Adams Active Thermo Electric High Voltage
|S.R. Motors 1/3||S.R. Motors 2/3||S.R. Motors 3/3||V.S.R Motor||Electric Motor Glossary (MS Word)|
Click here to learn how to build the motor for a mere $50
If you are wondering why no-one invented the Adams motor before 1969, the answer is fairly simple - the materials needed to build it were not widely available. It is a pity that ideas about what electric motors are capable of doing were fairly firmly fixed, long before the materials required to properly experimentally explore electric motor design were developed.
'While most small DC motors are now produced with permanent magnets, this has not always been the case. It has been only relatively recently that permanent magnet materials have been developed sufficiently to make them useful in practical machines. From the late 19th century until the early 1940ís, steel permanent magnets were used in applications where permanent magnets were necessary for the device to function (compasses, etc.) Only in the late 1940ís did Alnico and Ferrite permanent magnets finally improve sufficiently to be practical in applications previously reserved for electromagnets.'
Switched Reluctance Motor Systems Poised for Rapid Growth Amory B. Lovins, Bill Howe
The emergence of a rugged, versatile, and highly efficient alternative to conventional electric motors promises to have a major impact on drivepower markets over the next decade. Although switched reluctance drives are not yet available "off the shelf" from major motor manufacturers, they are likely to compete favorably across a broad range of applications, due to their superior performance characteristics. Switched reluctance drives maintain higher torque and efficiency over broader speed ranges than can be achieved with other advanced variable-speed systems, can be programmed to precisely match the loads they serve and, in high-volume production, are likely to be less expensive than competing systems. The principal obstacle to rapid commercialization of switched reluctance motors is the fact that few engineers are trained to perform the exacting and specialized design that this technology requires. This hurdle is gradually being overcome as over two dozen firms now design or manufacture switched reluctance drives, and several are moving into mass production applications. As these and other firms gain experience with the technology, new opportunities will arise for utilities, energy users, and original equipment manufacturers to capture the benefits of switched reluctance motor systems (1992).
Invented in the period 1967-1969 by Mr Robert Adams of New Zealand, for a variety of reasons the technology did not win immediate acceptance, not least of which was that the New Zealand government and the Lucas corporation, for various reasons, allegedly directly suppressed it, followed by a botched CIA assassination attempt. That this direct suppression could happen during a period of global economic crisis triggered by the 1970s oil shock, is simply astonishing, and with hindsight, outright scandalous. As for the academics, they ignored it, and simply told Mr Adams free energy was impossible and 'against all the laws of physics'. Academics put theory before experiment - it is their way. Frustrated in 1992 Mr Adams published his technology in Nexus Magazine, putting for the very first time, a working free energy device into the public domain. Because of this charitable act, the motor was rendered unpatentable, and those who have attempted to take out patents on this technology using their own names, should understand their patents would not stand up to legal challenge. However, sadly, despite the fact that free energy has been patent free in the public domain since 1992, the continued lack of interest in free energy solutions from the general public, government, big business, scientific community, and environmental organizations alike, means this outstanding motor, astonishingly as of 2002 a full 10 years later, has still not been commercialized!
Subsequent to the 1992 original Nexus article, an Englishman called Mr Harold Aspden helped draw up what became GB Patent 282 708, a document which like the original Nexus article, is certainly not without its flaws, due primarily to the lack of experimental experience of the author. For example, Mr Aspden was apparently unaware the motor runs off time reversed negative current, something anyone with a working unit knows full well. Nonetheless, the patent remains an important landmark in Adams motor research, because of the more recognizably modern and scientific terminology Mr Aspden used to describe the motor. It should also be noted that while Mr Aspden's 8 pole NIB motor did not manifest over-unity results for reasons that are still unclear, the motor I built was based upon the patent, hence I have personally proved there is nothing wrong as such with the document. Since it is a fully valid and accurate document, legal action against the American patent office for disallowing the patent may be in order. It is quite possible the American patent office owes Mr Adams and Aspden $ billions of dollars in compensation, since the implicit accusation of fraud made by the American patent office did much to dent the early momentum of the technology. A major no win no fee law suit of some sort, seems inevitable, given how high the claims for damages could be.
Anyway, this website aims to follow the important scientific leads given by Mr Aspden, showing for the very first time exactly HOW and WHY the motor works, that it does not in fact contradict the laws of physics (we reverse the laws of physics as it turns out), and that furthermore, this motor design is so simple, working devices (with due care and attention) can be constructed for as little as $50.
How It Works - With Due Thanks to Mr Aspden's Patent Description
It seems to me there are 3 key stages to the stator cycle of the Adams motor that deserve particular attention, and to properly appreciate it, one should also understand that an Adams stator is really a 10 ohm generator winding:-
Just Checking You Understand A Switched Reluctance Motor
Iíve always believed to build an o/u device you have to know exactly what is going on. This is not the magical world of Harry Potter, or the enchanted world of the Lord of the Rings. It is science pure and simple, and it is science that is fundamentally classical in orientation, with the additional concepts of field depletion and negentropy thrown into the mix. Now, remember in permanent magnet switched reluctance design, the windings are fundamentally demagnetizing windings, and NOT as many people intuitively assume - magnetizing windings. Important difference. This is not to say the windings can not with enough voltage be used as magnetizing windings, but this is not really the proper mental image to use to visualize how the motor functions. Try it this way - the units I am about to used are not intended to correlate to real values, simply to make a point. The rotor is attracted to the stator core. When in register, the core is energized by the pole face of the permanent magnet to a strength of (negative) -10. In order to totally neutralize the temporarily acquired magnetism of stator core, and enable the rotor to 'free wheel away,' an electromagnetic field of + 10 must be induced in the stator windings. The Lenz current / precharge in full register where the greatest number of stator turns are cut, might be equivalent to, say, + 8. The timed delivered DC pulse, has a value of + 12. So with Lenz current / precharge, the net magnetism of the stator when in register is +10. That is ((-10) + (8)) + (12) = +10. Without Lenz current the calculation would be as follows (-10) + (12) = +2. We have therefore made a 'free energy,' gain of + 8 units - equivalent to the size of the Lenz current / precharge induced in the windings. If this helps, think of the Lenz current as like John the Baptist. He prepares the way, and makes possible what happens later, without being the force himself (p.s. yes I know it is not quite that simple, but you get the basic idea).
The Stator - An Electromagnetic Field Splitter
A stator has two main parts.
As stator and rotor come into alignment, the field spread over the stator windings is at its greatest extent, hence the current induction is at its strongest, exactly at the 'in register,' position, when it is most needed, which is also where we close the timing circuit enabling current to flow. Therefore at the 'stuck,' point where the stator core and magnet are effectively temporarily as one, you will get a large current induced, that acts to offset the field the magnet has been inducing in the stator core, which is the basis for the mutual attraction of the rotor to the core. We are therefore left with a most fascinating electromagnetic paradox, whereby the magnet is fighting for control of the stator core simultaneously from two directions. It is both trying to extend its flux field into the stator core to create an attraction effect, but it is also trying using current induced, to make the stator core repel itself. Both actions on their own are fully predicted and explained by existing electromagnetic law, some of it 170 years old, yet what no-one in the mainstream has ever investigated, is what might happen when you perform both actions near simultaneously. The answer seems fairly simple to me. Space time is, in a manner, short circuited. The magnet has gained kinetic energy in being attracted to the stator core, yet when it arrives at the stator core and should get 'stuck,' its own field energy causes partial demagnetization (repulsion with delivered pulse) from the said stator core via the windings. It is therefore forced to keep a % of the kinetic energy it gained in being initially attracted to the stator core, in an apparent violation of the laws of conversation of energy.
Hence, we have taken advantage of a switched reluctance motor's mechanical yaw to register, to force energy out of the field of a permanent magnet, by using stator cores configured as generator windings. It has required less electrical energy to demagnetize the stator core, than the sum of the kinetic energy we gained on approach, because of the 'free precharge' provided by the pm field to the stator windings. Thus an electromagnetically asymmetrical operation has been performed upon the field of a permanent magnet, temporarily depleting the field strength of the magnet below that defined by the atomic structure of the magnet. Demagnetization is a fundamental over-unity concept!
It is this two way magnetic energy field extraction optimization the Adams motor delivers, that turns the permanent magnets into negative inductors, that time reverse all particles caught up within the negative flux field created on the pole face of the permanent magnets. The negative time flux field of the magnet is a direct response to the field depletion effect manifested, and is the mechanism whereby the magnet draws in energy to rebalance the voltage component of its field and restore normal strength, as defined by the atomic structure of the magnet. Since the magnets run cold, and since this energy draw takes place in a time reversed zone of negentropy, I hypothesize this mechanism to be a loss less and direct thermo electric conversion. Photons radiate energy from a high potential source into space under normal physics in a direct electric-thermal conversion (called I2R losses in conventional physics), when time reversed, they do just the opposite. They take thermal energy from space, and concentrate it on the magnets to replenish their field strength. The circuitry of the motor is of course caught up in the field replenishment routine of the magnet, hence cold current in device circuitry, and under high voltage test conditions such as 120v and beyond, a voltage multiplication effect above supply can be manifested, as well as further reductions in current draw, in excess of the 50% reduction provided by the basic unit.
In terms of device optimization, cold current wires need to be small enough to offer maximum vacuum surface area contact, while large enough to allow electrons to flow. The exact equations that determine performance have not yet been derived, but Adams stators should have a resistance approaching 10 ohms for optimal results. Obviously, the photons absorb any of the heat the electrons emit in their passage through the wire and convert it directly back to potential, so conventional I2R losses area a complete non issue. If you use conventional equations in your stator construction process with the Adams motor, you will most likely fail. Because true cold current is fully time reversed, the electrons flow backwards recharging the source, hence the device is really a mechanical transductor, changing energy from one form to another. This reversal of current can give the appearance of polarity reversal in device circuitry. But this is an effect and not a cause, of course.
|End view of stator and rotor magnet. Stator core 1/2 width / height of rotor magnet, as per Mr Adams 4:1 area ratio rule. This is to ensure the stator winding get plenty of 'free precharge,' as well as facilitating the negative inductor function of the permanent magnets||Finished generator configured Adams type stator. Solid 24 awg wire. When tested on the pole face of a permanent magnet in a solid state setup, after 10 minutes it started to burn up. When installed in a motor unit and correctly configured for the 'yaw to register,' it runs cold even after extended periods of operation.|
Finally, the importance of voltage should be noted here. Voltage is electrical pressure. If you recall we are performing a time reversal operation, the higher the voltage the greater the heat dissipated in conventional circuits. Hence in a time reversed state, the greater the voltage, the greater the photon accretion from the vacuum. The relationship between voltage and energy gain does not appear to be linear, and the below table gives the known values. In fact, a number of unconventional variables can affect the performance of negative energy systems, and researchers need to be fully aware of them all for best results. This table highlights how many over-unity researchers are all seeing this exact same negative impulse based physics.
|Negative Energy Harmonics|
|Combining a sufficient number of harmonics,
enables capacitors to be charged with 'pure voltage.'|
Loads can then be run from the source dipole without drawing it down.
|9v||Sparkey Sweet, Tim Harwood|
|120v||Sparkey Sweet, Robert Adams|
|350v (360?)||Chris Arnold|
|720v||Tim Harwood (extrapolation from data)|
|1440v||Tim Harwood (extrapolation from data)|
|2880v||Tim Harwood (extrapolation from data)|
|30-60 hz||Sparkey Sweet, Tim Harwood, John Jankowski|
|1-5 khz||John Jankowski|
|30-60 khz||Target range for next harmonic|
|Pulse Duty / Width|
|10 ohms||Robert Adams, John Jankowski|
|72 ohms||Robert Adams|
|144 ohms||Tim Harwood (extrapolation from data)|
'Back Emf' - a Common Source of Confusion
Back emf is a Lenz effect reversed polarity current surge that happens whenever current is suddenly stopped - as happens all the time in a pulse motor. Many people confuse back emf with the negative energy manifested in the Adams motor. Transducted negative time reversed energy flows BACKWARDS to its source - hence enormous amounts of what people assume is 'back emf' can be extracted from Adams motors, with 97% of input already seen with magnetite cores. You treat it as if it is back emf, it looks like back emf, but it is not. To get the best out of this motor, you have to figure out a system to remove the 'back emf' ( also called counter emf, cemf) from the stator windings. A mosfet is in this case extremely helpful, because a simple pnp transistor does not manifest the return to source current flow - only the cold running, reduced current draw, and increased speed. In this case, most effective use is made of the 'back emf,' by gating it into a 250v+ capacitor, rather than simply shunting it back to recharge the source.
Visualizing the Permanent Magnet Negative Impulses
The following is kindly taken from Bill's mathematical analysis of the Dragone equations, as both devices force permanent magnets to deliver the exact same brief negative impulses. This graphic illustrates how the strength of the negative impulse, decays from the moment of switch closure. This is why smaller magnets (3/4" being about optimal) work better than larger ones, and why the motor runs colder at higher rather than lower speeds. It is all about pulse width. My Tesla page has more details on Bill's outstanding Dragone core.
The Tesla Connection
Secrets of Cold War Technology: Project HAARP and Beyond, by Gerry Vassilatos.
This book is well worth the money, and I don't say that about many. Much wonderful original research on Tesla. Genuinely very helpful. Obtaining a copy of this book appears to have transformed Mr Adams' research in the mid to late 1990s, with his latest models gating the 'back emf' into high voltage capacitors (250v), which then deliver the pure voltage / wattless / zero amp, state of energy Tesla documented over a century ago now.
Through successive experimental arrangements, Tesla discovered several facts concerning the production of his effect. First, the cause was undoubtedly found in the abruptness of charging. It was in the switch closure, the very instant of "closure and break", which thrust the effect out into space. The effect was definitely related to time, impulse time. Second, Tesla found that it was imperative that the charging process occurred in a single impulse. No reversal of current was permissible, else the effect would not manifest. In this, Tesla made succinct remarks describing the role of capacity in the spark-radiative circuit. He found that the effect was powerfully strengthened by placing a capacitor between the disrupter and the dynamo. While providing a tremendous power to the effect, the dielectric of the capacitor also served to protect the dynamo windings. Finally, the effect could also be greatly intensified to new and more powerful levels by raising the voltage, quickening the switch "make-break" rate, and shortening the actual time of switch closure...... voltages could often be increased at an amazing 10,000 volts per inch of axial coil surface. This meant that a 24 inch coil could absorb radiant shockwaves which initially measured 10,000 volts, with a subsequent maximum rise to 240,000 volts! Such transformations of voltage were unheard with apparatus of this volume and simplicity. Tesla further discovered that the output voltages were mathematically related to the resistance of turns in the helix. Higher resistance meant higher voltage maxima.
Click here to learn more about time reversal, Nikola Tesla, and Radiant Energy
My friend John Jankowski has very kindly supplied a diagram of what we currently believe to be the true nature of magnetic fields, which I have now updated in line with new experimental results. We think there is a hidden secondary time reversed vortex pole buried in the pole face of magnetic fields. When energy is extracted from magnets via a core demagnetization asymmetry, these secondary poles 'flare up' and become temporarily enlarged, as part of a possible magnetic field replenishment process. If you study the image, you will see the Adams motor with a magnetically attractive stator face thrust to within 1-1.5mm of the rotor magnet's face, is a near perfect setup to conduct these temporarily enlarged poles away from the immediate surface of magnet pole faces, along the length of the stator core, converting the delivered pulse to negative current most effectively. That is to say, an Adams over-wound generator style stator, is an ideal negative inductor design template.
What Magnet Type Do I Use?
Ceramic / ferrite magnets should be used. Without going into the details, multiple sources suggest ceramic magnets are the best over-unity magnets. This may or may not be related to the bizarre and almost unique way ceramic magnets increase in strength when exposed to low temperate. You can test this for yourself by putting some ceramic magnets in the freezer over-night. I have done that experiment myself, and can confirm it is true. Finally, make sure the ceramic magnets you obtain are good quality, grade 5 is an absolute minimum, grade 8 possibly preferred.. More information on magets.
Stator Core Materials - Critical to Successful Adams Construction
|Source: GE Industrial Control Systems|
I suggest a 100mm long 8.5mm head mild steel nail, certainly for early experiments. But as always I try to cater for a broad church, so here is some more comprehensive information for the perfectionists out there.
Steven offered the following insights in the Adamsmotor Egroup:
'The basic problem with mild steel, steel, and wrought iron, is that they are not very permeable e.g. 200 for very mild steel, 500 wrought iron, 5000 pure iron (max 180000 pure iron), and also the remnance is higher for mild steel / wrought iron. The good point is they make very good electromagnets i.e. have high saturation. Metglass is probably the best material - very high permeability and high saturation up to 2 Teslas, combined with fairly low remnance. The problem is finding metglass cores in the correct shape for a drive / generator core at reasonable cost!'
The stator core is the part to spend money on if you want to optimize an Adams motor. Ceramic magnets work fine. Keep in mind the negative inductor function of the stator core, and hence what is a perfect material for a conventional motor, may not be the perfect material for an Adams motor. As a general rule, the stronger the rotor magnets you use, the better the quality of the stator core has to be. Upgrade all parts of your motor in proper proportion.
|The Rough Guide to Stator Core Materials|
|Stator Core Material||Comments|
|Ferrite||Ferrite - Designed for high frequency operation, is a little soft, does not facilitate the kind of hard stator pole face formation you need to make the motor work optimally, which tends to outweigh the many other very strong advantages i.e. poor inductance. Also flux density capacity is also poor relative to some other materials listed, which if using NIBS, will kill you. I have yet to see any evidence this material is optimal for Adams motors. Results to date have been disappointing.|
|Steel||Steel - Good inductance / saturation, similar to wrought iron, but poor permeability|
|Soft / mild / bright Steel||Better. Lower carbon content than cast steel (typically 0.3-0.5%) hence a little softer, the next step down from wrought iron really. You can buy soft steel nails if you look hard enough, especially on the internet - these should make very respectable cheap stator cores. Endorsed by Mr Konzen. Downside is poor permeability, but so long as you use small nails similar to mine (100mm long, 8.5mm head), then the impact of the poor permeability is minimized.|
|Silicon steel||Silicon Steel - Many different types and grades, but non orientated grades with an inductance of 1.5 Tesla or above combined with decent permeability works very well. Providing a good cost / performance trade off. This material appears to be the current industrial favorite for electric motor design, although getting hold of small amounts for personal experimentation is not so easy.|
|Wrought Iron||Wrought Iron - Essentially low grade pure iron, inductance is 10-20% worse than pure iron on average, but still in relative terms excellent. Permeability is improved on mild steel, but still substantially lags pure iron. Offers little real advance on a my 100mm mild steel nails, to be honest.|
|Pure Iron||Pure Iron - Has very good permeability and high inductance. Downside is availability and cost. For a ceramic magnet based motor, getting hold of pure iron is certainly not in any way critical to mechanical o/u operation. So very good, but not quite the ultimate core material.|
( 55% iron 45% nickel )
|As a combination of cost, availability, and performance, permalloy is probably my favorite core material. The hard drive motor experimenter reported very positive results with permalloy, and Steven reports the following, 'Simply changing from a mild steel nail to a small section of annealed permalloy makes things much more efficient, in my case I found a 30% increase in speed with corresponding power consumption drop due to increased speed. Explain why this is so? Well it takes less effort to change the magnetic field in a low reminance low coercivity material, which means the magnet has to do less work in approaching the stator, ie reversing the old field which was repulsion, and the electric current requires less power to flip the poles and make it repulsive (or at a minimum not attractive).' However, be careful, stick to permalloy compounds with more than 50% iron, or else the stator may not perform the required negative inductor functionality.|
|Metglas||Metglass type materials can have very high inductance e.g. up to 2.5-3 Teslas and very high permeability up to 1,600,000. This means they are great for both driving and generating. Only possible downside is cost and availability! Fantastic material. This is ultimate stator core material if you can get it.|
|Amorphous metals||'Amorphous metals (a patented compound) are used for the core material inside the coils. These cores exhibit practically zero hysteresis loss. The cores have no magnetic memory and cannot sustain any current flow even though they will polarize magnetically nearly as well as iron and other alloys used for cores. Consequently, they do not heat up.' One experimenter has reported magnetite cores worked very well on a high end high voltage NIB based unit.|
Taking It To Extremes
I've tried to emphasize that the motor is about balance. I'm going to further clarify this point by describing two extreme stators.
Hence, the balanced mean is a stator core large enough for the rotor to be strongly attracted, small enough to be easily demagnetized when in register, with enough turns ( several hundreds or more ) to maximize current induction at the in register position when the magnet's field is most strongly projected into the stator windings. In real world terms, that means something like a 3/8" mild steel nail head, wound solid with 24awg wire, until it is the best part of 6/8" thick, pumped with 12v.
Q: Is the Adams motor a free energy device?
Depends how you define 'free energy.' Let me quote from the learned Mr Aspden's outstanding patent abstract:
An electrodynamic motor-generator has a salient pole permanent magnet rotor interacting with salient stator poles to form a machine operating on the magnetic reluctance principle. The intrinsic ferromagnetic power of the magnets provides the drive torque by bringing the poles into register whilst current pulses demagnetize the stator poles as the poles separate. In as much as less power is needed for stator demagnetization than is fed into the reluctance drive by the thermodynamic system powering the ferromagnetic state, the machine operates regeneratively by virtue of stator winding interconnection with unequal number of rotor and stator poles. A rotor construction is disclosed (Fig 6, 7). The current pulse may be such as to cause repulsion of the rotor poles.
As stated above, it requires less energy to demagnetize the pm field in the stator cores, than you gain in the 'yaw to register' stator attraction phase, because of the 'free precharge' Lenz effect manifested in the over-wound generator configured stator coils. Is that free energy? You tell me. Sounds just like a scientific effect to me, rather than something 'free' and magical. What Mr Aspden was unable to state because his unit for unknown reasons was not capable of the necessary high rpms, was that the 12-15% energy gain you make from that asymmetry, causes a brief negative impulse to be issued from the central pole face of permanent magnets, a process clarified by the recent disclosure of the POD magnetic schematic. This is conducted along the length of the stator core, hence the current pulse is converted to a time negative polarity. It then promptly flows BACKWARDS to the source, which it recharges. To this extent, it is perhaps more accurate to describe the Adams motor as a mechanical transductor, rather than a free energy device as such. I do not see the term 'free energy' as scientifically helpful here. The Adams motor simply converts energy from one form to another, in so doing reversing the direction of current flow, enabling a high speed rotor to be run essentially for 'free.' Mr Adams has quoted an unloaded mechanical efficiency of 600% - getting within striking distance of that kind of number is actually fairly easy, you may be surprised to learn, when wired with an appropriate mosfet and rechargeable battery. Hence in the basic setup massive unloaded mechanical over-unity in the hundreds of percent, yes, electrical over-unity, no. So do not get too excited by all this guys. There are clear limitations on the technology, however wonderful the unloaded mechanical numbers might at first glance sound. As for the 'perpetual motion' allegation, the term has no scientific merit whatsoever, and anyone who uses it can only fairly be described as crank.
Example Adams Motor Efficiency Calculation
The numbers behind the Hard drive motor would be something like as follows:
Base line efficiency = 130% (Halved current draw, doubled speed, high quality permalloy cores, brushless timing system)
Back emf to input = 80% (Measured result, confirmed with oscilloscope shots )
Net battery drain efficiency when back emf is wired to recharge the source
= 1.3 * 5
= COP 6.5
Which is line with with 107% base line efficiency numbers Mr Adams quoted, and the 600-700% numbers he gave for high end units.
What I mean is, do not expect electrical over-unity.
Second Prototype Now Built
I've now decided to use 2 CDs as the basis for my first real motor.
Just click through to see what I am doing.
Extracting Energy and Heat from the
D.C. Cole, IBM, Essex Junction, Vermont
H.E. Puthoff, IAS, Austin, Texas
Physical Review E, 1993, Vol.48, No.2, pp.1562-1565
Relatively recent proposals have been made in the literature for extracting energy and heat from electromagnetic zero-point radiation via the use of the Casimir force. The basic thermodynamics involved in these proposals is analyzed and clarified here, with the conclusion that, yes, in principle, these proposals are correct. Technological considerations for actual application and use are not examined here, however.
Content, 'CD Adams Motor,' concept and design, (c) 2001 Tim Harwood. All rights reserved. Information on this site may be used for private non profit research purposes by individuals, but this permission shall not be construed as authorization for commercial interests or development. All experimentation done at own risk, links to external sites do not constitute an endorsement of products or service, which are used entirely at your own risk.
Mission statement for the Adamsmotor Egroup: To becomes the world's premier forum for building cheap simple over-unity devices that work
|Navigate This Site|
|Home page||Motor theory||Negative potential||Worm hole design||CD motor||Solid state||Contact|