselves against the pull of gravity when they stick on your refrigerator, but, we are told, they can’t do any work. Really?
What exactly is a permanent magnet? Well, if you take a piece of suitable material like ‘soft’ iron, put it inside a coil of wire and drive a strong electrical current through the coil, then that converts the iron into a permanent magnet. What length of time does the current need to be in the coil to make the magnet? Less than one hundredth of a second. How long can the resulting magnet support its own weight against gravity? Years and years. Does that not strike you as strange? See how long you can support your own body weight against gravity before you get tired. Years and years? No. Months, then? No. Days, even? No.
Well if you can’t do it, how come the magnet can? Are you suggesting that a single pulse for a minute fraction of a second can pump enough energy into the piece of iron to power it for years? That doesn’t seem very logical, does it? So, how does the magnet do it?
Well, the answer is that the magnet does not actually exert any power at all. In the same way that a solar panel does not put any effort into producing electricity, the power of a magnet flows from the environment and not from the magnet at all. The electrical pulse which creates the magnet, aligns the atoms inside the iron and creates a magnetic “dipole” which has the same effect that the electrical “dipole” of a battery does. It polarises the quantum environment surrounding it and causes great streams of energy flow around itself. One of the attributes of this energy flow is what we call “magnetism” and that allows the magnet to stick to the door of your refrigerator and defy gravity for years on end.
Unlike the battery, we do not put it in a position where it immediately destroys its own dipole, so as a result, energy flows around the magnet, pretty much indefinitely. We are told that permanent magnets can’t be used to do useful work. That is not true.
This is a picture of a Chinese man, Wang Shum Ho, who has designed and built an electrical generator of five kilowatt capacity. This generator is powered by permanent magnets and so uses no fuel to run. It has been demonstrated publicly, and two of these generators entered the Chinese government’s mandatory six-month “reliability and safety” testing programme in September 2007. Wang has funding and expects to start commercial manufacturing as soon as his generator passes the government testing.
However, it is not particularly easy to arrange permanent magnets in a pattern which can provide a continuous force in a single direction, as there tends to be a point where the forces of attraction and repulsion balance and produce a position in which the rotor settles down and sticks. There are various ways to avoid this happening. It is possible to modify the magnetic field by diverting it through a soft iron component. An example of this is John Bedini’s simple design shown here:
In John’s design, the magnetic field of the stator magnet is altered by the iron yoke and this smothers the repulsion which would normally occur between the North pole of the stator magnet and the North pole of each rotor magnet as it gets close to the stator magnet. This arrangement allows the rotor magnets to receive a push as they pass by the stator magnet, producing a repeating thrust to keep the rotor rotating. To increase the power, there does not appear to be any reason why there should not be two stators as shown here:
There does not appear to be any reason why several of these rotor/stator assemblies should not be attached to a single shaft to increase the power applied to the shaft and allow an increased level of useful work to be performed by the device.
There are many other designs of permanent magnet motor, but before showing some of them, it is probably worth discussing what useful work can be performed by the rotating shaft of a permanent magnet motor. With a home-built permanent magnet motor, where cheap components have been used and the quality of workmanship may not be all that great (though that is most definitely not the case with some home construction), the shaft power may not be very high. Generating electrical power is a common goal, and that can be achieved by causing permanent magnets to pass by coils of wire. The closer to the wire coils, the greater the power generated in those coils. Unfortunately, doing this creates magnetic drag and that drag increases with the amount of electrical current being drawn from the coils.
There are ways to reduce this drag on the shaft rotation. One way is to use an Ecklin-Brown style of electrical generator, where the shaft rotation does not move magnets past coils, but instead, moves a magnetic screen which alternatively blocks and restores a magnetic path through the generating coils. A commercially available material called “mu-metal” is particularly good as magnetic shield material and a piece shaped like a plus sign is used in the Ecklin-Brown generator.
John W. Ecklin was granted US Patent Number 3,879,622 on 29th March 1974. The patent is for a magnet/electric motor generator which produces an output greater than the input necessary to run it. There are two styles of operation. The main illustration for the first is:
Here, the (clever) idea is to use a small low-power motor to rotate a magnetic shield to mask the pull of two magnets. This causes a fluctuating magnet field which is used to rotate a generator drive.
In the diagram above, the motor at point ‘A’ rotates the shaft and shielding strips at point ‘B”. These rectangular mu-metal strips form a very conductive path for the magnetic lines of force when they are lined up with the ends of the magnets and they effectively shut off the magnet pull in the area of point ‘C’. At point ‘C’, the spring-loaded traveller is pulled to the left when the right-hand magnet is shielded and the left hand magnet is not shielded. When the motor shaft rotates further, the traveller is pulled to the right when the left-hand magnet is shielded and the right hand magnet is not shielded. This oscillation is passed by mechanical linkage to point ‘D’ where it is used to rotate a shaft used to power a generator.
As the effort needed to rotate the magnetic shield is relatively low, it is claimed that the output exceeds the input and so can be used to power the motor which rotates the magnetic shield.
The second method for exploiting the idea is shown in the patent as:
Here, the same shielding idea is utilised to produce a reciprocating movement which is then converted to two rotary motions to drive two generators. The pair of magnets ‘A’ are placed in a housing and pressed towards each other by two springs. When the springs are fully extended, they are just clear of the magnetic shield ‘B’. When a small electric motor (not shown in the diagram) moves the magnetic shield out of the way, the two magnets are strongly repelled from each other as their North poles are close together. This compresses the springs and through the linkages at ‘C’ they turn two shafts to generate output power.
A modification of this idea is the Ecklin-Brown Generator. In this arrangement, the movable magnetic shielding arrangement provides a direct electrical output rather than a mechanical movement:
Here, the same motor and rotating magnetic shield arrangement is used, but the magnetic lines of force are blocked from flowing through a central I-piece. This I-piece is made of laminated iron slivers and has a pickup coil or coils wound around it.
In the position shown on the left, the magnetic lines of force flow downwards through the pickup coils. When the motor shaft has rotated a further ninety degrees, the situation on the right occurs and there, the magnetic lines of force flow upwards through the pickup coils. This is shown by the blue arrows in the diagram. This reversal of magnetic flux takes place four times for every rotation of the motor shaft.
While the Ecklin-Brown design assumes that an electric motor is used to rotate the mu-metal shield, there does not seem to be any reason why the rotation should not be done with a permanent magnet motor.
Another effective power take-off system is that used by the “Phi Transformer” (“Phi” is pronounced “Fi”). In this design, the magnetic drag is reduced by containing the magnetic flux in a laminated iron ring or “toroid”. Again, the design expects an electric motor to be used to spin the rotor, but there does not seem to be any great reason why a permanent magnet motor should not be used instead.
Toroidal shapes are clearly important in many devices which pull in additional energy from the environment, even to the extent that Bob Boyce warns against the high-frequency sequential pulsing of coils wound on a toroid yoke, producing a rotating magnetic field as unpredictable surge events can generate some 10,000 amps of additional current which will burn out the circuit components and can very well trigger a radiant energy build up which can create a lightning strike. Bob himself has been hit by just such a lightning strike and he is lucky to have survived. Lesser systems such as the toroid transformer used in Bob’s electrolyser system are safe even though they generate a power gain. So the many toroidal system designs are definitely worth examining.
One of these is the “Phi-Transformer” which looks like a somewhat similar arrangement to the MEG described in Chapter 3. However, it operates in quite a different way:
Here, lines of magnetic flux coming from a permanent magnet are channelled through a laminated yoke which is effectively a circular mains transformer core. The difference is in the fact that instead of electronically driving a coil to alter the flux coming from the permanent magnet, in this system the magnet is rotated by a small motor.
The performance of this device is impressive. The power required to rotate the magnet is not unduly affected by the current drawn from the coils. The flux is channelled through the laminated iron core and in tests an output of 1200 watts for an input of 140 watts has been achieved, and that is a COP of 8.5 which is very respectable, especially for such a simple device.
At http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/dsqromg2.htm a generator design by Dave Squires is shown, dated 1999. All attempts to contact Dave Squires have been unsuccessful, so it is not known if the information there is from tests on a device which has actually been built or if it is just a theoretical design, though it is likely that it was not built at that time. The design is almost identical to the Phi Transformer. A central core is produced by casting the shape shown below, using an amorphous iron powder / epoxy mix. However, as the operating frequency is low at only 50 Hz or 60 Hz, there does not seem to be any reason why normal transformer laminations should not be used, in which case six sets of shims shaped like this:
which would make the winding of the coils very much easier as standard bobbins could be slotted into place as the core yoke is being assembled.
However, the complete core is shaped like this with coils placed in the slots:
The thinking behind this arrangement is that the “back-EMF” magnetic flux which normally causes Lenz Law opposition to the free rotation of the magnets around the toroid, is diverted around behind the coil and turned so that instead of hindering the rotation, it actually assists it:
The speed of rotation is quoted as being 1,000 rpm for 50 Hz and 1,200 rpm for 60 Hz. The coil windings are suggested as being 180 turns of AWG 14 (16 SWG) for 120 volts AC, at a supposed current of 100 amps, which is seems unrealistic as the maximum current for that size of wire is quoted as being 5.9 amps. The magnets are 2 inches long, 1 inch deep neodymium set into a circular rotor of 12 inch diameter. There can, of course, be more than one rotor on a single shaft, and the number of turns would be doubled for 240 volts AC output.
The yoke on which the coils are wound is effectively a series of toroids, though admittedly, not exactly circular is shape. An alternative shape which might be considered would be as shown below where the section carrying the magnetic flux for any one coil is more isolated from the other toroids. It is not clear if making the section which passes through the coil, straight rather than curved, so I will leave that detail to people who are expert in magnetics.
Returning to permanent magnet motors themselves, one of the top names in this field is Howard Johnson. Howard built, demonstrated and gained US patent 4,151,431 on 24th April 1979, from a highly sceptical patent office for, his design of a permanent magnet motor. He used powerful but very expensive Cobalt/Samarium magnets to increase the power output and demonstrated the motor principles for the Spring 1980 edition of Science and Mechanics magazine. His motor configuration is shown here:
The point that he makes is that the magnetic flux of his motor is always unbalanced, thus producing a continuous rotational drive. The rotor magnets are joined in stepped pairs, connected by a non-magnetic yoke. The stator magnets are placed on a mu-metal apron cylinder. Mu-metal is very highly conductive to magnetic flux (and is expensive). The patent states that the armature magnet is 3.125” (79.4 mm) long and the stator magnets are 1” (25.4 mm) wide, 0.25” (6 mm) deep and 4” (100 mm) long. It also states that the rotor magnet pairs are not set at 120 degrees apart but are staggered slightly to smooth out the magnetic forces on the rotor. It also states that the air gap between the magnets of the rotor and the stator are a compromise in that the greater the gap, the smoother the running but the lower the power. So, a gap is chosen to give the greatest power at an acceptable level of vibration.
Howard considers permanent magnets to be room-temperature superconductors. Presumably, he sees magnetic material as having electron spin directions in random directions so that their nett magnetic field is near zero until the electron spins are aligned by the magnetising process which then creates an overall nett permanent magnetic field, maintained by the superconductive electrical flow.
The magnet arrangement is shown here, with the inter-magnet gaps assessed from the drawing in Howard’s patent:
Howard made measurements of the magnetic field strengths and these are shown in the following table:
the magazine article can be seen at http://newebmasters.com/freeenergy/sm-pg48.html.
An artist’s impression of the completed motor-generator set-up with a cut-away section is shown here:
The Carousel Permanent Magnet Motor/Generator: US Patent 5,625,241 presents the specific details of a simple electrical generator powered by permanent magnets alone. This generator can also be used as a motor. The construction is not particularly complicated:
It uses an arrangement where permanent magnets are associated with every second coil set around the rotor. Operation is self-powered and the magnet arrangement is clearly defined:
As are the possible arrangements of the pick-up coils, both high-power, low voltage wiring:
And the physical arrangement of the device is not particularly complicated:
This is a patent which is definitely worth reading and considering, especially since it is not a complicated presentation on the part of the authors, Harold Ewing, Russell Chapman and David Porter. This seemingly very effective generator appears to be overlooked at the present time.
It seems quite clear that permanent magnet motors are a wholly viable option for the home constructor and they are capable of substantial power outputs over long periods.
The Robert Tracy Magnet Motor. Some people have opted for permanent magnet motors where the field is shielded at the appropriate moment by a moving component of the motor. Robert Tracy was awarded US Patent Number 3,703,653 on 21st November 1972 for a “Reciprocating Motor with Motion Conversion Means”. His device uses magnetic shields placed between pairs of permanent magnets at the appropriate point in the rotation of the motor shaft:
The Ben Teal Motor. Motors of this kind are capable of considerable power output. The very simple motor, originally built by Ben Teal using wood as the main construction material, was awarded US Patent Number 4,093,880 in June 1978. He found that, using his hands, he could not stop the motor shaft turning in spite of it being such a very simple motor design:
The motor operation is as simple as possible with just four switches made from springy metal, pushed by a cam on the rotor shaft. Each switch just powers it’s electromagnet when it needs to pull and disconnects it when the pull is completed. The resulting motor is very powerful and very simple. Additional power can be had by just stacking one or more additional layers on top of each other. The above diagram shows two layers stacked on top of one another. Only one set of four switches and one cam is needed no matter how many layers are used, as the solenoids vertically above each other are wired together in parallel as they pull at the same time.
The power delivered by the Teal motor is an indication of the potential power of a permanent magnet motor which operates in a rather similar way by moving magnetic shields to get a reciprocating movement.
James E. Jines and James W. Jines were awarded US Patent 3,469,130 on 23rd September 1969 “Means for Shielding and Unshielding Permanent Magnets and Magnetic Motors Utilising the Same” and which is in the Appendix. This magnet motor design uses selective shielding of the drive magnets to produce a continuous force in one direction. It also has a mechanical arrangement to progressively adjust the shielding to adjust the power of the motor.
This is a very interesting design of magnetic motor, especially since it does not call for any materials which are not readily available from many suppliers. It also has the advantage of not needing any form of exact adjustment or balancing of magnetic forces to make it operate.
Invention Intelligence (India). The following design for a permanent magnet motor was published in the April 1977 issue of ‘Invention Intelligence’ in India:
This design relies on the magnetic field of a magnet being distorted by having the pole faces angled at 45 degrees. In the diagram, the magnets are shown in blue and they are mounted in a non-magnetic stator and rotor material shown in grey. The rotor is mounted on two ball races shown in yellow. The theory is that the repulsing forces of the four North-North outer magnet pairs along with the repulsing forces of the four inner South-South magnet pairs should be continuously greater than the North-South attracting forces, thus giving continuous rotation.
It appears most likely that this design is just a theory and that a working model has never been constructed. However, it is possible that this system might work very well, so the information is presented here for interest and possible experimentation. It might be remarked that making the magnet face have a 45 degree angle may well not skew the magnetic field sufficiently to give a big enough imbalance to provide significant drive power. One way to increase the effect might be to use a mu-metal strip along the back of each magnet. Mu-metal is an expensive material which conducts magnetic lines of force in a phenomenal way and so soaks up any magnetism near it:
To recap: the underlying principle of the power of magnets is that each permanent magnet mentioned here, has two magnetic poles (one “North” and one “South” pole) and these poles being of opposite type and near each other, form a “dipole”. This dipole unbalances the quantum environment around the magnet, causing continuous streams of energy to flow out in every direction from the magnet. These streams of energy are not what we see as lines of magnetic force, and to date, nobody has managed to design any piece of equipment which responds to that energy and which can be used to measure it. At this point in time, all we can do to estimate the energy flow is to divert it into a battery and then assess the battery charge by measuring the length of time that the battery can power a load from the energy which it received. This is a very crude method, but it does work.
Stephen Kundel’s Magnet Motor. Stephen Kundel’s motor design is shown in full detail in his patent which is shown on page A - 968 of the Appendix. It uses a simple oscillating motion to position the “stator” magnets so that they provide a continuous rotational force on the output shaft:
Here, the yellow arm marked 38, rocks to the right and left, pushed by a solenoid coil 74. There is no obvious reason why this rocking motion could not be achieved by a mechanical linkage connected to the rotating output shaft 10. The three arms 20, 22 and 24, being pivoted at their upper points, are pushed into a central position by the springs 34 and 35. The magnets 50, 51 and 52, are moved by these arms, causing a continuous rotation of the output drive shaft 10. The movement of these magnets avoids the position where the magnets reach a point of equilibrium and lock into a single position.
Figures 2 and 3 show the position of the magnets, with the Figure 3 position showing a point in the output shaft rotation which is 180 degrees (half a turn) further on than the position shown in Figure 2.
Some other, more powerful magnet arrangements which can be used with this design are shown in the full patent in the Appendix.
Lines of Magnetic Force. In passing, schools currently teach that the field surrounding a bar magnet is like this:
This is deduced by scattering iron filings on a sheet of paper held near the magnet. Unfortunately, that is not a correct deduction as the iron filings distort the magnetic field by their presence, each becoming a miniature magnet in its own right. More careful measurement shows that the field actually produced by a bar magnet is like this:
There are many lines of force, although the sketches shown above only show two. The important factor is that there is a circling field at each corner of a typical bar magnet.
It follows then that if a row of magnets is placed at a an angle, then there will be a resulting net field in a single direction. For example, if the magnets are rotated forty five degrees counter clockwise, then the result could be like this:
Here, the opposing corners of the magnets are lower down and so there should be a net magnetic force thrust path. I have not tested this myself, but the supposition seems reasonable. If it tests out to be correct, then placing the angled magnets in a ring rather than a straight line, should create a motor stator which has a continuous one-way net field in a circular path. Placing a similar ring of angled magnets around the circumference of a rotor disc, should therefore give a strong rotary movement of the rotor shaft - in other words, a very simple permanent magnet motor.
Permanent magnet motors have a Coefficient Of Performance (“COP”) of infinity as they produce output power and the user does not have to provide any input power to make them operate. Remember, COP is defined as Output Power divided by the Input Power which has to be provided by the user to make the device operate. In the following chapter, we will be considering pulsed systems, where the user has to provide input pulses to make the device operate. This prevents these devices from having a COP of infinity and instead, we are looking for any device which has a COP greater than one. However, any device with COP>1 has the potential of becoming self-powered, and if that can be arranged, then the COP does in fact become infinity by definition, as the user no longer needs to supply any input power.
The examples of permanent magnet motors and motor-generators mentioned above, have generally been of the type where there is a stationary “stator” and a rotating “rotor”. It should be realised that the arrangement of magnets on the “stator” do not necessarily have to be stationary. Some motor designs do not have a stator, but instead have two or more rotors. This allows the magnets which would have been on the stator to be in position to provide thrust to the output rotor, and then move out of the way so as not to retard the rotor movement. The Bowman magnet motor is one of this type, though admittedly, it uses one stator magnet to get it started and it has two subsidiary small rotors which carry the magnets which would normally be on a stator. A search on the web will provide the details of many permanent magnet motor designs.