John Searl has demonstrated this invention and has some scientists perplexed on how it works. A portable power source that is free energy will be sold in 2008. He states that the big energy companies have tried to stop him. Searl has known of this free energy since 1947 or before. It looks like it really works. If it really does work, good bye OPEC and greenhouse gases. If this is true, why have governments not investigated this? Is it to save big oil? From our recent experience of the US government and its lies I have no doubt big oil and energy companies have a hand in trying to discredit this amazing technology that is free and non polluting. http://www.opensourceenergy.org/_layouts/a...yer2.asp?vID=24 /// http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-O7WNvKSvY...ted&search= This was forwarded to me by a very good friend. Watch the youtube vid first to see how it works. He calls it SEG.

interesting. free is a nasty word to the greedy however . sad.

So... the diplomat from 1052AD made magnets?

You are absolutely right, it seems what is best for the people is not best for the corporation. I think the term we the people has gotten a bit sidetracked since corporate greed really runs our government. We should change our national name to "The United States of America Inc."

So wheres this technology gone ?
If the lecture was filmed in 1994, & the technology was around in the 1960s, whats happened since then ?

Here is his web site. http://www.searlsolution.com/

Thanks for the link, Essene.
Havent had chance to read it yet so ive bookmarked it.
I"m glad things are on-going.

This is good, although the true giant in energy for all would be Tesla, too bad he's gone and can't provide it for us now

Yup. Fact is, much of Tesla's stuff is still unknown or unused. But don't forget Keeley and others.
Searle's stuff seems to be based on Faraday. The reasons for the unique qualities of the Faraday wheel and the subsequent developments of it, such as Tesla's, is still not quite explained (or at least I've yet to come across an adequate explanation). Tesla himself played with his own modifications of the wheel and was at a loss to explain why there is no back force on it. On the web there are some videos of very simple motors of the type, made with a battery, a wire, a drywall screw, and a button magnet. The explanations are oriented towards spin, effectively the same as Searle's stuff. Tesla wrote that his version, which consisted of two disks coupled with a conductive belt, would lift 900 lb using a 12" pulley, which is quite a lot of torque. But he abandoned it, primarily because his interest was in high voltage/high frequency (he also admonished readers that this motor/generator needed more research).
Strikes me that since General Atomics is using such a device, we might consider it as an alternative to conventional motors, and save energy there; it's just that our electrical philosophy needs to change some.

I did not know Tesla had a similar idea. I have studied mostly the work he did with scalar waves. I have a few good links on that if you want them. If you could please send some links on Tesla's work on his "wheel design" I would greatly appreciate it. As for Searls work on his design, I know of a material that may have some superconducting aspects to it that is very easy to produce and inexpensive and maybe could increase some aspects of Searls design as evidently once the invention increases in speed the temperature drops as is stated in the information I have read about it. The superconductor I know of may have room temperature superconductivity and with temperature changes (high vs low) it may do some amazing things. It is very controversial on what this material can do and I know for a fact it has some beneficial effects but I have not witnessed the superconductivity in person but I have seen a video of its possible superconductivity.

Allow me to look around in my library. I am fairly sure that Searle's original experiments (prior to his higher education) were based on the wheel, and turning the generated power back into the thing. The description (by Searle) was that at a certain rpm in the early experiments, the wheel disconnected from the power source and took off. Supposedly this has been duplicated numerous times, although I cannot verify this, it is anecdotal.
As to Tesla's version(s), I'll look up whether he patented. I don't recall that being the case. There are few references to it on the web; mine comes from a compilation of Tesla's experiments and papers, and there's not a lot in there. Tesla's commentary included his puzzlement (wow!!!) on why there seems to be no reverse torques exhibited, entirely unlike all the current motors and generators. I'm in the process of construction of one of these things to find out if what's written is real or not. One must remember that "high frequencies" and "high speeds" in Tesla's time were substantially lower than now, except for the spark gap stuff (which is square wave) that contained the frequencies he loved so much.

By a phone company. Just thought I would send its pretty intersting on theory, Enjoy. http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/thenewphysics.html III. UNTESTABILITY OF THE FIRST KIND

We are now in a position to discuss the testability of the new physics, which is broadly defined here as the standard paradigm of particle physics,3 the standard paradigm of cosmology and recent variations on these themes: A comprehensive analysis of the testability of these paradigms could fill several books and so only a representative sampling of major testing problems associated with the new physics will be presented here. Proponents of the new physics will no doubt feel that the present discussion does not include positive support for these theories and therefore leaves the reader with too negative an impression. However, countless technical, general, and popular discussions of the new physics have tended to be so dogmatic and optimistic that a small dose of antidote could not hurt and may be very helpful. If the "believers" repeatedly claim the right to present very idealized overviews of the new physics, then they are obligated to grant "skeptics" the chance to present reasoned alternative viewpoints.
(1) Mentioned earlier was the remarkable example of superstring theory, a variation on the standard paradigm of particle physics in which fundamental particles are treated as one-dimensional strings rather than mathematical points. The community of theoretical physicists is very excited about this theory and some regard it as the ultimate unified paradigm of physics: "It is a miracle; it is the theory of the world." 4 However, as attested to by one of the primary spokesmen for the new physics (Steven Weinberg), "there seem to be no decisive tests in sight"1 by which the superstring theory could demonstrate its scientific validity.
(2) The standard paradigm of particle physics has been unable to retrodict successfully the masses of quarks and leptons or the organization of fundamental particles into regular families. The values of more than 20 parameters that are crucial to the paradigm, such as particle masses, the coupling strengths of the forces, and the magnitudes of CP violations, cannot be uniquely derived and therefore are freely adjustable.4-6
(3) The standard model is completely dependent upon the existence of the hypothetical, "Higgs boson," yet none of the variants on the grand unification theme, a cornerstone of the new physics, can predict the mass of this crucial particle or how it interacts with other particles.7 One worries that the next new particle to be found with a mass between a few giga-electron-volts and a tera-electron-volt will be christened the Higgs boson by fiat.
(4) Many theories of the new physics require extra dimensions beyond the four dimensions of space-time with which we are familiar, 5 to 26 dimensions is typical and about 950 dimensions is the latest record. Yet there is no known way to test empirically for the existence of these extra dimensions.8
(5) The hypothesized unification of the four forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak, and strong) is predicted to occur at energies that are now and probably forever inaccessible to empirical testing.3
(6) The standard cosmological paradigm asserts that the key events in the evolution of the universe took place within 10-25 s after the Big Bang. However, even in principle, we cannot obtain direct information on the state of the universe prior to decoupling at about 1013 s after the Big Bang.9
(7) The validity of the most widely accepted cosmological model (Big Bang plus inflation) is completely dependent upon the validity of the standard paradigm of particle physics, but the latter, as we have seen, suffers in many ways from untestability of the first kind.9
(8) Standard cosmological models have never been able to retrodict satisfactorily the existence of galaxies, neither did they predict the recently discovered bulk streaming of large numbers of galaxies, nor did they predict the existence of the enigmatic dark matter that constitutes more than 90% of the mass of the universe.10
It is sometimes stated11 and more often implied that "physics is nearly finished," that we have just about figured everything out. The above examples of inherent untestability, which concern fundamental aspects of the "nearly finished physics,'' tell a different story.
Moreover, examples of effective untestability are more numerous and even more worrisome.

IV. UNTESTABILITY OF THE SECOND KIND

Mm-hmm. Now that link provides an interesting read.
It supports Tesla's statement about (to paraphrase) 'scientists wandering off into equation after equation and arriving at something that bears no resemblance to reality', doesn't it?
Much of the time (being a practically oriented person), I find the theories and concepts of physics, both classical and particle, to be stretching the imagination a bit far. Classical physics, while testable to some degree, provides us with "laws" that don't really seem to be laws but are accepted as such. Within the particle community, as the article states, testability is far from practical, leading one to complain that every time some roadblock appears, a detour is developed, still untestable.
It also leads to statements I find incomprehensible, such as Hawkings testifying that man will invent an equation that explains the universe. This, to me, is tantamount to belief in Thor or Ra or God, as all require a degree of faith.
I guess I got tired of the circumlocutions years ago, and fell back on what I consider to be the real scientific method: if something appears, it exists as it is observed, and there must be some form of explanation for it. What seems to be a standard now is to counter an observation with some mathematical nonsense that states it cannot exist, instead of accepting it as real and attempting to explain it or figuring out the phenomenon. Such is the case with the Faraday wheel, et al, and so with the Searle derivatives.
I've been in many discussions on this forum wherein I've asked the essential question (or a derivative of this question) where is it that used energy goes? Taking a solenoid (a simple model), it is known that an amount of energy is required to A) energize, and hold the solenoid. It is also known that when the solenoid relaxes, a conversion takes place. It seems that the 'physicists' and 'mathematicians' want to avoid that issue, and it all comes down to 'can't get something for nothing', which can be countered with 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed', a tried and true law, as far as we know. But to get any of these to admit that the converted energy can be re-used is impossible.
It is also true that there is some underlying concept that completely escapes us, possibly used by Tesla, Keeley, et al. In some cases, a practical guide to free energy is readily available, if the mind is open enough to read it; in others, the concepts are more esoteric. In the case of the wheel in a more conventional form, it's easy to construct the device and utilize it with current technology; in the more esoteric forms (Searle), it is not so easy, that being said with the caveat that I haven't yet read the posted website, which I will do, given time. I can see (and verify by experiment) power being generated with a wheel, and logically the evolution into the Tesla version; I can see the use of the high current/low voltage utilized by either a similar device or by converting to higher voltage/lower current a standard motor. The conversion itself is easy for an electronics/power engineer, and is done daily. What appears to be the stumbling block is that the currents supplied can be in thousands of amps, while the voltage is a couple of volts: the question is, Do we care? I think not: power is power, and the conversion thereof is not difficult.
It seems quite logical to me that if a generator exhibits a zero-torque characteristic as described by Tesla and Searle or Ecklin, then it should be explored to practical use and utilized, but these things generally are not. This leads to two inescapable conclusions: First, physicists are in a very deep rut; Second, some power is hindering the utilization of these things. Leaving Searle out (as I don't know his devices), the wheel can be tested and does what is claimed; Ecklin's generator also does as Ecklin claims, and can be made much more efficient than his patents show.
We don't need big oil. And we don't need the pollution that comes with it.
Edit: that funny little face in the middle just got put there. That was supposed to be a B paren. Oh well.

As a layman looking in the box the scientists have built around them selves in mathematical conundrum's, I believe as did Tesla they are missing the point of experimentation then try to write the math to explain it (if they can). Its like to me putting the cart before the horse so to speak. It seems if you cant do the math it "cant" be possible. Here is a video on a room temperature superconductor. http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/JumpingAu.wmv

Money, because they loose money, and the goverment hates loosing money.

There is a long history of economic and legal suppression of energy alternatives. Dates way back beyond Tesla, and continues to this day.

Very interesting thread Essene...thanks for posting the links.

There are other technologies. If you are interested, say so.

Your very welcome, I just hope his idea does work.

Please forward any info on exotic energy would be great, thanks!!!

One is the Ecklin generator, but as patented it must be modified to be an h-field completion machine rather than a deflection machine.

A second is the Gray motor, which people have been trying to figure out for years, with few even close. A more mundane version is buildable by modifying a standard switched reluctance motor to use similar principles, although this seems to escape the people who study the motor. An engineer looking at the thing should be able to come up with a similar device, more efficient, and more practical, by modifying the SR drives; there are papers written by engineers at Texas Instruments which lend themselves to such modifications. I've built, oh, seven or eight of the things, and worst case recovery was 64%. Best was 89%. What that means is that while the motors were making mechanical power (with 100 watts in) of 90 watts (measured with a torque meter), the recovered electrical energy available for re-use was a minimum of 64 watts and a maximum of 89 watts. Adding the two, worst case was 90+64 = 154, or in efficiency 154 / 100 = 154% efficient. Now, there are people who are going to attack me on this, and I really don't care. The fact is that I've built several of these things, the electronics being my own design, and all have worked, and all have given me both mechanical return and electrical return. They are NOT complex machines, nor are they machines that somehow manufacture energy from nothing: they are machines that convert electrical force into magnetic force and then into mechanical force; when that is accomplished, the energy used to make the magnetic fields is recovered, less the electrical and reluctance losses.

A third is a thing called the electric W a n k e l ( did that because this site doesn't like that word, sexual connotations, I guess), a magnetic motor operating on repulsion principles, where the stator is a conch curved continuous ferrite magnet with one pole facing the rotor, while the rotor is three magnets with like poles facing the stator. The driving device is an electromagnet that takes up the same size as one of the rotor magnets; this driver is pulsed to force the rotor magnets into the stator field. The Japanese developed this from an American patent, and their machine (experimental) developed 45 horsepower. If this device were coupled with the drive electronics of the previously mentioned switched reluctance motor, you'd have a machine that could easily pull a car or truck of nearly any size, at nearly any speed, and never use fuel at all. Period.

I really hate to say this, but virtually infinite energy is available, and all we really need is a little innovation, some great big balls (you DO have to buck big oil, you know), and some common sense. We also (or some of us, at least) need to review the "laws" of physics, and place a different perspective on same. For instance, the one law that seems non-convertible is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If all the physicists would simply look at that law, and understand it, then the second machine above becomes self-evident, at least to an engineer such as myself.
And yes, I am a little annoyed with our so-called 'scientists' for putting us in the position in which we live. b******* all, them and the oil companies and the government.

Thanks for the post, I know of a W AN K LE engine (or is it henkle?). Its a rotary type engine that was in the Mazda cars. It was a triangular type rotor that was very powerful despite its displacement size. I also have an very good friend who retired from T I, he was in sales and was one of the top guys (he was a tech before he was in sales). You and he may know each other or have friends of friends who may know you two. In fact he is one of the first I told about M-State material and can easily make it. One of the possible effects of this material is room temp superconductivity. Since you are an engineer, you should be able to produce it your self. I can send here some info on it. Its public knowledge, well its on the net anyway lol. Open source is the only way to further any studies, it works best when all share obviously. I am not a scientist nor is my friend but we are able to grasp the concepts and extrapolate from it. I am more into theory and he is more into hardware. Experimentation is fun, I wish I had the time to do it my self.

Free energy will never be realized in our liftime. Not as long as the government is profiting from all the current sorces of energy! Yes it probably already exists but could you imagine how that would hurt the economy? Just like electric cars. Why do ya think they were taken off the market??

I'll look at that, although superconductivity is not necessary for the mentioned machines.

The electric version of the engine designed by Felix Wa nkel is sort of a similar concept, although I don't know why the Japanese called it that. Most of the mechanical energy generated comes from the permanent magnets on the rotor and stator, with the small push past rest from the electromagnet. There is a paper that was written on this thing, which I either downloaded or saved the link somewhere. I'll see if I can find it. I've been unable to find any diagrams of it on the web. I first saw it in Popular Science sometime in the 1980s, and somewhere I have a reprint of the patent upon which it is based (so-called "prior art").

For anyone who cares, if you google Faraday wheel, there are a few interesting videos floating around about terribly simple motors of the Faraday type. Tesla's experiments with the thing imply that there is no reverse torque or back emf, which would indicate that these devices could be a viable path to greater efficiency, and General Atomics is building (or is going to be building) large versions for the USN for ships. Which tells me that these are operating motors.

I'll differ slightly. It will be, and is, being realized on small scale installations. Those are constructed by individuals for their own use. On a large scale, you are correct. As with the electric car, the plain fact is that if properly designed, there is little maintenance and substantially higher efficiency than either gas or diesel. However, another fact is that if you drive an electric car, you don't pay gas taxes, and the gov doesn't think that's very nice.

Here is picture of a Tesla coil and a pyramid and a little information on it. The picture shows what looks like a double helix type of energy emission radiating from the top of the pyramid. http://www.keelynet.com/unclass/hardy1.htm

Stan Meyer came out with a car that ran on water. When he didn't take the bribes, they poisoned him and the invention never came out. This guy will probably be bought out.

Ever wonder what the government spends on energy? How much the government spends to fuel up the space shuttle for a single mission? How much it costs the military to fuel up all those heavily armed vehicles? The government would have much to gain from free energy.

Corporations too. Only a few corporations provide energy, while the rest consume it. Corporation would love to adopt anything that saves enormous costs. That's why open source has become so popular for instance, despite Microsoft's (one of the wealthiest companies) attempts to kill it which have been mostly ineffective.

This is why I don't buy 'free energy suppression' theories. Free energy would only hurt relatively few companies and benefit everyone else. There would still be money to be made from free energy because technology and infrastructure is needed to harness and distribute it. (example: talk is cheap, yet the phone companies make lots of money from it)

Government doesn't care how much of your money they spend. After all, government is not required to make a profit; all that's needed is to raise your taxes. Happens all the time.
Corporations. Many corporations do adopt energy saving devices and procedures. Let's assume, for a moment, that a company uses (being simplistic) 100 kW service. If that company could replace the supplier with a generator which would amortize over 1 year, for instance, and then be cost free except for maintenance, how many companies in the position would do so? Most, if not all. Now, look at the effect: when this word gets out (about like wildfire, wouldn't you say?), everyone concludes that this would be an economically good thing to do. If we assume that this generator can be made in smaller versions, say 20 kW, then it is suitable for house operation, right? So houses do the same thing. Now, what happens to the energy supplier, this multi-billion dollar company? It is effectively down the tubes.
Using Microsoft doesn't apply. So long as operating systems are coded, there will be alternatives; it just happens that Linux et al are among those alternatives, and there are plenty of software people in the world willing to dedicate their work to those alternatives. Energy is different: some means must be found to generate free energy at a reasonable cost and at user locations. This being the case, and with current beliefs in mainstream, it becomes very difficult to be accepted as viable if such a device were invented.
Since government is one faction controlling dissemination of such devices, agencies become regulatory entities. Take a for instance: the Gray motor was patented, and Gray attempted to publicize and disseminate his invention (and this motor has been accepted as operational); he was squashed by legal maneuvering, and when the Japanese showed interest, Gray began negotiations with them. The export of the technology was also squashed by the SEC, this agency citing national security to prevent the export. This is pure hogwash, no national security involved.
It is, in fact, advantageous to energy companies, whose income is trillions of dollars per annum, to perpetuate the idea that free energy is costly, requires huge spaces, et cetera and so forth. This discourages both individuals and companies from attempting to use it except through the suppliers. Items such as windmills, it is claimed, require x amount of wind and large installations to be effective; this is patently absurd, since localized installations have been used for centuries, the technology exists and has been well proven, yet the myth continues, with help.
Solar energy is likewise. The myth is that it is necessary to install large areas of solar cells, for instance, to make enough power for your house. Yet the science itself states that in southern latitudes, the average power of sunlight is 385 watts/sq yard, easily enough to power a reasonably efficient house. Each time new more efficient solar cells are claimed, they somehow never make it to market. Why? (This same is true for batteries, by the way.) Also true for solar is that this power can be used in other ways; the University of Florida developed a means of using the heat from reflectors to provide house power. This was publicized once, then quietly disappeared. The means, by the way, uses common materials, and the technology is also quite common.
Have you ever wondered how it is that electrical energy costs keep rising? Well, in many areas the plants use combustible products. However, here in the northwest, and in other places such as NYC, power is hydroelectric. The dams were built a century ago, many of them, and construction costs have long since been recovered. Yet the price of electricity continues to rise. Consider Spokane. There is no less water. There are no new dams being built. There is no cost to place new pollution controls, since there is none. Enough water flows in the Spokane river to supply a city ten times the size, most of the water flows over the dam intentionally, and only a small volume is diverted through the generation plant. The only costs involved are maintenance (negligible; once every fifty years, replace a turbine, otherwise keep the bearings lubricated). New installations for the power are paid for by the purchaser. Someone is raking in the dough, aren't they?
Even if we ignore the other free energy devices, the ones the mainstreamers claim cannot be, there is still left a conspiracy to keep everyone dependent on plant generated power. Surely you can see that. It's not a quantum leap to apply the same architecture to more esoteric devices.

Searl, Has never published in a peer-reviewed journal, His machine has never been subject to independent verification (by his rules). He will only allow the government or whatever independent verification agency access to his exact blueprints if they purchase it. No working Searl machine exist today, Searl was the only one who had ever seen the machine working and said that the first prototype was lost during testing. Searl holds no degrees in physics or relevant fields. He had an apprenticeship as an electrician. Apparently a private company named DISC is working under the guidance of Searl in building a new machine. The details of this haven't not been made available.

Numerous others have attempted to replicate his work, but failed in some aspect or another. Namely, any claim to have replicated his work has occurred in in low credential labs, has not been replicated, and not published any manner of peer-reviewed journal.

I hold a Ph.D. in physics as well as 2 master's degrees. The idea of the SEG (Searl Effect Generator) is very romantic, but b/c of lack of verifiable scientific evidence and the blatant violation of some pretty standard laws of physics the SEG is only a curiosity.

Make of it as you will, As a scientist I am very skeptical. It has been my experience that the best way to be famous or remembered is to make a wild claim and make it in the media (that way it can slide under the radar of peer review). Furthermore, all science should be objective and skeptical, so when any scientist spouts off some world revolutionizing claim, but will not it be verified independently for over half a century, most mainstream scientist will conclude it is a junk science claim.

I'm with you there. When I first read of Searle's work many years ago, there were questions in my mind. I didn't have the time then, being in the middle of Silicon Valley in the '80s, the big time of tech advancements, and now (retired) don't think I want to spend time with it either. While I don't know enough about Searle's patents, and really don't care to, some claims are pretty far out. I prefer to spend my time with the things I know can be done, and play with things I'm not certain can be done, with the caveat that enough work has been accomplished (either my own work or that of others that makes sense) to waste time on the projects.
You and I might butt heads from time to time, as I'm not entirely convinced that all the 'laws' are accurate: some are, some aren't, but I won't get into that. However, through reasonable technology, I am absolutely certain that much of the energy we use, primarily fixed installation, can be that free energy, as in solar, tidal, wind and hydro.

Tesla tried to give us his free energy, But the Power mongers of buisness and government shut him down! And they will keep pushing out and shuting up anyone else who trys to give us clean, cheap or free anything! Even if it means destroying our planet and everything on it!

My advice: study the man, study his writings (some are available in reprint form), study his addresses to the various societies where he spoke (also some available in reprint form).
You'll find, if you understand his stuff, that much of it is totally impractical from our current standpoint. However, put in context, those same things that seem impractical are actually astounding discoveries, many of which could be of great use in our current situation, provided they are properly applied.
Tesla was one of many. There are dozens of patents on energy machines over the last two or three centuries. Some are obvious frauds, but others are quite applicable.
Let's exemplify. Tesla examined the Faraday wheel, and designed his own version. The properties he described were not suitable for his purposes, and he abandoned further research. However, his statement about his version (and other similar versions) was that the device exhibited properties that should be researched, mainly because those properties were not understood at the time; those properties still aren't understood, only half-baked theories exist. Now, then, taking Tesla's version of a homopolar, the device defeats the major problems with such devices by modifying the brush setup to the central shaft instead of the periphery. Immediately, the device becomes more useful. However, the generated voltage is very low while the current is very high. This must be altered such that we have a happy medium; to date, I know of no attempts to do so, though the technology to accomplish this has been extant for several decades in transistors, and could have been done mechanically prior to high power solid devices. A further technique would be to employ Tesla's inductor, wound in a bifilar fashion on a plane. Many have been befuddled by this thing, but its explanation is really quite simple when one thinks about how it might work. I'll leave that explanation for another time.
If Tesla's homopolar works as he describes it (and there is no reason to think it won't, since most everything he did was by experiment) then it is quite possible that this device could be a general substitute for power generation and mechanical conversion, far more efficient than what is used at this time. Keep in mind, now, that homopolar motors are being developed for military ships, and one proof of concept has been built that delivers 400 hp, by General Atomics. So this is no longer in the realm of speculation.

As a layman in this field it is always a pleasure to get new views on the subject of energy production using magnetic fields. As for Searls idea, yes it has not been peer reviewed but it does not mean it wont work. It could be the reason why is that most scientists would scoff at the idea and toss him out on his bum. Evidently Tesla and Einstein had a bit of spat back in the day so it is not abnormal for scientists to bicker on what can be done and what cant be done according to math (software) and hardware. The homopolar subject is indeed a very interesting idea that evidently works. Here is a quote on this subject using a superconductor in conjunction with the homopolar motor and I also found something that the educated posters on this subject may already know regarding superconductors, but just in case, I will post it also.
Superconducting brushless homopolar motor with multiple winding rotor
Document Type and Number:
United States Patent 5144179
Link to this page:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5144179.html
Abstract:
A brushless homopolar dynamoelectric machine motor (1) has a rotor (3) with a least one winding (5) having multiple turns. The rotor is inductively charged using a flux pump or a rectifier. Solenoid pairs (15a, 15b, 17a, 17b) comprise field windings for the motor and compensate for winding and field losses. The motor is an axisymmetric motor in which superconductive materials are used. . //// Here is the other info I found/////Now, a new theory addresses the problem of cuprate superconductivity by suggesting that the existence of the curious pseudogap behavior can be explained by the same physics that makes cuprates Mott insulators. Tudor Stanescu (Rutgers Univ) and Philip Phillips (Univ Illinois) argue that "Mottness," involving the collective interaction among many electrons, is still present even when some of the hotel rooms are empty, to use the hotel analogy. They propose that the pseudogap arises simply because transport of electrons in a doped Mott insulator will still involve two electrons temporarily occupying the same site (the same room in the hotel analogy). Such events remind the doped state of its Mottness and this produces a pseudogap. They argue that such an effect disappears when roughly 25% of the hotel rooms are vacant. At such an occupancy rate, an electron can move, on average, throughout a layer without the inhospitability of Mottness. (Tudor Stanescu and Philip Phillips, Physical Review Letters, 4 July 2003; contact Philip Phillips, 217-244-2003). http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/645-2.html And also optical ferris wheel info. OPTICAL FERRIS WHEEL
(May 2007) The overlap of two laser beams creates both constructive and destructive interference. For Laguerre-Gaussian modes, the resulting patterns appear as a circular array of petals. We have now shown that it the beams are chosen correctly, the destructive interference forms a circular array of dark holes, ideal for trapping atoms at very low temperatures. Shifting the frequency between the beam causes the pattern to rotate, creating what we call an Optical Ferris Wheel.
http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/Optics/projects/AM/