Tesla said this years before I discovered it/ a magnet rotor can be continually propelled in a circle without a commutator change of polarity of the field coils! However I did use commutator change of polarity in those field coils, because those field coils had such a huge inductance. This was also not the advanced commutator design Doc made according to my design , this was a conventional commutator design where the electrodes themselves do not rotate, but a provision for advancing or retarding the placement of those commutator electrodes was incorporated. If I tried to make it work without polarity change, the rotation was very weak, again because of the large time constant involved with these large coils. It is not the design here that is important; it is the principle that matters.
Magnetics is a very touchy matter: a design that works on paper may not work in reality, but in this case it does work in reality because of the nature of air core magnetic fields, and the volume in space they occupy. In attempting to replicate this on a smaller scale with NIB magnets, the magnetic laws did not seem to comply in miniature, but there are orther reasons why the principle was not reproduced in miniature. It has to do with the tight curvature of NIB magnetic fields; even though air core field coils were tried with that example. This is merely an issue of semantics: can a magnet be propelled continually in a circle without a reversal of magnetic field polarity of the field coils? Yes it can but when the magnet rotates in one half of the circle 4 field coils are used, but for the second half of the circle only two of the four field coils remain turned on. In place of the polarity change of the field coils; magnetic compression on the same polarity is used. If you take a magnetic rotor and put two air core field coils on opposite sides of that rotor you have two options. You can take the field coils and use the poles of the field coils to cause that magnet rotor to rotate. This is the conventional approach. One commonly assumes that the "poles" of those field coils are the position of maximum torque action upon this magnet rotor. This opinion is verified by experimentation; whereby if we do the opposite thing; as is used in the Newman motor; and instead put the magnet rotor on the sides of the field coils; the torque then is quite noticably weaker. This also makes sense; now the poles of each field and magnet rotor are more widely separated, and again the experimentation shows this same result. So what gives here and whats the importance? Well I discovered something purely by accident. I ended up using both kinds of magnetic issues in harmony: but I found out that this supposed harmony is no harmony at all! I was trying to copy what Newman was doing by using the side coil action in four quadrants, BUT I was forced into modifying that design into something Newman overlooked. I wanted to make 4 field coils all working from the side coil action as he does in his models. Circumstance held however that when I placed all four coils sideways to the magnetic rotor; things did not fit together well at all. My field coils were too long compared to the length of the fifty lb magnetic field rotor, and the field rotor barely even came into vicinity of the side coil action that exploits this weak torque to begin with. I said Eff everything I'm just going to change the whole field coil design; and instead of four side coil actions I'm going to try making two of the field coils according to polar design and leave the other two coils on weak side torque design, so that everything fits tightly together. Then everything fit together quite nicely and the magnet rotor could then rotate nicely in spatial vicitnity of those four field coils. Things wouldnt fit together, so I took a leap of common sense to make it right. Thank GOD I didnt use 4 polar coils; or I wouldnt have discovered anything at all; I would have merely copied everyone before me. The next leap of logic became history. After this was done together simultaneously nothing worked correctly according to ordinary magnetic laws. I could apply the magnetic laws of the polar coils and they worked correctly on the magnetic rotor. I could apply the magnetic laws of the side coils and they worked correctly on the magnetic rotor. INDIVIDUALLY EACH SYSTEM WORKS ACCORDING TO EXPECTATIONS; BUT TOGETHER THEY DO NOT! This is the principle of magnetic compression; not widely known and later exploited in schemes of resonance. WE SUPPOSE BY COMMON SENSE THAT IF BOTH SYSTEMS WILL MAKE A CLOCKWISE TORQUE ON THE MAGNET ROTOR INDIVIDUALLY; IF WE TURN ON BOTH SYSTEMS TO ACT SIMULTANEOUSLY; THE TORQUES WILL ADD TOGETHER VECTORIALLY, AND A GREATER TORQUE SHOULD OCCUR. In reality those vectors do not add: they instead subtract! In the place of the supposed addition of forces we find a magnetic dead spot. So we are forced to try the reverse of common sense just to see what will occur when the polarity of one of these magnetic forces is reversed where a truly amazing thing is found. THE TORQUE IS NOW STRONGEST at was formerly the position of weakest torque. The side coil action is now actually stronger then the former pole action, which is the very basis of motor design! Everything has become topsy turvy according to common sense thinking; whereby to explain it; one can only say that the magnetic vectors subtract instead of adding; but the enormous ramifications of this statement may completely escape the outside world as to what that statement actually means! So just looking at the diagram I supplied may initially mean nothing without this background information. From there it should not take a leap of logic to understand how and why a magnet can rotate continually in a circle without a polarity reversal of the field coils. Instead of a polarity reversal two of the field coils are merely shut off, and then the conventional vector magnetic laws everyone is accustomed to then takes place. So back to the vision: the judge says shut up: YOU ARE IN CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT: AND YOU SHALL BE FINED. THE LARGE EYES LOOK DOWN UPON ME; WHAT SHALL YOU DO WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE HARVICH? WELL THAT IS A DEEP SUBJECT; DEEP AS A WELL. I WILL DRAW A DIAGRAM TO SHOW OTHERS, AND LET THEM DECIDE WHAT IS WHAT. THIS IS ALREADY 15 YEARS OLD AS A DISCOVERY; YET THE REST OF THE WORLD DOES NOT YET EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT DIAGRAM MEANS. BUT I HAVE EXPLAINED IT ONCE AGAIN; SO THAT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR NOW, so I feel I have satisfied those eyes looking down upon me. Sincerely repetitive... Harvey D Norris Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
