Talk:Adams motor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Energy (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

This article could be improved by clearly stating, whether this is an alleged over unity device or not. --Pjacobi 21:03, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

Reluctance motor[edit]


  • The rotor, which consists of a laminated permeable material with teeth, is a passive device with no coil winding or permanent magnets.


Pjacobi 17:01, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

No-one Ever Said It Was a Simple Reluctance Motor[edit]

I think you misread the page. Actually it said 'switched reluctance.' The categorisation refers to the stator section behaviour. The reluctance of the stators is electrically switched. Therefore to say the device is based upon the principals of switched reluctance, is a statement of fact.

You seem keen to write an article on reluctance motors. May I kindly suggest instead of hacking the Adams motor page, a device you seem to know little about, perhaps you should write an article on reluctance motors instead? Timharwoodx 17:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"switched reluctance motor" or "variable switched reluctance" is also used as labels for the convential design. See the references you added.
And, as you now cede, that the Adams motor is only vaguely related, shouldn't the external links be removed again.
Pjacobi 17:27, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
I have no problem removing the links. I am aware the term s.r. is used in motor design, but the first line of the article says it is a perpetual motion device, and the last line informs the reader it is a perpetual motion device, and it links to perpetual motion as well. You seem terribly concerned a reader might miss the fact it is a perpetual motion device. This seems somewhat unlikely to me. In fact 3 references to perpetual motion, seems total overkill to me. Repitition. Since as a fact, the motor switches the reluctance of the stators, I fail to see why the general categorisation of s.r,. is so wrong. It could not be stated more clearly, this is not a standard s.r. motor. Timharwoodx 17:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"Switched" as in conventional "switched reluctance motor" does mean electronically commutated. See, its (switched (reluctance motor)) not ((switched reluctance) motor). --Pjacobi 17:40, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
Okay, you think 'switched reluctance' is NOT a general scientific term, it is specific to a small number of fixed motor layouts, and is not a general category of magnetic design, open to development. If that is so, and ‘reluctance’ is not general scientific terminology, how do we explain to people that the motor generates motion by operation of a switched reluctance principal, without using the term ‘switched reluctance.’ What other term generic scientific term are you proposing instead? Timharwoodx 18:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I just checked the two pages you linked as defining 'reluctance motor' and 'electrical engineering.' There is no such 'reluctance motor page,' and 'electrical engineering' does not mention 'reluctance.' You reference non existant sources! I think your time would be better used writing a reluctance motor page, than trying to argue 'reluctance' is not a general scientific term. Clearly, reluctance is in windespread general usage, despite what you argue.
The Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopedia, and this project isn't finished. In some sense, it will be never finished. Therefore it is unavoidable to link to not yet existing pages like reluctance motor or pages in suboptimal state, like electrical engineering.
The sentence it is not of course a conventional reluctance motor design, as defined in electrical engineering. doesn't imply that the definition of "reluctance motor" is given on the Wikipedia page "electrical engineering", but in field of electrical engineering. And Wikipedia happens to have a page on electrical engineering.
And of course reluctance is a scientific term in itself, and how nice, Wikipedia does have an article.
But nevertheless, the "switched" in "switched reluctance motor" pairs with "motor".
And BTW, as of today, you can see 1290 scientific papers on "switched reluctance motor" by this URL [1].
Pjacobi 19:01, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
Fine. I'll agree on the present text. No problem. But I think you really *OUGHT* to write that reluctance motor article sometime. It would be an interesting addition, and point of comparison. I've done scratch pages. At least make a stub page with some links. The Adams motor is not an alien technology, you can reasonably fit it into various recognised branches of existing motor design literature. Just because something is labelled 'perpetual motion,' it does not mean no aspect of the device can be understood or explained in standard language. Timharwoodx 19:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK, I think we got something like civilized consensus here. Yes, writing the missing article should be high priority on my list. --Pjacobi 20:52, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
Well, the present wording is 'suggested categorisation.' Hardly a strong statement, I think. It opens and closes with perpetual motion. If you feel the further qualification is required in the sentence afterwards, then fine. But this is exactly why I got fed up with Wiki, and moved over to Wikinfo, because in seeking an unobtainable 100% bias free narrative, you just end up with broken prose. The Adams motor is in many respects just an s.r. motor, and some would argue that is entirely the problem. Yet this simple fact has to be laden with several rather verbose qualfications.

Accuracy dispute[edit]

  • In its current form, the article doesn't correctly define its object.
  • The main question about the overunity features of the apparatus are unsanswered
  • The terminology doesn't mtach scholarly use in the field of electrical engineering

Pjacobi 00:03, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

This article gets disputed or put up for deletion every other month. Here we go again folks……. Pjacobi is a professional Wiki disputer. Check his history. Its what he does as some kind of weird electronic social life. The object is the Adams motor. Mr Adams is secretive about many aspects of his motor, so a definite form of actual final truth is just not possible. The article does match scholarly use of scientific terminology, as Pjacobi himself admitted earlier in this page. Switched reluctance is both proper and correct scientific terminology. Pjacobi argues against his earlier statement in his accuracy dispute. Timharwoodx 00:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"switched reluctance motor" is an accepted term, but for a very different concept. It is used for motors with a plain iron rotor, neither coil nor permanent magnets. And yes, exactly that I've stated above. This is one of the main deficits of this article: Re-use of standard terminology for plain different things.
And, of course, you are invited to check my contributions.
Pjacobi 07:37, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)


Timharwoodx states above:

Mr Adams is secretive about many aspects of his motor, so a definite form of actual final truth is just not possible.

Timharwoodx, please amplify and/or clarify this remark. If this is correct, then most of the article is not verifiable, making it subject to deletion under deletion policy. Note that Adams' secretiveness was not mentioned, and the issue of verifiability was not discussed, in the Vfd discussion of this article. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for comments[edit]

Is it important to identify this as a claimed perpetual motion device in the opening paragraph? Is the description factually accurate? Is the terminology used, particularly the portions describing it as a "reluctance" motor, acceptable?

I think it is essential to identify it upfront as a claimed perpetual motion device. I currently cannot pass judgement on the questions of "reluctance" terminology. There are two reasons why it must clearly be identified upfront as a perpetual motion device.
First, while we should not pass judgement on the credibility of the description of the motor, we certainly need to give the reader information that the reader needs to make his or her own judgement. The fact that this is claimed to be a perpetual motion machine is relevant to making that judgement, since as of 2005 it is very widely believed that perpetual motion machines are impossible. Most would categorize the impossibility of perpetual motion as an encyclopedic fact. If so, then the description of the Adams motor is only encyclopedic when clearly presented as the description of a claim or of a belief system.
Second: if it is not claimed to be a perpetual motion device, then it is has no significance whatsoever. It has not been commercialized, or, as of 2005, to have been been applied to any practical use. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Also note, that it's operation is very vaguely described only. The best description provided in the current article is the animated GIF, which is unfortunately rather small, not further referenced in the text, and -alarmingly- without source and license information, so that it may be deleted at any time. --Pjacobi 14:48, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
Judging from the various physical descriptions and circuit diagrams I've seen, the "Adams motor" is just an ordinary pulsed DC motor with a slightly unusual rotor/stator arrangement. --Carnildo 20:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That is *EXACTLY* my point. Yet Pjacobi, who seems to spend all day every day kicking up stupid arguments on Wiki, as seen in his edit history, is determined to put the words 'perpetual motion' in the article several times over, when there is little to no evidence that is justified. I cite that as unnecessary repititon, so he calls in multiple disputes on the article. It looks like an ordinary motor with strange rotor / stator geometry, so why not describe it as that? Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.... is a duck, etc.
I agree the .gif should be removed. I wrote the Adams motor Wiki article, and the .gif is a leftover from the original stub entry. I never liked it. But to say the .gif is a more detailed description that the txt, is complete and utter nonsense. Pjacobi is German as I understand it, maybe he just can't read English very well?
Wiki is not intended as an outlet for sad, lonely, friendless, socially awkward individuals, to pass the time of day. Pjacobi follows me round Wiki, and every time I edit something, he kicks up some kind of dispute. Or even multiple disputes. i figure its some kind of cry for attention / help. Timharwoodx 18:46, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If this is not a claimed perpetual motion machine, two curious questions arise:
  1. Why is it relevant? There are enough motor designs which are commercially successfull and/or got attention in peer-reviewed journals, and which can be described, as it details are no secret. Also, these other designs have the additional bonus, that they observe Ohm's law.
  2. Why is the Admans motor a prominent guest on many webpages on "Perputal Motion", "Free Energy" and "Over Unity"?
Regarding the alleged behaviour I do show, you are free to try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Pjacobi 18:58, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
And the article I wrote, listed the Adams motor in the category perpetual motion, and provided a link to perpetual motion. So that was *TWO* clear references to perpetual motion, reflecting that aspect of it. But if it really was a free energy machine, invented in 1969, I would tend to guess somebody *MIGHT* be selling it by now. So maybe its just a normal switched reluctance motor. The article correctly reflects the ambiguity about the true nature of the device. It claims to be free energy, but doesn't look like it in technical substance, which is what I was trying to reflect when I wrote the article. I note Pjacobi replied within 10 minutes of my post. This simply confirms my thesis, he is a sad, lonely person, with no friends, who constantly causes stupid arguments in Wiki, as a substitute for his non existent social life. Please Pjacobi, get outside, talk to a girl(s). Stop wasting everyone’s time with stupid nonsense disputes, about subjects you clearly know nothing about.
It is I, not Pjacobi, who entered the Request for Comment, and who believes it is important to identify the device as a claimed overunity device within the main text of the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Switched Reluctance Motor, again[edit]

Timharwoodx do you have a browser problem? Reading [2], a reference you added yourself, it is easy to see, that the Adams motor is not Switched Reluctance Motor as its rotor employs permanent magnets. Or check some papers from [3]. --Pjacobi 20:21, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

Official timeline of invention?[edit]

What does the "Official" header mean on that section? Whose official account is it? Also, aside from the first entry (the 1969 invention of the original device) there's no explanation in the timeline or elsewhere in the article body describing or explaining the events alluded to. Could someone clarify:

  • What is the "impulse method of charging batteries"?
  • What is the "New procedure to engineer magnetic polarity reversal", and how does it differ from the old one? (What was the old method, and why is it good to engineer magnetic polarity reversal?)
  • What is a "Super Power Four Pole Permanent Magnet"? Why is it important, and are the extra two poles East and West? ;)
  • Was the "Mark 024 Thermo Switched Reluctance Motor" an engineering milestone of some sort? Since its 1996 invention, how many units have been sold or are in use?

Cheers. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 22:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be at least partially sourced from this tabellary biography of Dr. h.c. Adams:
It looks most curious to me, that the founder of the New Zealand Section of the Institute of Electracial and Electronic Engineers has not a single publication in an IEEE magazine on record.
The question about the four poles goes to User:Timharwoodx, as he talks a lot about this on his website, but I can't make any sense out of it.
Pjacobi 23:27, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
'Official' means from Robert Adams. Direct. His website.
Well, fine. Make that clear and reference it and there's no problem. I don't think the word "official" is a good choice of language here. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:45, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
P. S. I've just changed the section title to "Evolution of the design" and clarified the source.
I must congratulate Pjacobi, havig made multiple edits to the Adams motor page, and raised multiple objections, he does *FINALLY* seem to be having some *VAGUE* idea of the subject matter. This, for me, is the underlying flaw of Wiki. You get guys like Pjacobi, who really know next to nothing about a topic, making editorial decisions. What you end up with, is in fact a collective pooling of ignorance. How many hits can we find on google for this topic? Oh, cool, found 25, so lets keep it....
How much detail do you want? I can upload up to 35,000 words on the general subject. I was trying to be concise when I wrote the page. As for the later claims of invention, you'd have to ask Mr Adams. He likes to keep his secrets, to guess seems a waste of time, to me. I think the page presents a well balanced over-view of the main claims surrounding the Adams motor, and maintains the edge of skepticism, that maybe its just an ordinary motor, and not a free energy machine after all.
I've added language to the first paragraph that makes it clear that it does function as an ordinary motor, and noting failure of other experimenters to demonstrate overunity operation in 1994. Absent overunity, what exactly is interesting about it (as an "ordinary" motor? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:15, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Okay. If we don't have (and can't get) explanations for most of the entries in the timeline, should it be in the article? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A lot of dispute exists about the Adams motor between Bedini, Lutec, etc, so the dates of 1969 and 1975 for invention are important, and I think required for the article. Having taken the time to list two dates, you may as well use 3 more lines of text for the other claims. That was my reasoning. Timharwoodx 12:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Could we drop the whole timeline, then? The 1969 invention date is already in the article. There's no explanation of the impulse method of charging batteries, or how it relates to the Adams motor—why does it need to be mentioned here?
Also, if there are other claimants who assert precedence in invention of this device, should they be mentioned in the article as well? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Doctorate is fake[edit]

If no-body objects, I will remove the 'Dr' tag from the article, because so far as I can tell, its bogus. And by the way folks, the Adams motor guide link somebody added - thats MY ARTICLE.

I know that. I think it's highly relevant. It's possible that someone may try to remove it as link spamming. If they do, don't get upset, just let me know and I'll try to defend it. I'm adding a specific note about this below. Dpbsmith (talk)

All the decent public domain info on this device comes from me. So excuse me if I find being 'edited' by a nobody like Pjacobi annoying. Like I say, the beauty of Wiki, is that experts like me, get edited by ignorants like Pjacobi. My line of argument seems respected. Yes it is a claimed perpetual motion device, but it looks like an ordinary motor in many respects, and ordinary motors can be built along the lines described. I was trying to write a balanced article, conceding it has exotic claims, but putting forward the skeptical viewpoint, it might *NOT* be over-unity i.e. a working functional motor, but with a measuring error of some sort. I wish Pjacobi would remove his permanent bookmark on my contributions, and stop editing every page I touch. Please. I feel like he is harassing me, constantly calling in disputes.

Well, try to calm down. This whole article is skating successfully on fairly thin ice and you shouldn't expect that to feel comfortable. Don't think you can control the content of a Wikipedia article, because you can't. That language appearing under every edit box, "if you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it," is no joke. The only authority anyone has on Wikipedia is the authority they establish by their writing and explanations. Jimbo Wales is not going to come down from the sky and anoint you as the sole author of this article. It is your job to figure out how to make PJacobi less annoying to you. He already knows that you think you know more about Adams motors than he does. Some of this seems to me just to be issues of wording. Don't bite PJacobi's finger, look where he's pointing.
I'm sure you're aware that the topics you've been writing on involve concepts and theories that are not accepted by the general scientific mainstream, and you shouldn't expect them to go unchallenged. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Timharwoodx, for providing the very interesting skeptical link [4]. It gives some insight, why claims of over-unity, even by good-faith experimenters, arise. It's in the measurement of energy consumed and produced. It is long known, and AFAIK mentioned in one of our articles on this topic, that simple volt- and amperemeters give misleading results for non-sinusoidal signal (heck, the simplest ones doesn't even get the sinusoidal signals right). Comparing charging and discharging accumulators seems to be good "objective" measurement, but the article you linked, points out the problems. Even for the same type of accumulator, the same voltage doesn't mean the same energy stored (as each RC car pilot knows, BTW). Of course, you can easily get correct results by monitoring voltage and current using a DSO. --Pjacobi 18:54, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

Adams motor guide link[edit]

For the record, just in case anyone suspects it of being link spamming: this link was inserted by me, Dpbsmith (talk), who has no connection whatsoever to the Adams motor, Tim Harwood, or the "free energy"/"overunity" community. I put it in because I think it is highly germane to the article. Please do not remove it without discussion here. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have built an Adams motor, and it does work, but there are so many problems with the engineering implementation, I don't think its worth it. Power to weight / manufacturing cost is a major issue. If anyone thinks I'm ever going to put enough technical details into the public domain to replicate it to a level of technological utility, you're bonkers. Figure it out yourself. Its a given you absolutely need a complex custom circuit board, but even then unless I told you how to structure development of the board, it would not help much. I put in an application to MIT for a research fellowship, but they turned me down. And thats it. They were the only folks who even showed a half interest. I'm now tuned into how Wiki works, so I filled out the Adams motor stub in what I felt was an appropiate skeptical style. And yes I have spoken to Robert Adams on the phone, and I found him arrogant. If his motor ends up lost to historical obscurity, its his own fault. Timharwoodx 23:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)



Does anyone know where this image came from? It's copyright status is in doubt, so it may have to get deleted unless information can be found on its source. Thanks, — Asbestos | Talk 10:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Only history now[edit]

Mr Adams has just passed out (away?) this month of may 2006. Despite the dispute around it's inventions and the classical arrogancy of "common" scientist, we are on our own for now about finding wether or not this man had given something valuable to humanity, wich should be done without rage nor fear to see "common physics" to collapse and transform on new basis. Peace to his soul of good will.

Mr. Adams came into a situation where he saw electric motors not being very efficient and did some work toward improving their efficiency. It is unfortunate that people went to "perpetual motion" without understanding the in between. That being, his motor might be more efficient, that is, might lose less in heat, might create motion with less energy, than current electric motors do. Thus he was the subject of more criticsm than deserved, I think. Terryeo 16:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If you could site a source saying just that it would be a good addition to the page. Rogerdpack (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Tong Po Chi and I, Lawrence Tseung, are building what we call "Lead-Out Energy Machines". With any normal machine, the output energy must be less than the input energy so as not to violate the Law of Conservation of Energy. In a Lead-Out Energy Machine, some of the Input Energy is used to Lead-Out existing, non-obvious energy such as gravity or electron motion.

Our Lead-Out Energy Machine has 16 magnets, 16 coils, a proximity switch to sense the position of a magnet and its partner coil. At the appropriate instant, a pulse is used to repel the magnet so as to rotate the wheel. The Output Energy can be extracted from the axle or from separate collectors coils. More details are available in under the Lee-Tseung Lead-Out Energy Thread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)