Tell Mr. Teal to show us his engineering data and calculations. Power in,
power out, etc.
His two patents only show that you can rotate a shaft using multiple
solenoid coils and a crankshaft ( like the pistons of a car engine). They do
not substantiate any energy claims.
His web site indicates that he has not been able to interest any major
investors (I wonder why). Another perpetual energy scheme.
Considering that modern (as well as early) motor design and function
is among some of the most efficient we have (that's why trains use
them), I don't think Mr. Teal will be enlightening anyone any time
soon. Even our large form generators in power stations are as good as
It is easy to get miracle results if you omit that complicated science shit
that ruins your conclusion....
So just discard any inefficiency or any scientific-type stuff that gets in
the way of your conclusion before you start testing, and you will always end
up with very efficient machines....
And you can easily then have cars that run on water, and magnets that align
your motor molecules and get you great gas mileage, and machines that need
no input to do work, and all kinds of great things...
and a horsepower that is not 746 watts, a foot that is not 12 inches, and a
pi=4 for easier calculations.
it's that complicated science stuff that never works -- that's the real
bat's blood and newt's tails --- now there's something you can trust in...
...and they breed, and they vote...
wrote in message
I'm not sure he is even alive anymore. That interview video clip is of
news broadcast back in the 70's. That patent discusses NOTHING about
recovery of the collapsing magnetic fields or high torque but the
he knew about it and applied it.
Nothing to do with perpetual motion and it is under 100% efficient. On
the page with
the interview, there is a link to a DVD that shows a working
duplication of a proof
of concept and a full walk thru on the principles.
For anyone else, take it or leave it.
This sounds like the device that someone wanted to get support from Alberta
Government resources about 20-30 years ago. Fortunately they asked Dr.
Seguin of the electrical engineering department at the Univ of Alberta about
it. It was rejected. Why? Not because it couldn't work but because it
couldn't work well being very inefficient compared to normal motors. It was
good for a coffee room laugh but not much more- hence the lack of support
that Mr Teal got .
a) Why use a crankshaft if it is not necessary to have the added
inefficiency and complications?
b) Energy recovery of inductive stored energy exists in any AC inductive
device without adding the complexity of "recovery" schemes -it is
inherent -The average power into an inductance is 0. Energy is being
returned to the source. See any elementary text. If sequential DC pulsing is
used then some energy recovery scheme may be of use- after all, a little
more complexity won't hurt-as the dentist said.
c)If you want mechanical power out of an electric motor- you must have a
back emf in one form or another- called a speed voltage- current alone is
not enough. In fact a 0 speed voltage can be obtained at 0 speed- there then
may be high torque and current but 0 mechanical power. As soon as the motor
starts turning there will be a speed voltage.
d)There does appear to be a claim of 1HP out for 200 watts (even implied in
the thread's title) which is effectively a claim for over 100% efficiency.
I read it the same way as Ben did.
Now 200 watts out for 746 watts(1HP) input for an efficiency of a lousy
27% may be closer to the truth.
I'll leave it. What puzzles me is that some take this device seriously.
=================Now having looked at the patent, it is not an AC device as I first assumed
and sequential pulsing is being used.
My reaction on seeing the drawings is "what a piece of junk!" It is almost
as if Mr Teal went out to make the most ineffective, inefficient and
complex device that he could think of. Rube Goldberg would be proud.
Don Kelly email@example.com
remove the X to answer
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.