Paul Babcock

Matt Watts

Paul Babcock
« on July 19th, 2013, 02:00 AM »Last edited on July 19th, 2013, 02:02 AM by Matt Watts
Guys,

I just got my hands on some videos of Paul Babcock's two recent lectures.



You can get them here too if you want:
http://magneticenergysecrets.com/

If 30 bucks is more than you're willing to spend, let me just summarize some things:
  • Radiant Energy is real; it flows along with electron energy.

  • You can get access to Radiant Energy via large coils, DC and plasma arcs.
  • You can also overcome Lenz Law by never allowing the magnetic field to cross your wires.
  • Paul knows his stuff and he appears to be the real-deal.  I tried his experiment with a big spool of Essex magnet wire and it does do what he says it will--apparent output power is at least double.
[/list]
Having said the above, there is also a good chance with some minor modifications, Radiant Energy can be directed into an electrolysis cell to drastically increase HHO production.  Paul also mentioned "tricking Mother Nature" in a manner that would exactly explain how to make a BiTT function and be over-unity.  He doesn't use fancy math and has gone head-to-head with the egghead professors, at which point they always throw him out, because he's right.  Magnets either ARE energy or they allow you to access energy.  Either way, we need to get building.

firepinto


Matt Watts


wsx

RE: Paul Babcock
« Reply #3, on September 22nd, 2013, 11:15 PM »Last edited on September 22nd, 2013, 11:22 PM by wsx
What does he mean by
"You can also overcome Lenz Law by never allowing the magnetic field to cross your wires."
I don't get it how would that work?

I figured he means that the energy it made on the first turn it is used against it on the second turn...?

Matt Watts

RE: Paul Babcock
« Reply #4, on September 22nd, 2013, 11:28 PM »
Quote from wsx on September 22nd, 2013, 11:15 PM
What does he mean by
"You can also overcome Lenz Law by never allowing the magnetic field to cross your wires."
I don't get it how would that work?
Have a look at Firepinto's pulse motor buildoff entry.  That is very close to what Paul did only he didn't use ABHA coils.  Paul refers to it as external coupling.  Here's a picture from his patent application:
[attachment=4263]

wsx

RE: Paul Babcock
« Reply #5, on September 23rd, 2013, 06:10 PM »Last edited on September 23rd, 2013, 06:15 PM by wsx
Quote from Matt Watts on September 22nd, 2013, 11:28 PM
Quote from wsx on September 22nd, 2013, 11:15 PM
What does he mean by
"You can also overcome Lenz Law by never allowing the magnetic field to cross your wires."
I don't get it how would that work?
Have a look at Firepinto's pulse motor buildoff entry.  That is very close to what Paul did only he didn't use ABHA coils.  Paul refers to it as external coupling.  Here's a picture from his patent application:
I kind of get it, but I do not understand how it would work to not cause resistance and as Firepinto showed which it didn't run. Does that mean the coil has to be slanted when dealing with the magnet? Kind of like a bucket of water hitting a slope does not loose as much momentum as the water hits a flat surface?

It seems like a waste of energy to have the coil be empty at the center of it, while only a magnet passes through the outer center of the donut (ABhA coil).
OR it is that the thing does not slow down due to passing though the inner donut which the current travels around the donut from the bottom out and around and back to the inner top of the donut which negates it that way to now slow down?

Am I wrong to think that every millimeter away from magnet the % of efficiency drops.

Also as for Paul Babcock's explanation how he does not use energy when moving his arm and the magnet used energy of its down to fly off his hand onto the metal, I still feel it is like holding a rock and letting it go takes no energy, or a rock on a slope and it goes down took no energy. The energy is when you try to remove the magnet from the metal is the tricky part.

Maybe Paul Babcock should give the information "fully" in details and see if someone with time, money, or resources can do it.

Matt Watts

RE: Paul Babcock
« Reply #6, on September 23rd, 2013, 06:48 PM »Last edited on September 23rd, 2013, 06:53 PM by Matt Watts
The idea is to to contain the "bubbles" of flux and not let them cross through the inductors.  Then those bubbles are pushed around by the same magnet pole created in the external coils.

So you have lets say a North pole magnet near you mounted on a rotatable bearing.  You then energize two coils to create two more North pole magnets spaced apart, centered on the magnet.  When you do this, the North pole magnet is repelled.  As it moves away, you de-energize your two coils and collect the flux back as electrical energy and store it in a capacitor.  Next you take this same energy and energize two more coils that are closer to the magnet.  It again pushes away.  You repeat this process indefinitely using a microcontroller to turn on and off coil pairs to keep the permanent magnet on the rotor constantly in motion.

Simple as this process sounds, you have not engaged Lenz's Law at all, so the motor you just created is not restricted to the 746 Watts per Horsepower typical of a conventional motor.  If you want the motor to run faster, you just pulse coils on and off faster, creating more shaft horsepower with no additional cost in electrical energy.

I presume the coils are air core coils so that the rotating magnet is not drawn to your coil cores as they would if they were magnetic, like iron or ferrite.  Obviously spacing distance is critical to maximize the flux bubble to get the most repulsion between the coils and the magnet.

That's the idea as I understand it.

wsx

RE: Paul Babcock
« Reply #7, on September 23rd, 2013, 07:29 PM »
Quote from Matt Watts on September 23rd, 2013, 06:48 PM
The idea is to to contain the "bubbles" of flux and not let them cross through the inductors.  Then those bubbles are pushed around by the same magnet pole created in the external coils.

So you have lets say a North pole magnet near you mounted on a rotatable bearing.  You then energize two coils to create two more North pole magnets spaced apart, centered on the magnet.  When you do this, the North pole magnet is repelled.  As it moves away, you de-energize your two coils and collect the flux back as electrical energy and store it in a capacitor.  Next you take this same energy and energize two more coils that are closer to the magnet.  It again pushes away.  You repeat this process indefinitely using a microcontroller to turn on and off coil pairs to keep the permanent magnet on the rotor constantly in motion.

Simple as this process sounds, you have not engaged Lenz's Law at all, so the motor you just created is not restricted to the 746 Watts per Horsepower typical of a conventional motor.  If you want the motor to run faster, you just pulse coils on and off faster, creating more shaft horsepower with no additional cost in electrical energy.

I presume the coils are air core coils so that the rotating magnet is not drawn to your coil cores as they would if they were magnetic, like iron or ferrite.  Obviously spacing distance is critical to maximize the flux bubble to get the most repulsion between the coils and the magnet.

That's the idea as I understand it.
Thanks
So the main trick is when it de-energizes to "collect the flux back as electrical energy and store it in a capacitor". Although not 100% perfect but enough for a near double efficiency boost.

So the diagonal design plays a role you say?

Besides using sensors can't a low tech means be to use a wire brush turn on and off when hitting a specific point in the rotation? A bit of a loss in that due to a small amount of friction but neat the same as a chip? I assume but if not a then a low tech I sensor I would say.

Matt Watts

RE: Paul Babcock
« Reply #8, on September 23rd, 2013, 07:49 PM »
Quote from wsx on September 23rd, 2013, 07:29 PM
So the main trick is when it de-energizes to "collect the flux back as electrical energy and store it in a capacitor". Although not 100% perfect but enough for a near double efficiency boost.

So the diagonal design plays a role you say?

Besides using sensors can't a low tech means be to use a wire brush turn on and off when hitting a specific point in the rotation? A bit of a loss in that due to a small amount of friction but neat the same as a chip? I assume but if not a then a low tech I sensor I would say.
Power recapturing improves efficiency by a good margin--if you can do it, it's worth it.

Not sure what you mean by diagonal.  The two coils on each side form a type of magnetic barrier where there is no way for the rotating permanent magnet to avoid them.

I find it odd that Paul uses a timing circuit.  It would seem to me to make much more sense to use hall effect sensors and just let the rotor spin as fast as it will go.  If you saw Russ' Pulse Motor Build Off entry, those things are good to incredibly high frequency--something I didn't know until I saw him do it.

wsx

RE: Paul Babcock
« Reply #9, on September 23rd, 2013, 09:46 PM »
Quote from Matt Watts on September 23rd, 2013, 07:49 PM
Power recapturing improves efficiency by a good margin--if you can do it, it's worth it.

Not sure what you mean by diagonal.  The two coils on each side form a type of magnetic barrier where there is no way for the rotating permanent magnet to avoid them.

I find it odd that Paul uses a timing circuit.  It would seem to me to make much more sense to use hall effect sensors and just let the rotor spin as fast as it will go.  If you saw Russ' Pulse Motor Build Off entry, those things are good to incredibly high frequency--something I didn't know until I saw him do it.
Power recapturing... Well isn't it if you know how to do it right? Since nothing is as easy as it seems.
When i mean diagonal is mean how the ABhA coil goes which isnt up and down but a slanted in how it goes around.
I think this one goes straight to the center


And the abha coil does not go straight to the center


AS for Paul maybe Hall sensor maybe he has a reason for not using it since maybe 10 years ago it was not as good? Technology improved so your idea goes with the times to help it better evolve.

Matt Watts

RE: Paul Babcock
« Reply #10, on September 24th, 2013, 12:23 AM »
Quote from wsx on September 23rd, 2013, 09:46 PM
Power recapturing... Well isn't it if you know how to do it right? Since nothing is as easy as it seems.
When i mean diagonal is mean how the ABhA coil goes which isnt up and down but a slanted in how it goes around.
I think this one goes straight to the center


And the abha coil does not go straight to the center
Firepinto is going to keep working on his device and you are right it is angular, I wonder what kind of complexity that adds to the mix.

firepinto

RE: Paul Babcock
« Reply #11, on September 24th, 2013, 06:52 PM »Last edited on September 24th, 2013, 07:21 PM by firepinto
Quote from Matt Watts on September 22nd, 2013, 11:28 PM
Quote from wsx on September 22nd, 2013, 11:15 PM
What does he mean by
"You can also overcome Lenz Law by never allowing the magnetic field to cross your wires."
I don't get it how would that work?
Have a look at Firepinto's pulse motor buildoff entry.  That is very close to what Paul did only he didn't use ABHA coils.  Paul refers to it as external coupling.  Here's a picture from his patent application:
Wow, now I really have to look into this.
Quote from wsx on September 23rd, 2013, 09:46 PM
Quote from Matt Watts on September 23rd, 2013, 07:49 PM
Power recapturing improves efficiency by a good margin--if you can do it, it's worth it.

Not sure what you mean by diagonal.  The two coils on each side form a type of magnetic barrier where there is no way for the rotating permanent magnet to avoid them.

I find it odd that Paul uses a timing circuit.  It would seem to me to make much more sense to use hall effect sensors and just let the rotor spin as fast as it will go.  If you saw Russ' Pulse Motor Build Off entry, those things are good to incredibly high frequency--something I didn't know until I saw him do it.
Power recapturing... Well isn't it if you know how to do it right? Since nothing is as easy as it seems.
When i mean diagonal is mean how the ABhA coil goes which isnt up and down but a slanted in how it goes around.
I think this one goes straight to the center


And the abha coil does not go straight to the center


AS for Paul maybe Hall sensor maybe he has a reason for not using it since maybe 10 years ago it was not as good? Technology improved so your idea goes with the times to help it better evolve.
I noticed timing problems with using a hall sensor during testing of my PMBO circuit.  I tested it on my previous year 2012 PMBO motor, (which actually did run on the circuit lol) that has 3 neomagnets with their south poles facing away from the center of the rotor.  With the hall sensor stationary I noticed one magnet had irregular triggering patterns.  It happened more at a certain speed, and even more when I spun the rotor in the opposite direction.  With my intention to drive an H bridge, I couldn't have my 2 hall sensors triggered at the same time.  So my arduino sketch flashed an "error" LED instead when this condition happened.  That is how I could easily notice the very slight inconsistency on one magnet's triggering.  I want to look into photosensors for triggering so I can just use black tape on a white rotor to adjust timing.  

I'll watch the video now to see what I've been missing about the Babcock motor all this time. lol

Nate
OK first thing I see that he said, that the length of the wire is what increases the field, is my problem in my pulse motor. lol  The problem with the PMBO, I have to wind the coils as fast as possible.  So I went with larger wire, less resistance, less wire, less time to wind the coils...  OOPS. :s

Matt Watts

RE: Paul Babcock
« Reply #12, on September 24th, 2013, 07:34 PM »
Quote from firepinto on September 24th, 2013, 06:52 PM
I want to look into photosensors for triggering so I can just use black tape on a white rotor to adjust timing.  

I'll watch the video now to see what I've been missing about the Babcock motor all this time. lol
You might see why I thought initially you were building one of his motors--lots of similarities except for the central axle (which I think you should incorporate as a timing and output shaft).

Timing -- Have you ever built a photo sensor servo control?  They are a little different than just a plain optical trigger.  If you take a look at the crank trigger on high-end racing engine ignition systems you'll see what I mean.  They have teeth evenly spaced around the circumference so that you can get instantaneous RPM, but right near the timing mark, the spacing changes and there is usually a tooth missing, a gap.  The way the controller works with these is it locks on to the frequency generated by the teeth and when the missing pulse is detected, that initiates the firing sequence.  The controller counts the number of teeth it has seen so it knows exactly the crank position at any instant in time.  This does make the controller a bit more complex but it guarantees timing accuracy and on-the-fly timing adjustment.  If you pop the clutch on one of these motors, the controller can sense the massive change in engine load instantly and adjust ignition and fuel response rapidly.  Most setups do use a hall effect sensor, but that can be swapped out for an optical one.  The reason optical isn't used as a first choice is because of the harsh engine environment with debris, oil, etc able to disrupt the sensor.  In your setup, optical would be my first choice since you are driving coils producing magnetic fields which could (and probably do) disrupt hall effect sensors.  I would also consider using through-hole sensing and not reflective sensing.  Also, get sensors that are UV (not visible or IR) and you'll have less (or no) interaction with normal lighting.

firepinto

RE: Paul Babcock
« Reply #13, on September 24th, 2013, 07:48 PM »
Quote from Matt Watts on September 24th, 2013, 07:34 PM
Quote from firepinto on September 24th, 2013, 06:52 PM
I want to look into photosensors for triggering so I can just use black tape on a white rotor to adjust timing.  

I'll watch the video now to see what I've been missing about the Babcock motor all this time. lol
You might see why I thought initially you were building one of his motors--lots of similarities except for the central axle (which I think you should incorporate as a timing and output shaft).

Timing -- Have you ever built a photo sensor servo control?  They are a little different than just a plain optical trigger.  If you take a look at the crank trigger on high-end racing engine ignition systems you'll see what I mean.  They have teeth evenly spaced around the circumference so that you can get instantaneous RPM, but right near the timing mark, the spacing changes and there is usually a tooth missing, a gap.  The way the controller works with these is it locks on to the frequency generated by the teeth and when the missing pulse is detected, that initiates the firing sequence.  The controller counts the number of teeth it has seen so it knows exactly the crank position at any instant in time.  This does make the controller a bit more complex but it guarantees timing accuracy and on-the-fly timing adjustment.  If you pop the clutch on one of these motors, the controller can sense the massive change in engine load instantly and adjust ignition and fuel response rapidly.  Most setups do use a hall effect sensor, but that can be swapped out for an optical one.  The reason optical isn't used as a first choice is because of the harsh engine environment with debris, oil, etc able to disrupt the sensor.  In your setup, optical would be my first choice since you are driving coils producing magnetic fields which could (and probably do) disrupt hall effect sensors.  I would also consider using through-hole sensing and not reflective sensing.  Also, get sensors that are UV (not visible or IR) and you'll have less (or no) interaction with normal lighting.
Originally, way before I had 3D printers, lol I did want to use the through hole type.  The problem I have to work around is how to fit all that stuff through the donut holes. Either that or I have to get more precise in the design and actually build a set up with real gears like a planetary gear.  The design could be changed so that the magnets are in the annulus gear and not the sun gear.  That would give a center axle to run timing and output from.

Matt Watts

RE: Paul Babcock
« Reply #14, on September 24th, 2013, 08:43 PM »
Quote from firepinto on September 24th, 2013, 07:48 PM
Originally, way before I had 3D printers, lol I did want to use the through hole type.  The problem I have to work around is how to fit all that stuff through the donut holes. Either that or I have to get more precise in the design and actually build a set up with real gears like a planetary gear.  The design could be changed so that the magnets are in the annulus gear and not the sun gear.  That would give a center axle to run timing and output from.
Crap, yes, you are right.  Using the ABHA coils you don't have any other way than how you did it.  Using gears though...  I guess to keep things balanced you would want to tie all three of them together, but if the main rotor is solid enough, you could drive from just a single gear.  I suspect right now you would get some slip with just the pulleys.

So let me ask you, how did you get the drive rotor inside the coils in the first place?  Does that thing come apart?  And where it does is where you inserted the magnets?

firepinto

RE: Paul Babcock
« Reply #15, on September 24th, 2013, 09:08 PM »Last edited on September 24th, 2013, 09:10 PM by firepinto
Quote from Matt Watts on September 24th, 2013, 08:43 PM
Quote from firepinto on September 24th, 2013, 07:48 PM
Originally, way before I had 3D printers, lol I did want to use the through hole type.  The problem I have to work around is how to fit all that stuff through the donut holes. Either that or I have to get more precise in the design and actually build a set up with real gears like a planetary gear.  The design could be changed so that the magnets are in the annulus gear and not the sun gear.  That would give a center axle to run timing and output from.
Crap, yes, you are right.  Using the ABHA coils you don't have any other way than how you did it.  Using gears though...  I guess to keep things balanced you would want to tie all three of them together, but if the main rotor is solid enough, you could drive from just a single gear.  I suspect right now you would get some slip with just the pulleys.

So let me ask you, how did you get the drive rotor inside the coils in the first place?  Does that thing come apart?  And where it does is where you inserted the magnets?
Luckily I didnt glue all the pieces in, I almost did.  I just used some blue painters tape to keep it from sliding out.  The magnet is slid in the pocket on the inner diameter side of the ring segment.  I had them hot-glued in and it was a bear to get 3 of them out to flip them around.
You can see where I take apart the puzzle piece in this video:


wsx


Matt Watts

RE: Paul Babcock
« Reply #17, on September 29th, 2013, 10:58 PM »
Quote from wsx on September 29th, 2013, 09:58 PM
video gone, I hope enough saw it, but I think this post covered the main points.
I figured so.  Aaron doesn't work his butt off to give things away.  Some do, some don't.  I have no hard feelings from him protecting his work.  I wish he was more OpenSource, but the only way that will happen is if he has the financial backing to do so.

Maybe some day when energy is free for everyone and people can convert that energy into anything they want, that's when we will see the real spirit of giving and sharing.

FaradayEZ

RE: Paul Babcock
« Reply #18, on October 4th, 2013, 10:15 AM »
Quote from Matt Watts on July 19th, 2013, 02:00 AM
Paul knows his stuff and he appears to be the real-deal.  I tried his experiment with a big spool of Essex magnet wire and it does do what he says it will--apparent output power is at least double.
Can you describe this experiment and give some numbers with it?

Tricking induction has long been a stickhorse for me, if i start experimenting anything it will be in this area.


Matt Watts

RE: Paul Babcock
« Reply #19, on October 4th, 2013, 01:46 PM »Last edited on October 4th, 2013, 02:59 PM by Matt Watts
Quote from FaradayEZ on October 4th, 2013, 10:15 AM
Can you describe this experiment and give some numbers with it?

Tricking induction has long been a stickhorse for me, if i start experimenting anything it will be in this area.
I didn't go so far as to confirm Paul's formulas, but I did go far enough to see the effect he spoke of.

For the setup I used my plasma ignition system I built a while back:
http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=883

And a spool of 18 ga wire (about 7 lbs ~ 1400 ft):

Luckily I could get at both ends.

First I tried to just strike an arc without the spool connected using a tiny strip of aluminum foil.  When I would make a full connection, the strip would pretty much explode, but I could not draw an arc at a distance without connecting the ignition coil and firing it.  Using the ignition I could burn-up the aluminum with the plasma at about an inch in 30 seconds, just moving a copper probe tip along.  I think I set the ignition to pulse at 30Hz.

So then I connected the spool of wire in series and tried the same thing.  This time the foil would burn-up faster than I could keep moving the copper probe tip.  Where the plasma formed was noticeably more intense.  And the interesting part was that the coil introduced resistance to the circuit, about 18 ohms worth and still the output was stronger than with no resistance.

So yeah, that coil was either drawing-in additional power from somewhere, or it was tuning the circuit to be far more optimal.  I don't know for sure which, but I saw the difference.  I know when I added the coil and fired the ignition across a spark plug, I had to turn the input power down quite a bit to keep from destroying my diode array (which I did twice and finally ran out of diodes to solder together).


I don't know if it's partly the same principal or not, but when lighting fluorescent tubes with my Slayer Exciter, I have to think additional energy is coming in from those big coils, seeing how I am lighting them without even a single wire connected.  Maybe the radiant energy is being drawn through them somehow and since the tube is a plasma, that's where it shows itself.

FaradayEZ

RE: Paul Babcock
« Reply #20, on October 4th, 2013, 08:14 PM »Last edited on October 4th, 2013, 08:19 PM by FaradayEZ
Quote from Matt Watts on October 4th, 2013, 01:46 PM
Quote from FaradayEZ on October 4th, 2013, 10:15 AM
Can you describe this experiment and give some numbers with it?

Tricking induction has long been a stickhorse for me, if i start experimenting anything it will be in this area.
I didn't go so far as to confirm Paul's formulas, but I did go far enough to see the effect he spoke of.

For the setup I used my plasma ignition system I built a while back:
http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=883

And a spool of 18 ga wire (about 7 lbs ~ 1400 ft):

Luckily I could get at both ends.

First I tried to just strike an arc without the spool connected using a tiny strip of aluminum foil.  When I would make a full connection, the strip would pretty much explode, but I could not draw an arc at a distance without connecting the ignition coil and firing it.  Using the ignition I could burn-up the aluminum with the plasma at about an inch in 30 seconds, just moving a copper probe tip along.  I think I set the ignition to pulse at 30Hz.

So then I connected the spool of wire in series and tried the same thing.  This time the foil would burn-up faster than I could keep moving the copper probe tip.  Where the plasma formed was noticeably more intense.  And the interesting part was that the coil introduced resistance to the circuit, about 18 ohms worth and still the output was stronger than with no resistance.

So yeah, that coil was either drawing-in additional power from somewhere, or it was tuning the circuit to be far more optimal.  I don't know for sure which, but I saw the difference.  I know when I added the coil and fired the ignition across a spark plug, I had to turn the input power down quite a bit to keep from destroying my diode array (which I did twice and finally ran out of diodes to solder together).


I don't know if it's partly the same principal or not, but when lighting fluorescent tubes with my Slayer Exciter, I have to think additional energy is coming in from those big coils, seeing how I am lighting them without even a single wire connected.  Maybe the radiant energy is being drawn through them somehow and since the tube is a plasma, that's where it shows itself.
Ok, interesting. This must be the plasma side of what Paul was telling. That it goes along with the magnetic lines.
I am trying to understand how Paul tricked the induction in his electric engine. He talks about redirecting the back emf to a capacitor, that later gives it back to work on the same coil etc. Repeating to trick the induction and get more work out of the voltage/current.

I don't think he uses plasma in his engine, but in the interview he did talk about it.
I'm deciding also if i want to buy his books. It may be a good way to start some project in this field.

THx for your data and description.
Quote
I know when I added the coil and fired the ignition across a spark plug, I had to turn the input power down quite a bit to keep from destroying my diode array
If this is the case, then Russ should use a coil like you to get more spark for less input. Something the popper needs.

Matt Watts

RE: Paul Babcock
« Reply #21, on October 4th, 2013, 10:01 PM »
Quote from FaradayEZ on October 4th, 2013, 08:14 PM
Ok, interesting. This must be the plasma side of what Paul was telling. That it goes along with the magnetic lines.
I am trying to understand how Paul tricked the induction in his electric engine. He talks about redirecting the back emf to a capacitor, that later gives it back to work on the same coil etc. Repeating to trick the induction and get more work out of the voltage/current.

I don't think he uses plasma in his engine, but in the interview he did talk about it.
I'm deciding also if i want to buy his books. It may be a good way to start some project in this field.

THx for your data and description.

If this is the case, then Russ should use a coil like you to get more spark for less input. Something the popper needs.
There are two major things Paul talks about in his two videos (I recommend you get them from Aaron--they are worth the $27).  One is the absorption of radiant energy by the coil.  And the second thing he gets into is beating Lenz Law with his motor.

On the Papp motor, we already knew there was a big coil wrapped around the cylinder--hmmm, got to wonder how that thing might grab radiant energy.  The second most recent thing we have learned is the Papp engine need not use Nobel Gases.  The active ingredient is water or some form of Hydrogen and Oxygen.  In two months, the guy Sterling has been talking to is supposed to release that information; hopefully with some detail.

On Paul's motor, he beats Lenz Law by using external coupling.  This method prevents the permanent magnets on the rotor from altering the magnetic field in the stationary electromagnets.  I also suspect he uses air-cores.  The next trick Paul uses is ultra-fast switching for power recycling.  When he disconnects the current from the electromagnets, he immediately switches them to capacitors, so when the magnetic field collapses, he can grab all the juice out of the coils.  He then switches this juice back to the main power source.  The trick as he explains it is speed.  You have to switch before the coil realizes it is no longer connected to source power; if you don't, the voltage goes way up and now you can't touch it, it will just pop your semiconductors.

firepinto

RE: Paul Babcock
« Reply #22, on October 5th, 2013, 12:01 AM »Last edited on October 5th, 2013, 12:03 AM by firepinto
I'm thinking since Babcock says it's the length of the wire in the coils that increases power, perhaps diameter of the coil plays a role too.  Currently most people worry about how many turns a coil has.  Well if the coil is a small diameter and longer, I'm thinking it won't produce the same as a shorter and larger diameter coil.  Tesla made all kinds of huge diameter coils.  Even Stan Meyers VIC coils progressed to a larger diameter secondary coil for the water injectors.  When winding a solenoid coil, then that means all the inner windings are producing less power than the outer ones?  Most of Tesla's coils only had one layer.
[attachment=4340]

Then there is the unkowns of the Rodin coils.  The magnetic field is only useful on the inside of the donut.  So does that mean the rest of the coil, the larger diameter area, is only there to harvest from the environment?  

I'm really thinking out loud here. :P

Nate



FaradayEZ

RE: Paul Babcock
« Reply #23, on October 5th, 2013, 07:23 AM »Last edited on October 5th, 2013, 07:39 AM by FaradayEZ
Quote from firepinto on October 5th, 2013, 12:01 AM
I'm thinking since Babcock says it's the length of the wire in the coils that increases power, perhaps diameter of the coil plays a role too.  Currently most people worry about how many turns a coil has.  Well if the coil is a small diameter and longer, I'm thinking it won't produce the same as a shorter and larger diameter coil.  Tesla made all kinds of huge diameter coils.  Even Stan Meyers VIC coils progressed to a larger diameter secondary coil for the water injectors.  When winding a solenoid coil, then that means all the inner windings are producing less power than the outer ones?  Most of Tesla's coils only had one layer.


Then there is the unkowns of the Rodin coils.  The magnetic field is only useful on the inside of the donut.  So does that mean the rest of the coil, the larger diameter area, is only there to harvest from the environment?  

I'm really thinking out loud here. :P

Nate
I was thinking when thinking about your pulse motor entry, that you should take a look at what zero fossil  showed in a video about coils that look like a dome, a cup with a hole in the bottom.

He finds a difference in power and induction in such coils.



(also check the next one, cause this one he made some mistakes)