SYNCOPETRA is now able to make 2 different pure magnet motors, free
energy generators, and linear magnet motors. This capability comes
from the discovery of the true mechanisms of electric motors.
Interesting enough, we will only make one each of all but one these
devices solely for experimental purposes.

Reasoning for this decision is very simple. The real prize, just like
in semiconductors, is a field effect device/motor, a device where
torque is developed by powering a field coil rather than a rotor coil.
The main justifying advantages leading to this decision are easier
speed and torque control and the least quantity of permanent magnets.
The only negative is that control is very high Q with control and
limited over a range of about 10% of the ideal current. An astute
motor builder might see an analogy between this effect and the
slippage in an AC induction ('squirrel cage') motor.

Our discovery unravels the enigma in the conflict between Faraday's
force on a wire and Newton's equal an opposite reaction. More
accurately the forces are on the near pole face edges. Faraday's
equation, applied to the induction AC or the field coil DC motor, can
be (but hardly ever is) written as:
Torque = constant x field current (Ic) x rotor current (Ir).
Forces are on the wires with the enigmatic question being, 'HOW can
the forces be EQUAL if the currents are UNEQUAL?' The exact same flux
is produced with equal currents of the value = square root of Ic x Ir.
(Please note currents are scalar values and equations are not
mathematical vector cross products.)

Our first discovery starts with magnetic flux, maybe exactly like
light, is refracted at boundaries. The air analogy is supported by the
fact that laminations polarize flux and thereby carry significantly
more flux, more easily, than solid steel. Since the permeability of
air and steel are proportioned approximately 1000:1, Snell's
refraction law would indicate that; no matter what incidence angle is
in steel, the incidence angle in air is perpendicular. Polarization
and refraction may be inherently interrelated. Experimental proof of
this discovery is easy, cheap, and available to the public.

Our second discovery is a alternative way to generate motor gap shear
forces. Faraday's forces inherently involve changing reluctance and
conserved energy. Sacrificing half of Faraday's forces results in
constant reluctance, i.e. NO back EMF!!!!! This discovery was somewhat
accidental, has proved to be absolutely incredible, and will soon be
recognized as the source of free energy. Very simply,
reluctance/induction motors utilize repulsive shear forces and the
alternative is our invention of a tractive shear force mechanism.

Our experimental results support conclusions:
1. Magnet motors can make free energy practically only if they are
narrow gap devices.
2. All motors are driven by circumferential shear forces rather than
pure torque. If our theories are correct, motor forces must be
independent shear forces. Narrow gap experimental proof exists with
large torque being generated between two parallel and aligned magnets.
Torque is essentially dependent on only the separation distance
between the magnets when tractive shear is produced with constant
gaps. 3. If shear forces are independent linear propulsion is
possible. A video of proof is immanent. We move a steel bar between
two magnets. Of course there are end effects, but they are only seen
within one magnet length from both ends of the bar. An infinitely long
bar has no end effects.
4. If linear propulsion is possible a rotary motor merely simulates
the infinitely long bar with an annular loop of steel.
5. Cheap U-coil field motors are significantly less efficient than
motors with coils at the pole face. This effect is explain by
equations which further support the case for refraction and is the
basis for field effect motor.

I am Vilma Cinco, that's my plan and my story, and I am sticking with
both. That is, of course, unless some can top the incredible
experiments that I have witnessed.

We would gladly debate our findings with anyone and with one simple
rule of engagement. Debaters may use any equations but may not use any
nonsense from the rubbish pile. I have witnessed the debate several
times and; without theoretical nonsense including mutual inductance,
back EMF, rotating field, and more; debaters seem to have been 'naked
as a jay bird' when the opposition is armored with a couple of simple
equations. Most notable, F=MA has an equivalent, irrefutable, equation
in the art of magnetics: I= flux quantity x reluctance.

Enjoy, participate, or ignore,
Vilma G. Cinco
SYNCOPETRA