Ed Gray Variant by G.M. -- Prototype 1
PM/PEM,M-G

Ed Gray Motor Variant -- Open Source Project
Sponsored by Pure Energy Systems
Permanent Magnet / Pulsed DC Electromagnet Motor - Generator

Status: Project commenced May 26, 2004.  Claim to working OU device by Gary Magratten (not yet rigorously verified).  Plans [were] gradually being uploaded here.  As of Oct. 18, 2006, see http://www.coldelectricity.info/

Warning: high voltage, high current, laser switching

(PES Home)
Pure Energy Systems logo
- Project Home -
- PESWiki feature -

Translate Page

Gary's Site

Latest

email forum
(about)

G.M. (inventor)

Edwin V. Gray
- Bio (1925-1989)
- Patents
 o US 3,890,548
 o US 4,595,975
- Hackenberger
    (technical discussion)
- Articles
- Photos (Gray)

Instructions
- Intro
- Basic Principles
- How it Works
- Bill of Materials
- Circuit
- Assembling
- Templates
- Tips
- Variations
- Cautions
- Issues
- Credits

Replications

Performance Data

Supplemental
- Strategies/Goals
- Store
- Sourcing

Theory (How)
-
e-Avalanche

Legal
- Nonencumbrance

FAQ
Related Sites
Contact


http://tinyurl.com/2j7sr
You are here:
PureEnergySystems.com > Open Sourcing > Ed Gray Motor > PM/PEM,M-G > Plans > Permanent Magnet, Electromagnet Phase Diagram Description

Permanent Magnet, Electromagnet Phase Diagram Description

G. Motor  p. 11

PERMANENT MAGNET, ELECTROMAGNET
PHASE DIAGRAM DESCRIPTION

TRANSITION - The permanent magnet of the rotor is between electromagnets. The momentum of the rotor carries the permanent magnet to the electromagnet.

ATTRACTION - The permanent magnet is close enough to the electromagnet to attract the iron core of the electromagnet. No power is supplied to the electromagnet. The torque is supplied by the magnetic flux of the permanent magnet.

NEUTRAL - Brief alignment of the permanent magnet and electromagnet center.

REPULSION - When the permanent magnet center is slightly past the electromagnet center, a pulse of power fires through the electromagnet causing the like poles of the permanent magnet and electromagnet to repell each other.

BACK EMF - The permanent magnet is well past the electromagnet. The initial pulse of power creates a magnetic field. Upon the end of the power pulse, the electromagnetic field collapses creating a useful voltage which may be employed to recharge a secondary battery.

TRANSITION - The cycle is then repeated with each alignment of the permanent magnets and electromagnets .

Power is consumed only during the repulsion phase. Here, a short duration, high current , high voltage pulse at the optimum time provides torque to the rotor. An equal amount of torque is provided by the attraction phase where the magnetic flux of the permanent magnets do the work. This greatly increases the efficiency of the motor.


Comments by G.M.:
Est. COP 2.5; Why Simple Design

Edited.

From: [G.M.]
To: Sterling D. Allan
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 3:06 PM
Subject: input vs. output.


Dear Sterling,

The input vs. output of the Gray motor will be clearly defined in the 'Technical Report', with exact figures.

Gray's circuit is high voltage and dangerous, as I learned from replicating the circuit. The test car was getting about 300 miles to one charge of a set of twelve-volt batteries. This will all be clear with the Report. After you have studied the report we can discuss the exact numbers as tested at UCLA. My PM/PEM,M-G should have a COP (coefficient of power of about 2.5) .

The magnetic flux of the permanent magnets should be entered into the input calculations as the permanent magnets are doing work. The attraction phase is one half the power output and is provided by the permanent magnets' attraction to the iron core of the electromagnet only (no electrical power consumed) The repulsion phase, the other half of the power output, is one half permanent magnet repulsion and one half electromagnet repulsion by power pulse.

Electrical power magnetic flux input 1/4, permanent magnet power magnetic flux input 3/4 , power output total of 1. Input electrical power is one quarter the total output power. The electromagnet and permanent magnet are of equal strength, that is provide equal magnetic flux, one from electron spin and one from electrical current.

The permanent magnets do 3/4 of the (input) work. A theoretical COP of 3 minus friction losses [yields] an estimated 2.5.

The PM/PEM is designed to recharge it's own batteries and provide generated electrical power in excess of what it needs to run itself. Thus, you have a generator that requires no fuel. Simple reconstruction of PM/PEM,M-G will make the input/output very clear. This is why I have simplified the motor-generator a proof of concept is inexpensive and obvious (seeing is believing).

I don't claim over-unity because work had to be performed to manufacture the high powered magnets. We are utilizing the magnetic field that is generated by the permanent magnets which is a result of perpetual electron spin to do work.  I prefer the word "highly efficient".

The motor will work with low voltage and high voltage circuits.

Electromagnet strength is a product of current time turns.

[COP] is greatly increased by the high voltage circuit but it can not be safely constructed by untrained professionals.

In many parts of the world, tools and resources are limited.

Therefore a very simple version is highly desirable for charging battery banks but not for running a car. Gray's motor with the high voltage circuit is more applicable to electric vehicles.

A less powerful generator that would charge a battery bank would be within the technical and financial means of third world countries.

Respectfully,

GM.

* * * *

Feedback

COP Assumptions Need Data to Support

[data is pending]

Edited.

From: ken rauen
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [pes_e-admin] input vs. output -- COP ~2.5
 
The reported "COP" of 2.5:1 is speculation, not measurement.   It is assumed, not measured or scientifically explained in detail, that the repulsion phase has balanced energy contributions.  The disclaimer of OU because of the magnetization energy of manufacture is not included is [an unsound explanation].  If such energy input were a true energy input, the magnets would be demagnetized quickly and substantially, which they are most certainly not. 

COP normally means "coefficient of performance," not power.
 
Ken Rauen
[PES, Science Advisor]

See also

 

Page posted by SDA, May 31, 2004
Last updated June 01, 2004

Google


PureEnergySystems.com
Search WWW
ADVISORY: With any technology, you take a high risk to invest significant time or money unless (1) independent testing has thoroughly corroborated the technology, (2) the group involved has intellectual rights to the technology, and (3) the group has the ability to make a success of the endeavor.

Battery Reconditioning -- Start Your Own Niche Business

Google Optimization
Why honesty is the best policy.

News (RSS) Open Sourcing Privacy Statement About Contact

PESWiki Departments:
Latest Directory Congress Top 100 Open Sourcing PowerPedia

www.pureenergysystems.com
PES Network, Inc.
Copyright 2003 - 2006