For the historical background on Tesla's work, we are entirely indebted to Gerry Vassilato's classic text Secrets of Cold War Technology: Project HAARP and Beyond. The following is some choice quotes from this text.

Through successive experimental arrangements, Tesla discovered several facts concerning the production of his effect.  First, the cause was undoubtedly found in the abruptness of charging. It was in the switch closure, the very instant of "closure and break", which thrust the effect out into space. The effect was definitely related to time, impulse time. Second, Tesla found that it was imperative that the charging process occurred in a single impulse. No reversal of current was permissible, else the effect would not manifest. In this, Tesla made succinct remarks describing the role of capacity in the spark-radiative circuit. He found that the effect was powerfully strengthened by placing a capacitor between the disrupter and the dynamo. While providing a tremendous power to the effect, the dielectric of the capacitor also served to protect the dynamo windings. Finally, the effect could also be greatly intensified to new and more powerful levels by raising the voltage, quickening the switch "make-break" rate, and shortening the actual time of switch closure.

Not yet sure of the process at work in this phenomenon, Tesla sought the empirical understanding required for its amplification and utilization. He had already realized the significance of this unexpected effect. The idea of bringing this strange and wondrous new phenomenon to its full potential already suggested drilling new possibilities in his mind. He completely abandoned research and development of alternating current systems after this event intimating that a new technology was about to unfold.

 Thus far, Tesla employed rotating contact switches to produce his unidirectional impulses. When these mechanical impulse systems failed to achieve the greatest possible effects, Tesla sought a more "automatic" and powerful means. He found this "automatic switch" in special electrical arc dischargers. The high voltage output of a DC generator was applied to twin conductors through his new arc mechanism, a very powerful permanent magnet sitting crosswise to the discharge path. The discharge arc was automatically and continually "blown out" by this magnetic field.

Imperative toward obtaining the desired rare effect, the capacitor and its connected wire lines had to be so chosen as to receive and discharge the acquired electrostatic charge in unidirectional staccato fashion. The true Tesla circuit very much resembles a pulse jet, where no back pressure ever stops the onrushing flow. Electrostatic charge rises to a maximum, and is discharged much more quickly. The constant application of high voltage dynamo pressure to the circuit insures that continual successions of "charge-rapid discharge' are obtained. It is then and only then that the Tesla Effect is observed. Pulses literally flow through the apparatus from the dynamo. The capacitor, disrupter, and its attached wire lines, behave as the flutter valve.

Tesla found that impulse duration alone defined the effect of each succinct spectrum. These effects were completely distinctive, endowed with strange additional qualities never purely experienced in Nature. Moreover, Tesla observed distinct color changes in the discharge space when each impulse range had been reached or crossed. Never before seen discharge colorations did not remain a mystery for long. Trains of impulses, each exceeding 0.1 millisecond duration, produced pain and mechanical pressures. In this radiant field, objects visibly vibrated and even moved as the force field drove them along. Thin wires, exposed to sudden bursts of the radiant field, exploded into vapor. Pain and physical movements ceased when impulses of 100 microseconds or less were produced. These latter features suggested weapon systems of frightful potentials.

Transformer

By 1890, after a period of intense experimentation and design development, Tesla summarized the components necessary for the practical deployment of a radiant electrical power distribution system. Tesla had already discovered the wonderful fact that impulse durations of 100 microseconds or less could not be sensed and would do no physiological harm. He planned to use these in his power broadcast. Furthermore, shocking waves of 100 microsecond duration passed through all matter, a fitting form of electrical energy to broadcast throughout the stone, steel, and glass of a power-needy city. Tesla would not expect distortions with specially adjusted energy fields, vectors which permeated matter without interactive effects.

Tesla made a most startling discovery the same year, when placing a long single-turn copper helix near his magnetic disrupter. The coil, some two feet in length, did not behave as did solid copper pipes and other objects. The thin walled coil became ensheathed in an envelope of white sparks. Undulating from the crown of this coil were very long and fluidic silvery white streamers, soft discharges which appeared to have been considerably raised in voltage. These effects were greatly intensified when the helical coil was placed within the disrupter wire circle. Inside this "shockzone", the helical coil was surrounded in a blast which hugged into its surface, and rode up the coil to its open end. It seemed as though the shockwave actually pulled away from surrounding space to cling to the coil surface, a strange attractive preference. The shockwave flowed over the coil at right angles to the windings, an unbelievable effect. The sheer length of discharges leaping from the helix crown was incomprehensible. With the disrupter discharge jumping I inch in its magnetic housing, the white shimmering discharges rose from the helix to a measured length of over two feet. This discharge equaled the very length of the coil itself'. It was an unexpected and unheard transformation.

Here was an action more nearly "electrostatic" in nature, although he knew that academes would not comprehend this term when used in this situation. Electrostatic energy did not fluctuate as did his shockwaves. The explosive shockwave had characteristics unlike any other electrical machine in existence. Yet Tesla stated that the shockwave, during the brief instant in which it made its explosive appearance, more nearly resembled an electrostatic field than any other known electrical manifestation. just as in electrostatic friction machines, where current and magnetism are negligible, a very energetic field component fills space in radiating lines. This 'dielectric" field normally launches through space in a slow growth as charges are gathered. Here was a case where a DC generator provided the high voltage. This voltage charged an insulated hoop of copper, growing to its maximum value. If all values in the circuit were properly balanced, in the manner prescribed by Tesla, a sudden charge collapse would then occur. This collapse was necessarily very much shorter than the interval required to charge the hoop. The collapse comes when the magnetic disrupter extinguishes the arc. If the circuit is properly structured, no backrush alternations ever occur.

This unidirectional succession of charge-discharge impulses causes a very strange field to expand outward, one which vaguely resembles a "Stuttering' or 'staccato" electrostatic field. But these terms did not satisfactorily describe the conditions actually measured around the apparatus, a powerful radiant effect exceeding all expectable electrostatic values. Actual calculation of these discharge ratios proved impossible. Implementing the standard magneto-inductive transformer rule, Tesla was unable to account for the enormous voltage multiplication effect. Conventional relationships failing, Tesla hypothesized that the effect was due entirely to radiant transformation rules, obviously requiring empirical determination. Subsequent measurements of discharge lengths and helix attributes provided the necessary new mathematical relationship.

He had discovered a new induction law, one where radiant shockwaves actually auto-intensified when encountering segmented objects. The segmentation was the key to releasing the action. Radiant shockwaves encountered an helix and "flashed over" the outer skin, from end to end. This shockwave did not pass through the windings of the coil at all, treating the coil surface as an aerodynamic plane. The shockwave pulse auto-intensified exactly as gas pressures continually increase when passing through Venturi tubes. A consistent increase in electrical pressure was measured along the coil surface. Indeed, Tesla stated that voltages could often be increased at an amazing 10,000 volts per inch of axial coil surface. This meant that a 24 inch coil could absorb radiant shockwaves which initially measured 10,000 volts, with a subsequent maximum rise to 240,000 volts! Such transformations of voltage were unheard with apparatus of this volume and simplicity. Tesla further discovered that the output voltages were mathematically related to the resistance of turns in the helix. Higher resistance meant higher voltage maxima.

He began referring to his disrupter line as his special "primary", and to the helical coil placed within the shockzone, as his special "secondary". But he never intended anyone to equate these terms with those referring to magnetoelectric transformers. This discovery was indeed completely different from magneto-induction. There was a real and measurable reason why he could make this outlandish statement. There was an attribute which completely baffled Tesla for a time. Tesla measured a zero current condition in these long copper secondary coils. He determined that the current which should have appeared was completely absent. Pure voltage was rising with each inch of coil surface. Tesla constantly referred to his "electrostatic induction laws", a principle which few comprehended. Tesla called the combined disrupter and secondary helix a 'Transformer".

Tesla Transformers are not magnetoelectric devices, they use radiant shockwaves, and produce pure voltage without current. No university High Frequency Coil must ever be called a "Tesla Coil", since the devices usually employed in demonstration halls are the direct result of apparatus perfected by Sir Oliver Lodge and not by Nikola Tesla. The Tesla Transformer is an impulse apparatus, and cannot be as easily constructed except by strict conformity with parameters which Tesla enunciated. Tesla Transformers produce extraordinary white impulse discharges of extreme length and pressure, which exceed the alternating violet spark displays of Lodge Coils. This is illustrated by noting the manner in which Tesla Transformers are actually constructed. While looking and seeming the same, each system actually performs very different functions. Lodge Coils are alternators. Tesla Transformers are unidirectional impulses. The most efficient Tesla Transformations were obtained only when the disruptive radiating wire line equaled the mass of the helical coil.

Having briefly covered the history and theory of device operation, I will now present a simple guide to construction. This is a genuine cold current motor I have built and tested myself.

Note: You may misorder parts, and find you have to order in bulk above the quantity strictly required for your motor. The point remains however, you can build a cold electricity device for $50 on a per unit basis. No question. That includes absolutely EVERYTHING.

The first step is filling in the center of the CD. I illustrate with two methods I used. The first did not deliver complete rotor stability, the second a simple doorstop made of hard shiny plastic, did. I only mount the lower CD. The upper CD provides rotor stability, completing the magnet 'sandwich.' Other people have used parts from old video recorders, hard drives, record players, 1/4" bike bearings, etc - any decent mounting is fine. Use parts to hand and common sense. Plastic parts are to be preferred because they are non conductive and offer only frictional losses. 

The magnets are fixed with 2,500 psi epoxy glue (comes in 2 syringes, resin and hardener). Be sure to mix thoroughly for best results, and try and get an exothermic brand for faster setting. I now apply it in layers. One thin application, 12 hours to set, then another, etc. Magnets are all S poles out. This is mainly for the benefit of the Hall ic timing circuit, but S poles also seem to deliver a small performance gain over N poles. Note: CDs only make stable rotors when used in epoxy magnet sandwich pairs, and you need a classic hard pressed CD, not a flimsy CD-R type. 

This is the rotor fitted onto a wooden board, with a nail hammered through a wooden crossbar as the central shaft. You have to do this bit in the right order. 

1. First I hammered the main shaft nail into the base board to depth of 1cm or so, leaving a 1 cm deep hole
2. Then I removed the nail and hammered it through the crossbar - be neat!
3. Newly embedded crossbar nail threaded on rotor
4. Nail head cover supports placed on lower part of nail as pivot for rotor
5. Glued crossbar underside to fix itself on side supports when put in position, this is backed up by nails
6. Shaft nail pushed into previously established hole in base board made in stage one, but which is newly filled with sealer glue. Give one tap to drive the nail in a little deeper. Leave to set for 1 hour.

Stators. Many people ignore Mr Adam's 4:1 instruction, and do not build stators with the geometry suggested (stator head HALF width / height of rotor magnet - VERY IMPORTANT ). The stator wind is the most critical part of the motor, and while I appreciate conventional theory says these stators are wrong in several respects, I can assure you this is what is required. The reason everyone has been having such TERRIBLE trouble replicating the Adams motor, and there must have been a reason somewhere, is that none of the people with the academic skills to do this properly, will countenance using such an apparently bizarre and dysfunctional rotor / stator geometry. It is a high ohm mess frankly, and I am fully aware this design would just burn up in a conventional motor. If in any doubt, just copy what you see in the pictures above. A mild steel nail about 100mm long with an 8.5mm head makes a most excellent and highly cost effective stator core, and I used a tap washer (bathroom section in your local hardware store, a non conductive part) to 'end,' my stator. Pair that with rotor magnets about 18mm ( 3/4" approx ) in diameter. Works great. Please only try something else once you have got the motor already running cold / ambient. Many people are trying to 'improve' this motor with ferrite cores etc, and usually end up with inferior results. The stators MUST be wound solid to 90-100% of the rotor magnet width, with as many turns as possible to maximize current induction on each rotor pass and precharge / potentialize / the stator windings. I have found 24 awg (0.56mm) wire to be a helpful base to work from in this respect. If you do not massively over wind the stators, the over-unity effect when motor speed doubles and current draw halves, DOES NOT FULLY MANIFEST. Basically the trade off here is a loss in efficiency due to poor rotor / stator geometry from a strictly conventional point of view, but you more than get it back because the same design 'flaws' facilitate the over-unity effect. You just have to take the hit, and do what is required to manifest the over-unity effect. No way round it. 

Construction Notes:

• Stator construction is where most people building an Adams motor screw up. A properly engineered Adams motor requires a stator that to conventionally trained eyes, looks like an utterly  horrific I²R loss inducing mess. How can such a badly designed stator possibly be used on a high efficiency motor? Well, the answer is of course that the o/u feature of the motor is the Lenz current freely induced in the stator windings. The stator is therefore designed from the point of view of optimizing current induction, all other design parameters are rescinded.  The stator therefore has an integrated generator functionality, and is NOT a classical motor pure drive device as such.
• Ultra low ohm sets perform much worse, and the inability to grasp this simple fact, is one reason why most scientifically educated people find it almost impossible to build Adams motors. 24 awg wire is a suggested sensible starting point for experimentation (0.56mm). No lower.
• S poles seem to work a little better. Mr Adams generally illustrates with N poles, the difference is not large enough for him to have noticed it, apparently.
• Circular or square faced magnets are not critical. Both have now been shown to work. Square magnets like mine are easier to fix down, but only circular faced magnets are sold in suitable sizes it would appear. If thin magnets are obtained, glue 2/3 together to make one longer magnet.
• The magnets should 'yaw' into register. Tiny button magnets do not do this. Make sure you have built a demagnetization motor, and NOT just a push motor. While you can get over-unity results of sorts with push motors, cold running has yet to be demonstrated. Optimizing for a 'yaw' effect, also requires proper rotor balance and low friction. Pay attention to that.
• In its most basic manifestation, negative energy offers halved current draw, with NO LOSS IN DELIVERED POWER. This is a very large part of the over-unity effect, and the coldness of your motor is an excellent real time guide as to whether your are getting reduced current draw or not. This is not to be confused with the return to source current flow, which is separate. Increased speed is also noted.
• The motor uses simple ferrite / ceramic magnets. You should only try working with NIB magnets once you have experience.
• Keep the motor SMALL, for the critical short pulse duration cold current demands. Use 3/8 cores and 6/8 magnets (mine are 8.5mm cores and 18mm magnets - to be precise. All numbers refer to diameter). Size matters. The o/u mode seems a bit on/off in its performance, and hence extra turns does not give you extra resonance. Current draw is either halved or it is not. Yes / no type situation. Also, it seems to be better to make the motor smaller than this suggested size, rather than larger, in general.
• Apart from the stator cores, keep as much metal out of the design as possible. It acts as a drag upon the rotor, lowering efficiency. For example, wood is a useful material, despite the fact it may appear to be low tech and 'primitive.'
• A standard household power supply that was previously running my computer speakers was used for initial testing purposes, specd at 3,6,9,12v and 500 ma regulated, with 13W power. These units are readily available from any decent hardware store. However, *NOTE* while the chill factor fully manifests with these regulated power units, and they are great for testing because they do not run down, if doing serious efficiency testing, an unregulated battery power supply will generally produce superior results.
• It is not illustrated above, but tape two tape insulation layers are both simple and beneficial in construction. Put one insulation layer on the stator core (nail body), and a second round the finished and fully wound stator, to enclose it between the two non conductive tap washers.
• Expect to build 2/3 CD rotors before you get it right. Small rotor instability problems can really kill the rpms, and you never quite know how the rotor will perform until it is actually up and running. You need to be very neat and careful.
• When firmly pushed your rotor should spin for 8-20 seconds (no stators present of course!), depending upon rotor mass and flywheel effect manifested, of course. If not, maybe you need to think some more on executing properly on the mechanical basics....
• Hall ic timing is done directly off the S pole faces of the magnets. Branded side of Hall ic faces rotor magnets.
• Air gap somewhere in the range 1-1.5 mm. The high end of that range is fine. NOTE: if you use NIB magnets you will have to use 24-30v to enable this (only at 24-30v do you get full stator demagnetization). Which is one of several reasons why NIB motors are much harder to build, unless you use small 1/2" NIB magnets.  
• Understand the 4:1 ratio. Basically this just means your stator core is half as wide/tall as your rotor magnet. Does not matter if you have round stator, square rotor magnets. Do not fixate on the area, rather the twice as aspect of it. And point to note: this is not sacred geometry! The 4:1 rule is not precise, it is a rule of thumb. There is no reason why 3:1 or 5:1 could not in the right setup be made to work, but 4:1 is a sensible ratio with margin for error to aim for. The conversion to cold current is a probability function, and a 3:1 configuration may mean that not all the current is properly converted, sharply reducing the amount of 'back emf' you can pull off.
• I used 24awg wire (0.56mm), which is small enough to offer decent performance, while being large enough to be fairly easy to wind. Also, point to note, high ohm sets and tend to blow Hall ics. 24awg is within the limits of Hall ics. It is a good place to start - other higher ohm sets and additional stators can be tried later if desired.
• Run the motor at multiples of the 9v negative energy harmonic for optimal current draw results e.g. 12 is the minimum required to fully close the air gap down, but after that 18v, 27v, 36v, 45v, etc should be used.
• Bifilar winds on the stators, while not in any way essential to manifesting the over-unity effect, deliver stronger electromagnets and hence superior results
• DO NOT put a mechanical load on the rotor
• Oil the rotor shaft (basic but necessary). With 30-40 minutes use you may also find your rotor improves and 'works itself in.' Then try adding a little more oil.
• Mild / bright steel nails are to be preferred as stator cores because of the reduced carbon content
• Stators wound to paperclip test depth described below

Tuning to Obtain 'Resonance' Operation

Mr Adams refers to using batteries to 'tune,' his motor at low voltage (9-12v), before taking his motor up to the 120v or 240v range, which is where the real action happens. No exact guidance is given on how to do this however. Now I have built my motor, I have found a very simple way to tune an Adams motor. Basically you just put your finger on the power transistor. It is that simple. With tuning I have found you can always eliminate the heat from the transistor. Now, that may mean closing the air gap, increasing rotor stability, rewiring the stator, or improving the timing circuit, etc. Whatever. I am just pointing out that having assembled something, you should expect to spend 3/4 nights, or more, fiddling with it to get best results. Only when you have built, detested (sic), shaken down, and tuned a basic 1 / 2 stator 'soft,' design, should you move onto something harder with more poles, stronger magnets and so on. 

'It was in the switch closure, the very instant of closure and break, which thrust the effect out into space' - Nikola Tesla

Does it Like Speed?

Yes. I have seen no evidence whatsoever with my motor that there are any 'difficult' rpms. At 12v it runs smooth, fast, and stone cold. The dynamic pulse duration optimization my motor delivers by timing directly off the faces of the magnets must help in this respect. It 'wants' to go as fast as possible, and seems much 'happier,' and indeed colder, at higher speeds than lower speeds. This is in line with statements made by Tesla and others on the properties of cold current, where short pulses (read high rpms) are to be preferred. 

Choosing a Stator Core - Mild Steel Nails Are Fine

The nails need to be sensibly picked. What I mean is too large and a ferrite / ceramic magnet can not permeate them properly and the rotor gets 'stuck' in register, too small, and the initial attraction of the magnet to the nail head is too weak. BALANCE. Basically you need to buy 3/4 packs of suitable looking nails and play around. My nails were carefully picked with these design parameters in mind. I observed with simple hand experiments that the 125mms tended to get 'stuck' in front of magnet faces, the 75 mms offered less initial rotor attraction, so that basically left me with the 100mm long 8.5mm head nails, because they offered all the qualities I was looking for. Excellent rotor magnet initial attraction, easy demagnetization, with no 'stuck' in register problem. Everything I wanted. Basically, about 3/8" head diameter is a good size to pair up with 6/8" ceramic magnets, combined with a 12v pulse. I also used nails with a sloping transition from body to head, and NOT straight right angle. I figured this would make flux passage from nail body to head easier.  Lightly sanding down the nail head is probably not a bad idea either. I also used mild / bright / soft steel nails because of the reduced carbon content and improved magnetic conduction properties. All these little things add up, take every tiny optimization you can.

'It was in the switch closure, the very instant of closure and break, which thrust the effect out into space' - Nikola Tesla

Magnets 

The negative impulse delivered by the pms rapidly decays to zero as soon as the timing switch is closed. Hence the larger your magnets, the longer the pulse duration required, the harder it becomes to obtain 'cold current.' However, too small a magnet, and no 'yaw to register' is manifested - ESSENTIAL for the generation of the negative impulse in the first place. Push only motors can only ever be hot current devices. My basic conclusion is that magnets of diameter 15-20mm are the sweet spot for the Adams motor. They yaw to register nicely, but also deliver reasonably short pulse lengths. Some people have complained these magnets are hard to find - so I have proved they are not, and produced this list of suppliers. I have not ordered or used these magnets, so I can not vouch for them, but they all look fine to me. Also I can not vouch for whether grade 5 or 8 magnets are better, since I have not done that experiment. But anything other than the inferior grade 1 ceramics should work okay. The only downside is that they are thin - in which case just carefully epoxy 4 of them together to make one long magnet. The result should closely approximate to my rather nice 18mm x 18mm x 25mm custom cut magnets. 

Circuits

Basic Hall ic circuit. Make sure you buy 5 extra Hall ics. I've already blown 2. They are a little fragile if mistreated. Banded side of Hall ic faces the S pole rotor magnets. I suggest starting with just one stator - these things can be a pain to wind, although 24awg is fairly easy to work with, and two stators in series can be tried once you are up and running. Bifilar winds are worth the hassle. They do perform better. In order to send the 'back emf' back to source, you simply need to substitute the pnp for a mosfet. Try both to see the difference. It is considered good practice to wire a diode in parallel with a mosfet, to protect it from reverse voltage spikes. When fitted with a mosfet and an appropriate rechargeable battery, source drain is minimal. Because timing is done directly off the pole faces of the magnets, pulse duration is dynamically reduced automatically as speed increases, which is very helpful. And yes, the pnp / mosfet is wired backwards, but this is because the current flows backwards. The emf pulse leaves the battery, enters the stator windings, where a transduction operation is performed upon the current, turning it into time negative emf, which then flows BACKWARDS into the source. Finally, this circuit is only suitable for magnets of 18mm diameter, or very close to that value. If using 25.4mm magnets (1"), you will be forced to use 555 circuitry to adjust the pulse width down to get proper results.

Bill offers the following advice based upon his research and analysis with Dragone cores:

The PNP needs a diode to gate the current back to the battery. Mosfets have this diode built in. Because you are using a PNP, the negative energy has nowhere to go but remain in the coil and ring. If the negative energy were high enough, it could breakdown the transistor. Keep in mind that negative energy appears as a high voltage when the transistor FIRST turns on! Don't confuse this with the Lenz's Law effect when the transistor turns off (back emf). I should also mention that this negative energy is a time-reversed current flow coming from the coil back to the battery. Ideally, a switch should be used instead of a transistor, and this is what he means by commutation (Mr Adams is still using commutation timing). I think a mosfet will do very nicely instead of a PNP transistor with commutation diode. My latest device uses a very good mosfet (MTY100N10E) and a commutation schottky diode (MBR6045WT) in parallel.

Basic Aims for Experimenters

1. Wind one or two solid 24awg stators in series, and get the stator/s running slightly chilled, the power transistor ambient, and the stator supply wire cold. Any rotor instability, air gaps over 1.5mm, etc, will kill off the cooling effect fairly quickly. The basic low tech mechanical stuff most certainly has to be done correctly, and the over-unity effect is quite sensitive to the rotor / stator geometry, which is where the 'action' happens. In my experience, the real test of the depth of resonance you obtain, can be found in the stator supply wire - it should have a very clear ambient thermal sink effect. THIS IS THE COLD PART. Do not expect the whole device to be universally cold, it is not. Simple ambient running for extended periods is a very good result.
2. Once the stator supply wire chill effect is fully manifested and any rotor instability issues attended to, try seeing how much 'back emf' you can pull off. You will be most pleasantly surprised by your results. The record to date is 97% of input using NIB magnets and magnetite cores, although it is not suggested NIB magnets and magnetite is necessarily suitable for CD motors. Of more immediate relevance an AVERAGED 80% of input has been recorded in the hard drive motor using permalloy cores. Finally note: it is of course time reversed emf and not back emf. This does mean that a circuit which looks fine from a conventional point of view is not always guaranteed to work. Please keep that in mind. But optimize for coldness before you bother attempting any numbers. Always first things first.

COP Figures - Mechanical not electrical over-unity

If properly wired to send the emf back to an appropriate rechargeable source battery, mechanical COP figures of 3-6 are possible with the CD motor unit. That depends upon such factors as quality of construction, stator winds, and measurement methodology. Given the problematic nature of mechanical efficiency calculations, many prefer to use the crude 'back emf to supply' metric, to measure the performance of their units. As a rough guide, allowing for the halved current draw effect and the increased rotor speed documented by Mr Adams, an 80% of back emf to input number, indicates a mechanical COP of about 6 to me, and an electrical COP of 0.8.

What is a 'true' Adams motor?

There have been some sour grapes from people who say I have not built a 'true' Adams motor. Well, allow me to point out that the early Adams motor prototypes used star wheel timing systems and alnico magnets. It hardly needs to be said star wheel is a very primitive mechanical timing system, and alnico magnets demagnetize very easily, and are inferior to ceramic magnets for motor applications. Not even Mr Adams builds such 'true' Adams motors any longer. The Adams motor is a system of physics - it does not specify construction materials. The basic principals are a switched reluctance pulsed DC electric motor, whose rotor magnets are wider than the stator core faces, and whose stators contain an integrated generator functionality. The result of this is the delivery of a brief negative impulse from the rotor magnets when in register, that converts the delivered current to time reversed emf, that flows backwards to the source. The logical cut down home edition of those principals, is the experiment given on this web page.

Is the Adams motor a free energy device?

Depends how you define free energy. Let me quote from the learned Mr Aspden's outstanding patent abstract:

An electrodynamic motor-generator has a salient pole permanent magnet rotor interacting with salient stator poles to form a machine operating on the magnetic reluctance principle. The intrinsic ferromagnetic power of the magnets provides the drive torque by bringing the poles into register whilst current pulses demagnetize the stator poles as the poles separate. In as much as less power is needed for stator demagnetization than is fed into the reluctance drive by the thermodynamic system powering the ferromagnetic state, the machine operates regeneratively by virtue of stator winding interconnection with unequal number of rotor and stator poles. A rotor construction is disclosed (Fig 6, 7). The current pulse may be such as to cause repulsion of the rotor poles.

As stated above, it requires less energy to demagnetize the pm field in the stator cores, than you gain in the 'yaw to register' stator attraction phase, because of the 'free precharge' Lenz effect manifested in the over-wound generator configured stator coils. Is that free energy? You tell me. Sounds just like a scientific effect to me, rather than something 'free' and magical. What Mr Aspden was unable to state because his unit for unknown reasons was not capable of the necessary high rpms, was that the 12-15% energy gain you make from that asymmetry, causes a brief negative impulse to be issued from the central pole face of permanent magnets, a process clarified by the recent disclosure of the POD magnetic schematic. This is conducted along the length of the stator core, hence the current pulse is converted to a time negative polarity. It then promptly flows BACKWARDS to the source, which it recharges. To this extent, it is perhaps more accurate to describe the Adams motor as a mechanical transductor, rather than a free energy device as such. I do not see the term 'free energy' as scientifically helpful here. The Adams motor simply converts energy from one form to another, in so doing reversing the direction of current flow, enabling a high speed rotor to be run essentially for 'free.' Mr Adams has quoted an unloaded mechanical efficiency of 600% - getting within striking distance of that kind of number is actually fairly easy, you may be surprised to learn, when wired with an appropriate mosfet and rechargeable battery. Hence in the basic setup massive unloaded mechanical over-unity in the hundreds of percent, yes, electrical over-unity, no. It is the Adams motor - not the Adams generator.

Comments

I was most gratified to see Brian finally get a result with this motor. He really did put a lot of genuine hard work into this device, and he most definitely deserved a positive result. I think the fact he opted for 1" magnets with a longer pulse duration complicated this motor, but the problems that created have recently been solved with 555 circuitry to adjust the pulse width down. Instead of running hot and slow, it now runs fast and cold - as it should. Pulse width is key, and even if he is using 25.4mm magnets verses my 18mm magnets, it just goes to prove you can design round potential problems that crop up in Adams motor construction. Brian did not try to be clever, he did not 'improve' aspects which looked wrong, he just built what I said, including the bizarre over-wound stators. If you do the same, your motor will also run off negative energy. Note, Brian also used disc magnets, proving square faced magnets are not critical to the manifestation of negative impulses

• The above motor was built to test a speculative cold current theory, and indeed this motor runs very cool. When in operation the Transistor has no temperature increase. It always remains just below room temperature.
• The stators were made as per the specifications provided by Tim Harwood. While using these ratio specs the motor ran cool.
• To test this theory I built a number of coils, some larger, some smaller. When undersized or over sized coils were used, the transistor began to warm up.
• Having a qualified electrician examine the device he informed me that should I raise the voltage above 12 volts it would burn up the transistor. Having the motor running at the time I raised the voltage up to 32v (Power supply maximum) and there was not change in temperature. (Obviously rotor speed increased..)
• A few other minor oddities occur. Rotor speed increase in steps based upon multiples of 9. So at 9volt, 18volt and 27volt increments the rotor speed increases on a non linear fashion.

From the Homestead of AdeOne-KonAde. 3 motors were required before the proper layout was perfected and cold current delivered.

This fascinating motor was based upon a rotor scavenged from an old computer hard drive. Hence as one would expect, it is almost entirely frictionless, and also very well calibrated. Between the dual hard drive platters reside 4 1/2 " (12.7mm) square faced NIB magnets, fixed in place with high strength epoxy glue, at 90 degrees apart. The diameter of the hard drive platters (disks) is 130mm. The stator cores are made from permalloy (these were found to produce better results than relay cores). The dimensions of stator cores are as follows = 6x6x45mm. Each stator has 450 turns of enameled copper wire of 0.56mm diameter / 24awg. The switch timer circuitry was borrowed from one of John Bedini's motors. 

In the above picture you can see the oscilloscope reading. The back EMF (cemf) was connected to the power supply (car / automobile battery 12V). The duration of the pulse command and back EMF spike was measured on an oscilloscope, and as can be seen, the back EMF is a full 80% of the delivered pulse width! Hence the constructor of this motor believes the efficiency of his motor is 80% and NOT OVER-UNITY. The motor runs at about 2800 RPM, and does so ABSOLUTELY COLD, as does the circuitry. 

The initial motor test results were as follows: 

• The battery started with a rating of 12.38V
• Then a load (the motor) was placed on it, and the battery voltage fell to 12.32V 
• After 2 hours the battery voltage rose to 12.35V
• After 20 hours battery voltage was recorded slightly lower at 12.32V
• Then the battery was then disconnected 

Conclusions:

As Sweet noted with his SQM unit many years ago now, the efficiency of negative energy devices fluctuates for reasons that are still not properly understood. The time reversed 'back emf' from this motor is at times enough to compensate for current draw, at other times not, giving an overall averaged battery recharging efficiency of about 80%. 

For comparison, a previous motor managed 10000 RPM - but it ran hot, and efficiency was only about 20%. It had larger magnets (NIB) and fewer stator turns. So this this constructor had to build 2 motors before he obtained cold current.

This motor is a successful over-unity cold current design. The constructor wishes to remain anonymous. He also warned me, these pictures show an early version, and significant modifications were subsequently undertaken. Exact mechanical efficiency numbers are not available, but they are clearly well over 100%. The constructor so far measures his performance by the amount of back-emf he can pull off relative to input - 97%. Which is absolutely astonishing! Secondary windings could most easily be added to the stators to push that number well past 100% - battery charging in excess of motor draw, is clearly no problem. The constructor also notes the benefits of alternate N/S Muller type setups. But I was most interested to read his comments on pulse duration, and the importance of fine tuning this parameter for best results. 

• Timing and pulse width are critical.
• To obtain best results, patience and perseverance may be required. 
• A timer and rheostat was used to control pulse duration. 555 circuitry can also be useful.
• When you get up to 2-3 thousand RPM, you must adjust the pulse width down. 
• The higher the voltage, the shorter the pulse width. 
• The higher the voltage, the more efficient the unit becomes. 
• Best results were obtained using magnetite cores and bifilar windings 
• I have two connected rotors, one is all N faces out, and the other alternate N/S faces. 
• The alternate N/S configuration, has proved itself to be capable of manifesting a greater electrical output than the N/N configuration.
• If one dumps the back EMF directly into a secondary coil you can achieve about 1/3 more torque, which allows you to take more off the back end. 
• I have not quite been able so far to run the unit on one rotor, and collect enough back EMF to keep a battery up. When I get the unit up to about 3-4 thousand RPM with 80-100 volts with no load, I can recover 97% of the input simply from the back emf spikes. At this point you must balance any load on the back end to push the unit into o/u.
• The bifilar windings make it much easier to take the back EMF off, single windings require capturing then separating and switching the back EMF back to the source. Which I found not to be very efficient. It is much easier to just dump the secondary windings onto a bridge then to the source. 
• I have not yet been able to properly measure the mechanical output of the unit, but I believe it is a significant o/u result. 
• I believe based upon my results to date, that the configuration given in the Adams patent of 8 rotors and 7 stators is more efficient. I note with interest, Mr Muller has incorporated this type of setup into his units. 

Conclusion

 

Costing a Solid State Transductor - List of Parts You Need for Construction
Part	Price US$	Description and comments
Permanent magnet	10	Basic ceramic / ferrite parts are fine
Ring permanent magnet	8	Basic ceramic / ferrite parts are fine, can use3/4 thin magnets glued together
Battery	4	To power device
Jumpers	4	Connections
Enameled wire	4	To wind stators
Electric Motor	3	To provide a pulsed DC load
Full wave bridge rectifier	2.50	For output conversion to DC, 4 diodes, essentially
Diode + capacitor	2.50	Circuitry
Nails	2	Stators
TOTAL COST	$40	Solid state o/u for $40 with Radio Shack parts!

The Basic Device Schematics and Concept

The project reasoning, methodology, and underlying field depletion theory, was directly copied from my successful over-unity CD motor project. We wanted to generate negative energy in a solid state setup, and initially cold running was made the primary device optimization parameter - all other priorities were rescinded. The assumption was made that if the thermal properties were as desired, the numbers would consequently be excellent. So we were initially disappointed to discover a simple static Adams stator would not produce the time reversed cold current we were looking for, as illustrated directly above. Additional energy yes, cold running and halved over-unity current draw, no. Hence we learned that the loss of the additional kinetic over-unity vectors when the magnet 'yaws' into register, was a greater blow than we had anticipated. However, at this point, John came up with what turned out to be a excellent idea - place a ring magnet round the stator coils. This concept is not transferable back to my original CD motor unit, but works wonders in a static setup, providing exactly the kind of performance boost we needed to be successful. The resulting device modification is illustrated below.

This modified setup has indeed been found to deliver true 'cold current,' and excellent over-unity results have already been observed and replicated. They are summarized in the below table. That such strong over-unity results can be delivered for such little cost, is nothing short of remarkable. This document proves you can build an over-unity motor AND and an over-unity solid state transductor, for a combined total of under $90!  

Testing notes: the above figures are an average of several tests, each conducted for a time period under load of 1 hour. The motor used was an unloaded 12vdc motor rated at 1.3 amps and 11,500 rpm loaded, and 15,200 rpm unloaded. Performance with a loaded motor is currently untested. A different battery was used in each test series, one fully charged and the others slightly undercharged. The arrangement was tested using 6v alkaline battery sources to determine total power consumption as indicated across the disconnected terminals before and after each test. The COP figures refer to device current draw.

John Jankowski's Transductor Device : Important General Construction Notes 

• The coils must be wound directionally as indicated and connected in series as shown. 
• Counter clockwise wind is determined by facing the nail core head or PM directly and proceeding back as noted. 
• The use of the thin double sided tape as insulation is convenient and beneficial. 
• Best results were obtained at 9v - the first negative energy harmonic value
• Stator wind depth can be set by placing a paper clip in front of a magnet pole face, and moving it closer until such time as frictional forces are overcome, and it flies into the face of the permanent magnet. Note this length, and wind stator core to this depth.
• *DO NOT USE A REGULATED POWER SUPPLY* Results to date have been disappointing.
• Air cores do not appear to work. Slightly counter intuitively, iron / mild steel is essential to device operation - without it, this device cooks, and the sharply reduced current draw over-unity effect is not manifested
• Stator windings should be about 10 ohms for optimal results
• It has been found S pole faces work slightly better than N pole faces

Device Schematics

This is John's very own schematic of his device, which gives more detailed and precise technical information about the device, than the previous simple background and introduction to principal images offered.

John's second image gives precise circuitry details. Again, nothing especially complicated here - but very precisely intellectually reasoned, nonetheless. 

Picture of Device

Operation Procedure

1. Disconnect the load and pulse the unit at approximately 60hz for approximately 5 seconds until the dc voltage across the capacitor reads 40-50 volts. 
2. Connect the load. 
3. Pulse the device at approx. 60 hz for approx. 5 seconds every 30+ minutes. There is no need to disconnect the load during this re-charge. Motor rpm will drop noticeably during this time then immediately return to normal.
4. Be advised that a vom across the charge cap will slightly increase the time required to reach the desired voltage at pulse. 
5. Voltage indicated across the cap was kept in the 20-50v range, although a dissipation to under 20v, but above supply, may work as well or more efficiently.

Other Notes and Observations

• With a confined circuit configuration, the unit would generally charge the cap as high as 75vdc with a 12 volt supply, but amperage reading never exceeded 1.2 (see below)
• Amperage would decline with increasing voltage, but 45-50v at 1 amp was the median across the cap in the isolated circuit.
• The coils could be connected in reversed-series, but capacitor voltage failed to exceed 40 volts in a timely manner with any but the final arrangement. 
• The above 3 tests were all unloaded and used a modified circuit. A clamping diode directly across the load apparently did no harm but no extraordinary benefit could be concluded.
• Various diode and capacitor arrangements across the ac/dc leads of the full wave bridge rectifier were also tried but were either detrimental or of no obvious benefit. 
• An increase in motor rpm during operation was occasionally noted, the cause of which is undetermined. The increase would generally be sustained for 10-15 minutes, but this increase was not observed at all during 1 test. 
• A crude manual arrangement was used to pulse the cap.
• Incorporation of solid state momentary PB and/or sensing/timing strategies is discretionary - if not advised. Of course, this will alter the net efficiency for better or worse. 
• Drop across the battery terminals during pulse is nominal. (<.1 W) 
• Resistance of the series connected coils is approximately 10 ohms. 
• Substitution of the device with a small step-up transformer produced 60v @ 20ma across the cap which rapidly dissipated, while use of the device typically yields 40-50v @ 2.5-3 amps and amps hold steady.
• The cap normally showed a 20v drop at shutoff with amps steady, implying that the arrangement is still grossly inefficient versus dissipated potential, an element which needs to be addressed.
• Although the margin of error is large, the results so far are enough to suggest an operational gain.

Voltage Notes

The unit charges the cap most efficiently with a 9v supply, less efficiently with a 6v supply, and least efficiently with a 12 volt and 18 volt supply. The above figures were determined with the device unloaded, so loaded results may vary. It is projected this device will run best at precise negative energy voltage harmonics, and this is another interesting avenue for future experimentation. In particular, numbers to highlight for investigation would be 120v, 240v, and 350v.

John's Commentary on Device Development

The biggest thing I missed early on was the importance of series connection. The first units had isolated input and output coils keeping the input and output separate. When Bill pulsed his output coil, I knew we had to do that also (provide a carrier current). It is essential to manifest the over-unity effect, and is basic to the operation of the Adams motor. I did not want to make an entirely separate active supply circuit to do this, so the obvious solution was simply to hook up the inputs and outputs in series. Naturally that instantly worked, and I had nothing to lose by trying it. So my main error was to worry about losing potential, which if everything is routed to the eventual output anyway, is never going to happen! I then connected the device in parallel with supply, which never allowed the load to see less than supply potential.

The final trick was to prevent the charged cap potential from instantly and totally dumping into the load. This is what everyone does and, of course, it never works. So I coupled the (-) charge indirectly to the load circuit by inserting a diode BACKWARDS of normal. This does 2 things: allows the diode trickle access to the load, but only on demand (as nature sees fit) and, because (-) supply terminal must be a LOWER potential than the (-) leg of the charge cap, then the charge can reach ground when any natural aberration dictates, but ONLY through the load. Finally hooking in parallel to the (+) leg apparently allows the amperage components to couple with the device so total watt (amp) potential in the storage cap is 50-125 times higher than a common transformer would produce.

In sum all the fields are coupled and uncoupled without wasting any potential to do so. All the gains are then stored in the charge cap, and dissipated JUDICIOUSLY by nature, which probably no human could ever match in effectiveness. Then we just sit back and let nature perform the implementation, which apparently, it does rather nicely.

I initially used a crude mechanical "commutator" made from a small dc motor, but a solid state arrangement could / should be tried. Or, if a 60hz line supply setup were used, one could utilize the non filtered pulsing dc from that with no further frequency manipulation needed. 555 circuitry can also be employed. Motor variations are so simple I do not understand how anyone could have trouble fixing a basic 60hz supply.

Pat in the AM Egroup: I found this quick and dirty pulse generator circuit in the July 1988 electronics now magazine. I am building one to use to test the POD device. See the attached photo. Sorry about the picture quality. Also corrections were posted to the circuit in Sept. 1988 edition. The circuit is based on the TLC556 dual timer One of the timers sets the period and the other sets the pulse width. There is a better "Precision Pusle Generator" in the December 1998 edition but it is quite a bit more involved to build.

Precision Pulse generators. Note: I have not bought or used these products, these links do not constitute an endorsement, and you deal with the vendors entirely at your won risk.

'The 555 timer is one of the most remarkable integrated circuits ever developed. It comes in a single or dual package and even low power cmos versions exist - ICM7555. Common part numbers are LM555, NE555, LM556, NE556. The 555 timer consists of two voltage comparators, a bi-stable flip flop, a discharge transistor, and a resistor divider network. The 555 timer is ideal for astable free running oscillators as well as the one shot monostable mode.' 

4khz works well with POD - much improved results over the basic 60hz input. Since I've given you one of the switching harmonics, you can be fairy sure that if you rig a non variable 4 khz 555 circuit, that should work quite nicely. 555 calculators are provided to determine the required part values.

Mims, Forrest M., 555 Timer IC Circuits, 3rd Ed, Engineer's Mini-Notebook, Radio Shack

Q: I used a single layer #30 around the nail core. none of the windings are bi-filar. They are series connected, unidirectional on the outer pm ring only, i.e. wind 1 layer #30 and connect the end to a 2nd 175t #30 layer at the start of that layer. (front to back from nail head)

So you will have 175t #30 on the nail, series connected to 175t around the ring pm then another 175t around that. This will give you a total series resistance of around 10 ohms. Be certain to wind all coils counterclockwise as indicated and include the insulating tape layer between each. This
eliminates capacitive coupling effects. See Doug Konzen's unidirectional winding methods.

Q: How does the 175 turns relate to the POD construction? Is it just 175 turns x 1 on the inside layer? How many layers on the outside?
1 layer of #30 and 1 layer of #18 ?

core: 175t 1 layer

ring: 175t 1st layer, 175t 2nd layer

Series connect all unidirectional (back to front) (or finish to start) core-ring1-ring2 as per Konzen, not Tesla (thanks for that 10 spot, Doug). Check at 10 ohms nom. POD II outer insulated steel same <40t (your option) if used, connect front to back ring2. Should then be just under 11 ohms.

Q: Also do you happen to know what happens if all of the coils are inside the ring magnet instead of one being on the outside?

No. It might work just as well - if the total resistance remains around 10 ohms. That part is important. Originally, the inner (core) coils were used as "inputs" with the outer (ring pm) coils as outputs. But that was abandoned and they were then all series connected which produced a much higher potential across the charge cap.

Q: What happens if the tape is too thick?

I have not tried various tape thicknesses. I imagine that capacitive coupling would be reduced but net output might also be reduced with thicker tapes.

Q: I have built a POD and I am in the process of building a circuit to test it. I noticed the addition of the steel wire winding on the POD II. It appears to be connected in series with the other coils. Can you tell me how you attached the steel wire to the copper wire?

Just wrap the end of the 2nd ring coil around the start of the steel winding - all unidirectional series ccw. The only tough part is placing shrink tubing over the bare wire, although insulated steel wire is available at some sources. Used for thermocouples and some other applications. I would avoid a stranded wire, though, not having tried it at this point. I used common 18ga. baling wire. Otherwise, just wind tape on it. 

Q: Is magnet size important?

It is not irrelevant, but you must understand the reason magnets of about 3/4" size are required with the Adams motor, is because rotor magnet size approximates to pulse width. Small pulse widths are required because the negative energy impulses produced by the permanent magnets rapidly decay to zero. In the POD unit, magnet size does not determine pulse width, hence magnet size is not going to be so important. The bottom line here is use common sense. It is impossible for myself and John to try every combination of everything with everything else. In fact, such an approach would be extremely stupid and wasteful of time and energy. Rather we use our intelligence, and go after the variables that seem most interesting. 

Q: I can't easily get the 1" ceramic cube magnets described, are stacked ring magnets ok? Does the end magnet diameter have to be larger than the coils or just the metal core nail?

There is no absolute proof cube magnets are needed at this time - but since there is need to alter what works, that experiment has not been performed. Recent successful replications of Tim's CD Adams motor suggest circular faced magnets can also deliver negative impulses without problem. But other device parameters seem more interesting and worthy of study at this time. However, ceramic magnets have been demonstrated to manifest negative impulses more readily than the much more powerful NIB magnet type, hence are to be preferred. allmagnetics.com offer a decent range of ceramic parts. And yes, stacked ring magnets do indeed seem to work just fine.

Q: I don't understand how this can possibly work? If the coil is disconnected from the circuit it wouldn't have any effect on power consumption and wouldn't improve COP.

The device is used to charge the storage capacitor. At that point, what to do with the charge? Do you just dump it carelessly into the load, as everyone else has tried to do? It is mindless! Instead, you allow it to trickle into the load on demand as supply fluctuates. That is how you reduce the burden on supply - even with a battery source. Battery sources also fluctuate during loading regardless of what someone may have assumed or postulated. That is also why an incandescent bulb will benefit. Of course, although any fluctuation in supply will instigate impedance/reluctance cycles in the filament, the bulb itself is not the cause, but the effect of the supply fluctuations. This in turn will trickle charge potential into the supply line, although understandably at a lesser rate than with an actively fluctuating load such as the dc motor. It's really very simple. ALL power supplies fluctuate. Even the most highly filtered and regulated ones. How does a regulated supply work? It DUMPS excess voltage/amperage to ground. In other words, they PURPOSELY waste power. The term "regulated" is therefore something of a misnomer. "Dumpulated" would be a more accurate description.

Q: Does it make more sense to use an Adams motor in an automobile (car), or a POD driven conventional DC motor?

I would say the latter. In pursuit of optimizing the over-unity effect, the final design of Adams motors is rather strange, struggles with a mechanical load, and can only be regarded as heavily compromised from a conventional point of view. In this case, I think it makes more sense to build a motor optimized as per conventional physics, and then feed it solid state POD input. POD 2 has now finally made that proposal worthwhile.

Q: Does this device have any similarity to Nikola Tesla's U.S. patent 568,176 that Bill has recently highlighted as a possible radiant energy device?

Maybe. This is something I have attempted to investigate recently. The Tesla unit relies on self oscillation within the core, as each pulse is delivered when the magnetic polarity in the core has only partially decayed from that established by the previous pulse. You therefore get a form of flux movement and 'free precharge,' to the main circuit. Hints of cold current are contained in the patent which talks of 'converting and supplying electrical energy in a form suited to the production of certain novel electrical phenomena' and more importantly 'around the break or point of interruption I place a condenser or condensers to store the energy of the discharge current, ' and a 'high electromotive force which is induced at each break of the main circuit furnishes the proper current for charging the condenser, which may therefore be small and inexpensive.' This is in line with the observed properties of the POD technology, which is also able to store large amounts of charge in capacitors much more quickly and reliably than conventional science teaches is possible. My current gut feeling is that Tesla's setup is basically the same thing, just much harder to tune. But since the Tesla patent hints that it may be possible to completely eliminate the magnets from the POD layout further decreasing costs, it is worth keeping in mind.

Response to detailed questions from successful POD constructor:

Q: The unit is not cold running. It actually runs quite warmly. I am not (yet) using the circuit that was provided on the web page. I am using a 555 timer circuit with which I use variable resistors to change the frequency and duty cycle, with a MOSFET switch. I am trying to understand the functioning of this device by using this setup and monitoring the effects with my oscilloscope.

When constructed per the site, the arrangement runs room temp to cool. This varies between components with the only element exhibiting any warmth being a loaded output (drive) motor. There will be no heat whatsoever in the pod coil or other electrical components. Keep in mind that with a 10 ohm set in there, simply being room temp involves a substantial net cooling effect.

Q: The pm ring stack is approx 2 inches in length. 4 segments doesn't sound right unless they were 1/2" in thickness each.

All the dimensions are posted in the construction diagram. Just follow that. The unit and circuit have been replicated by several other people to date. The pod is actually 2 parts:

1. The pod device itself which is only used to generate potential and charge the storage capacitor. Thus the pod device itself is only pulsed 5-10 seconds at approx 1/2 hour run-time intervals. (unloaded motor)
2. The distribution circuit which is used to dispense that stored potential into a useful load "on demand". It is useless to simply dump the potential carelessly into the load circuit. Hence, "Power On Demand".

- sounds as if you are pulsing the pod device continuously.

Q: Also, my local hardware store does not carry soft or mild steel nails, so right now I am using a standard steel nail. Is a mild steel core necessary for the cold current effect?

Nails can be purchased at any Home Depot or Lowes. Just don't inadvertently grab any of the aluminum ones. Get a 6000 ft. spool of #30 at www.mcmaster.com - around $15 and will last forever. The pm ring diameter sounds fine. That is not critical. You can get the ring pm magnets at any Radio Shack or mail order. BaFe magents as used in the old Sweet SQM / VTA unit are not necessary. Exotic magnets are not required at all. In fact, they should be avoided because they require higher voltages. If further experimentation is the strategy, be aware that supply voltage should be substantially higher if going with nibs, samarium, etc. The SQM was a flawed device, beset with several major problems, that would have in all probability prevented commercial development, even if Sweet had lived longer and been more sensible in the contracts he signed. Yes, the SQM is useful background reading, but please do not bring the flaws of the SQM unit across to the POD technology.

Q: Also, your comment about the capacitor charging voltage...for some reason, the back EMF from this coil system rises instantly to almost exactly 100V, stays there to form a short plateau, then falls down normally. I am not sure why there is a plateau there at 100V, but I think it could be connected to my MOSFET setup. The MOSFET has a built in shunt diode. So I  have not been able to charge a cap up to anything past 99.8V or so (using a bridge just like the schematic on your web page).

This is due to capacitance. 15uF will get you to around 95v max. 4.7uF to 150v. 2uF to 200v+ and 1 uF up to 250v. use 250v capacitors (for pod II) since higher voltages will be obtained in the next version. As for your circuit and components, anywhere you provide a leak, it will leak. same goes for regulated power supplies. They dump excess to ground by design. Use a battery supply and (later) a battery re-charge at output or experiment with a pulsing dc variant from line.

Q: I have been pulsing it all throughout the audio spectrum, from about 50 hz to maybe 10-15 kHz or so. Most of my tests were conducted in the 1-5  kHz range (most of the peculiarities of the device seemed most prominent in this range).

Go for it.

Q: Also, I have been using some fairly low-grade/low-cost (less  than $100) DMMs for some readings, and while I know that these are not going to be very accurate, they seem to convey relations pretty well, i.e. if they record a voltage increase then when measured with the oscilloscope there is an increase observed as well. So keeping this in mind, I tried pulsing one of the inner coils and measuring the voltage and the current on another one of the inner coils (remember, I have 3 inner coils in this device).

The coils are all series connected. separating the coils as input or output entities does not work. Build it as shown and alter or experiment from there.

Q: I had one meter measuring input current and one measuring output voltage and current (the output voltage and current being measured separately, of course) Generally, my meters recorded a halving of input current when the end magnet was added, and a doubling of output current and voltage when measured separately. When one of the coils is loaded, the input current drop is less remarkable (i.e. the greater the load, the higher the input current and the less the current drop when the end magnet is added). I have been pulsing it with about 10-12V unregulated low-ripple DC - that is, a step-down transformer from the power line with a 60000MFD cap and bridge on it.

Let me know if the unregulated DC supply is successful since I have not yet tried this. You should be able to use this (pulsing dc) as the pulse frequency / source as well.

Comments:

The POD technology is astonishingly cheap, simple, flexible, robust, and effective. Too many possible configurations and applications exist for this web site to even attempt to cover a fraction of them. This being the case, the POD 2 layouts on this page, present only some of the most obvious further optimizations that can be undertaken. I highlight the following features for particular attention:

1. The circuitry switch closed only during the pulse

2. Increasing the capacitor voltage to 250v

3. Increasing the switching speed to 4khz

4. Adding 40 turns of steel wire to the circuit (adds about 35v to cap charge)

The performance increase delivered by applying all those optimizations together genuinely has to be seen to be believed. POD 2 is a multi layered over-unity technology, with many carefully devised optimizations now seamlessly integrated into one package. Each of these optimizations can be added individually or collectively to the basic physical POD layout, and all greatly benefit performance. Future development might include raising the switching speed even higher, taking the capacitor voltage into the 350v-600v range, and using improved core materials such as permalloy or magnetite. 

No Patents: Finally, I would remind you all that POD was freely placed into the public domain. It is therefore now utterly impossible for any aspect of this technology to be patented. Tom Bearden took out 30 patents for his MEG - we give it all away for free.

Example application: Monster Truck Madness

Radio Control Full Function Nissan Frontier with 9.6V Battery and Charger (27 MHz)
by Scientific Toys Ltd

A POD unit could be fitted onto the back of this truck, significantly extending the rather short battery life of 30-45 minutes. The POD enhanced battery life would really be dependant upon the quality of your engineering, so much as any inherent limitation in the POD performance curve. This is a simple example of how much good clean fun is to be had with POD technology - I am sure you can think up many others.

Secrets of Cold War Technology: Project HAARP and Beyond, by Gerry Vassilatos. 

This book is well worth the money, and I don't say that about many. Much wonderful original research on Tesla. Genuinely very helpful. Obtaining a copy of this book appears to have transformed Mr Adams' research in the mid to late 1990s, with his latest models gating the 'back emf' into high voltage capacitors (250v), which then deliver the pure voltage / wattless / zero amp, state of energy Tesla documented over a century ago now. POD 2 was carefully designed to conform to Tesla's clear and specific negative energy optimization instructions, with in consequence, vastly improved results.

Through successive experimental arrangements, Tesla discovered several facts concerning the production of his effect. First, the cause was undoubtedly found in the abruptness of charging. It was in the switch closure, the very instant of "closure and break", which thrust the effect out into space. The effect was definitely related to time, impulse time. Second, Tesla found that it was imperative that the charging process occurred in a single impulse. No reversal of current was permissible, else the effect would not manifest. In this, Tesla made succinct remarks describing the role of capacity in the spark-radiative circuit. He found that the effect was powerfully strengthened by placing a capacitor between the disrupter and the dynamo. While providing a tremendous power to the effect, the dielectric of the capacitor also served to protect the dynamo windings. Finally, the effect could also be greatly intensified to new and more powerful levels by raising the voltage, quickening the switch "make-break" rate, and shortening the actual time of switch closure. 

Comments

• POD using 2 magnetite cores from the Adams motor
• Showed O/U at certain frequencies
• Also employed a pulse width modulator
• 555 circuitry can be used to advantage
• Takes time and patience
• Difficult to maintain constant results and repeat the frequency and pulse width
• Fundamentally works as claimed with sufficient applied experimental skill

The following post was made entirely unsolicited to an Egroup recently. I have been unable to procure a photo, but the replication claim remains fully valid. Since no photo has been offered, I have decided not to give a separate web page to this device. I must say this is one area of misunderstanding. Some people seem to think I have the power to force people to buy webcams and post their full names, address, and telephone numbers on the internet. In reality, most people replicating the technology on this website dislike attention, which is something I always respect.

Message ***** of 21870 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] Message Index 

From: "<******************>" 
Date: Sun *** **, 2002 7:26 am
Subject: POD units

Hello all, I am wondering if anybody out there has looked at the 
solid-state "Power-On-Demand" / POD modules that are at URL

www.geocities.com/theadamsmotor/pod.html

Has anyone tried experimenting with this type of device? It is very easy 
to build. I have built one myself and it exhibits some interesting 
properties like halving (or better) the current draw when the "end" magnet 
is added. I do not fully understand the device's functioning or the effects 
it creates.

I would love to hear about anybody's experiences or insights concerning 
this device.

futuresky123 posted this to the Adams motor Egroup:

Greetings, I've recently been experimenting with Parallel Path but decided to set it aside for now and replicate POD. I have already built a working Adams motor that runs cold, but have yet to measure cop. So I took one of the stators from my Adams motor and wired it per POD specifications, and low and behold the current draw halves. The POD I built uses ring magnets stacked from speakers that are rather large, 3/8" bolt for core. I built the POD unit very quickly not counting wire turns etc. Now let's get to the numbers. I performed two tests

1. IN .16A,17.3V OUT .2A,17.3V @ 252hz = cop of 1.25 
2. IN .1A,18.1V OUT .2A,18.0V @ 450hz = cop of 1.99 

So I would say with the numbers there is no doubt about over-unity and these numbers can only get better with improved materials and further experimentation.

Comments:

• The reason we say 60hz to 5khz, is that depending upon rotor / stator geometry, core materials, magnet type, and other factors, optimal switching speeds vary from one unit to the next.

• Try 1-5khz switching for significantly improved results above the basic COP 2 result, in particular 4khz.

2001 Update From Mr Adams

The cardinal mistake being made here is that most of these experimenters are concerned about I²R losses!  If you are seeking high/super performance with these powerful magnets, then discard all concerns in relation to Ohms Law, for in the Adams technologies Ohms Law becomes a non-entity.  Instead of expecting results of a high order with stators of very low resistance, such as under 10ohms, increase the total series electrical resistance instead to 72ohms and instead of expecting spectacular results using these powerful magnets with only 12 - 24 volts, increase the voltage to a minimum of 120v.  Upon having done this you must give attention to other important factors, i.e., stator to magnet air gap should be 1 - 1.25mm, impulse duty cycle should be 0.25 - 0.35, "mosfet" gate signal impulse 10 - 20v of good clean stable D.C.  Upon initial experimental tests, I have always used batteries.  Reduce the face area of stators to 75% of the magnet face.Now having said all this, choose your own method of signal switching, whether it be photo, hall, magnetic, reed or mechanical, etc.Upon fine tuning, and now having reached greatly increased power and performance, 'DOUBLE' the power supply voltage to 240v and you will have a machine in the "kilowatt" range, the exciting stage of your progress. 

Nikola Tesla's Patented Classic 1894 Bifilar Coil Schematic.

All magnetic fields have 4 poles - a possible mechanism for negentropy

My friend John Jankowski has very kindly supplied a diagram of the possible true nature of magnets, putting solid pictorial form to my theories. Even if this graphic turns out to be wrong, the temporarily enlarged time reversed secondary poles, are an excellent way to visualize the field depletion process manifested in the Adams motor. One can model the negative impulse mathematically, but that is different from the actual physics of how the effect is in reality manifested.

Sweet VTA