LA2.1. Johnston Permanent motor
@ Dr. Ing. Jan Pająk

LA2.1. Johnston Permanent motor

A very simple telekinetic free-energy device already completed on Earth, is a motor which contained only permanent magnets, and thus which is called "Permanent magnet motor" or "PMM". This motor was invented by Howard Johnson (address in 1989: P.O. Box 199, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060, USA). Historically, it is considered to be the first operational telekinetic motor ever completed on our planet. Its design and operation are published in article [1LA2.1] by Jorma Hyypia, "Amazing Magnet-Powered Motor", Science & Mechanics, Spring 1980, pages 45-48 and 114-117. This motor is subject to USA patent no 4,151,431. According to reports, its efficiency slightly exceeds 100%. Thus, once started, it sustains its operation until intentionally held back or until its mechanical parts wear out. But the excess of its output power is still too small to be useful. Therefore, its significance lies in proving that the construction of telekinetic devices capable of self-sustaining their own motion is feasible, whereas the energy produced by this motor hasn't any practical application.
Out of all free energy devices, telekinetic PMM motors similar to that of the Johnson device, are the subject of inventive activities of the highest intensity. The development of various versions of such motors has been carried out by numerous inventors in a number of countries. But all these devices are still in the research and development stage. In 1990s a lot of publicity was received by a telekinetic motor invented by Urlich Schumacher. (Address in 1991: Ulrich Schumacher KG, Sperbersloher Strasse 564, D-8509 Wendelstein, West Germany).
The general design of the Johnson motor is shown in part (a) of Figure LA1. The original design of this motor contains only two relatively moving parts - marked as (1) and (3) in Figure LA1. (The introduction of the third part, marked as (2), is proposed by me to explain ways of increasing the efficiency of such motors.) The stator (3) contains a set of small magnets located in equal distances from one another. Above the stator (3) magnets of the Telekinetic Effect activator (1) move in the direction "V". The shape of magnets (1) is vital, i.e. they must be a half-moon or banana shape. The proportion of dimensions of both groups of magnets, i.e. (1) and (3), is also vital.
The operation of the Johnson motor, explained by three subsequent stages of release of the Telekinetic Effect, is also illustrated in Figure LA1. Parts a), b), and c) of this Figure show three successive positions that the activator (1) takes in relation to the stator (3). The thick closed line passing through magnets (1) and (3) represents the path of the magnetic circuits (force lines) that join both of these parts. The operation of this motor begins with stage a) in which magnetic circuits are in an equilibrium position. But the inertial motion of the activator (1) in the direction "V" causes these circuits to jump into the position shown in part b) of this Figure. During such a jump, the magnetic circuits are accelerated. This acceleration releases the telekinetic elementary drive "P". A small fraction of this drive acts also at both ends of the magnet (1), providing them with an impulse that sustains the motion "V". The special shape of the magnet (1) causes it to intercept part of the telekinetic drive released by the motion of this magnet. The jump and acceleration of magnetic circuits extend until stage c). Further motion of the activator (1) in the direction "V" causes the final return to the equilibrium position already described in part a). Then the whole cycle of the operation is repeated.
After an analysis of the Johnson motor it becomes obvious that the greatest value of the elementary telekinetic drive P' is released just above the magnets of the stator (3), where the acceleration of magnetic circuits is the largest. This indicates that the efficient telekinetic motors should contain not less than three relatively moving parts, i.e. a stator (3), a Telekinetic Effect activator (1) and a rotor (2). In such a three-part motor the mutual interactions between the stator and the field activator are only to release the Telekinetic Effect. But the impulse of elementary drive P' of this effect is intercepted by the rotor, which then feeds a part of the impulse just received back onto the activator - to sustain its motion.
This shows why the main drawback of the Johnson motor is its low efficiency. It results from the use of only two relatively moving parts instead of three. The activator (1), that normally should release only the Telekinetic Effect, in this motor also tries to intercept its driving impulse. Of course, because of its inconvenient location, it intercepts only a small fraction of the telekinetic drive that it releases. Moreover, the part of the drive intercepted during the acceleration of magnetic circuits is then eliminated by an opposite drive intercepted during the deceleration of the same circuits. This drawback can easily be eliminated through the introduction of a segmented rotor (2), placed between the activator (1) and the stator (3) - as is marked in Figure LA1 by a broken line. The rotor (2) would spin at a speed at least two times greater than that of the activator (1), and would be joined with mechanical gears. During the operation its blades would always appear in the place of the strongest telekinetic drive P', and disappear from the area of the opposite action of the Telekinetic Effect. The use of a rotor for the interception of the telekinetic drive would also simplify the design of this motor. This is because the activator (1) would not then require magnets of a special shape. It is worth mentioning here that the spinning of the rotor (2), could also be used for the generation of electric power in a manner similar to that used in the N-Machine. Thus the appropriate design of this rotor could transform the telekinetic motor into a telekinetic aggregate.
While discussing the Johnson motor it is worth noting that its inventor was unaware of the existence of the Telekinetic Effect. Therefore he explains the operation of this device in a different manner. According to his explanation, the continuous motion of this motor is the result of an imbalance between the magnetic attraction and repulsion taking place in opposite directions. Of course this explanation does not say why his motor requires the initial starting impulse of the motion (for its operation caused by such an imbalance should be able to start on its own). Also such an explanation eliminates the justification for a third moving part, thereby giving no theoretical clues as to how to improve the efficiency of this device.
Although I do not know details, I am aware that all PMM motors were vigorously suppressed and persecuted by some sort of evil power. Thus Johnson motor never went into an industrial production, in spite that it achieved the technical state when it could be produced and sold as a curiosity and toy that illustrates the possibility of “perpetuum motion” (I would buy myself such a toy, if it is available on sale). Some hints about types of persecution that the inventor of the Johnson motor experienced are provided already in the article [1LA2.1] indicated above.

=> LA2.2.
Antworten to top

Gehe zu:

Benutzer, die gerade dieses Thema anschauen: 1 Gast/Gäste