# Rotary Converters



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Hello all,

One of the reasons I ran the experiment and started this thread was because of a couple of over unity nut-jobs who posted on this board a couple weeks ago. Those guys were sampojo and midaztouch. All of their posting is confined to our special place (Free Energy Sticky) starting at post #927 and dragging on for like 30 pages. 

They keep harping on their newly discovered meaning to Tesla's Patent 390414 and the 2 commutator motor. I looked over that patent and see that it is actually for the rotary converter. I explain this to them in my post #996. They either don't believe me or it flies over their heads. 

Both of them claim over-unity with the rotary converter. Here is such an excerpt: 


major said:


> midaztouch said:
> 
> 
> > When you use the second brush as an generator output, it charges a battery supply/caps bank.
> ...


I think it obvious. But I thought I would test and record some actual data to show that there will be no gain made using a generator output to charge a battery which is powering the motor driving that generator. When the output was used to charge the battery, its drawn power increased from 116.5W to 272.2W. Result was an additional 155.7W *wasted*. That would be less range, not extended.

I happened to have the Redi Line converter on-hand for emergency use. I bought the thing used off eBay like 15 years ago. It's come in handy on several occasions over the years to run sump pumps and the like. I hadn't used it for the past 5 or 6 years, so I wanted to dust it off, so to speak. All the batteries, instruments and stuff for the test I have because that is the kind of stuff I do. And on top of that, I've always had a soft spot for rotary converters because I worked on them early in my career. So, wth, I ran some tests. And I'll probably post up some additional comments.

Thanks,

major


----------



## dedlast (Aug 17, 2013)

major said:


> Result was an additional 155.7W *wasted*. That would be less range, not extended.


I almost hate to crawl out from under my rock for something like this but I just couldn't resist.

Obviously, Major, the rotary convertor you were testing wasn't efficient enough. Had you used _their_ design, it would have worked better than they claimed. (And for those of you who don't get it, that was, indeed, heavy sarcasm.)

All that aside, it was interesting to see the numbers in black and white, so to speak.

B


----------



## GerhardRP (Nov 17, 2009)

Thanks for a great experiment well explained. This is a great model for the way that any over unity scheme must be tested.
Gerhard


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Major, thanks from me too. Just to play devil's advocate, can you say that was representative of the design those guys have been talking about? I wouldn't say it was, the operation maybe but the motor generator not. Do you have access to the 1600w motor to test by any chance? Thanks again.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

tylerwatts said:


> Major, thanks from me too. Just to play devil's advocate, can you say that was representative of the design those guys have been talking about? I wouldn't say it was, the operation maybe but the motor generator not. Do you have access to the 1600w motor to test by any chance? Thanks again.


Functionally it was equivalent to what those guys have or describe. The only mechanical load I was driving was the fan attached to the shaft for self cooling. At the 4000RPM or so, it was likely about 50W. The results would not have differed significantly had it 4 or 5 times that much mechanical power output. 

Rotary converters are rarely used to supply mechanical power, although they can, and they can also take in mechanical power. Typical application for rotary converters is at a constant speed with no shaft power. Using one for a variable speed propulsion motor is "stupid" in my opinion. 

No. Don't have or know of the whereabouts of a 1600W model. Might check eBay. Seems like it would save those guys a lot of time and trouble to buy one, hey


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Thanks Gerhard. I liked the article you posted previously. http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/Rotary_Converter_Power_Technology It shows what a great technology it is and how it has been used for well over a century. There are many more interesting finds on the subject. Just look.

It continues to amaze me that these people like Midaz and sampojo and the rest of the followers or cult follow their leader on the energetic forum so blindly when there is abundant information existing within easy reach. I mean that armature in post #1, figure #2 shows two commutators, one at each end of the armature core, just like these guys are building. Why do they think they have something novel or new?

Midaz kept harping on the fact his armature had the motor and generator coils isolated. I kept telling him it does not matter. Rotary converters have been made both ways forever. It all depends on the desired input/output relationship. Just like the transformer versus the auto transformer. Either will work. They both get the secondary power from the primary source. The rotary converter is a rotary transformer.









*Figure 1*

The other things I thought worth mentioning are the commutator and armature wiring. You will notice on my Redi Line that there is a commutator at one end for the 24Vdc motor portion and slip rings at the opposite end for the 120Vac portion. Both the AC and DC windings exists in the same core (armature slots) and rotate in the same field (PM stator). 

The windings or coils in the armature core are composed of wires inserted into the slots. These wires are the armature conductors. They are fastened or connected to the commutator or slip rings at strategic points to communicate with the stationary world through brushes as they rotate. The armature rotates in a multipolar field, 2 poles in this case, one North and one South. As each armature conductor rotates in the North-South field, AC is induced in it according to Faraday's Law. So all the armature coils are AC. If AC is needed from that armature, slip rings are used. The frequency of the AC is the mechanical armature speed times the number of pole pairs.

If DC is needed from the armature (in the generator case) or if DC is to be supplied to the armature (in the motor case), then a segmented commutator and brush set are used. In the case of the motor, the commutator acts as a mechanical inverter taking the DC from the source and converting it to AC for the armature coils at the proper frequency because it is affixed to the armature shaft. Conversely, in the case of the generator, the commutator serves as a mechanical rectifier taking the AC from the armature coils and rectifying to DC to the brushes.









*Figure 2. Slip Rings*









*Figure 3. Commutator*

So a bit of basic armature theory. A primary point to take away is that all the armature conductors, coils and windings see AC, Alternating Current and Alternating Voltage. The commutator is what makes DC.

This finally gets me to the point where I can address perhaps the biggest misunderstanding or fraud perpetrated on the likes of sampojo, midaz, and the other followers of the cult. They believe that their scheme of wiring dual commutators overcomes a fallacy or pitfall which has hindered the electric dynamo since shortly after its invention and the development of the multipolar armature. They do away with the continuous armature winding and install individual open circuit coils. They claim that eliminates the need to "discontinue" the current in the armature coils. What a load of BS. The current in the armature coils is not discontinued or disconnected in the normal armature, it is AC. It is Alternating Current. It is just like the current you get when you plug your toaster into the wall socket. 60 or 50 Hz AC. Do we complain about that being discontinued 120 or 100 times a second? No. It is continuous AC. That is what is in the armature coils. No problem.

I'll tell you what is a problem. The open circuit wiring scheme these guys use. There you do have the breaking of the circuit. And the associated arcing. You can see excessive brush arcing in videos of those machines and I saw comment from Imperial test engineer/technician relating to burned comm segments in their prototype.

The other thing they do which is horrid for efficiency is they only utilize the armature coils connected to the comm segments touching brushes. The normal armature winding using the continuous wind utilizes all the coils except for those touching the brushes. So as quote by midaz on his Imperial machine, he uses 8 of the 28 coils for 28%. The normal armature uses 20 of the 28 for 71%. 71% of the coils or armature surface would be fairly close to the magnet arc coverage. 28% would suck big time and cause extra resistive loss and reduction in torque density in the case of a motor. Here is a link to how a normal armature is wound, like the DC portion in the Redi Line although it would have a higher slot and bar count. http://www.tutorsglobe.com/homework...g/double-layer-simplex-lap-winding-71579.aspx 

That is just some of the wrong things I see with those machines and theories from the cult. But enough for now.

major


----------



## hostage (Aug 2, 2007)

@Major, we all greatly appreciate your educational responses and all that you do to support this community! However, you have made a grave error in your experiment! You forgot the flux capacitor, permanent magnets, and cow dung needed to achieve >100% efficency (actually, the cow dung brings it closer to 200% efficiency if used properly...)


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

hostage said:


> @Major, we all greatly appreciate your educational responses and all that you do to support this community! However, you have made a grave error in your experiment! You forgot the flux capacitor, permanent magnets, and cow dung needed to achieve >100% efficency (actually, the cow dung brings it closer to 200% efficiency if used properly...)


I think I did mention BS


----------



## Frank (Dec 6, 2008)

Nice work major..


----------

