The Ecklin SAG 6 Generator
all rights reserved
The Stationary Armature Generator 6, designed by John Ecklin, is one
among many of his inventions claimed to produce free energy. It is a fascinating,
ingeneous, and simple concept which might or might not be over-unity, but
is nonetheless worthwhile to investigate.
I first learned about this device when I was thirteen, have made several
attempts at building and testing it, and learned a few things not mentioned
in any of the source articles -- which is why it is included here.
To understand the generator, some simple electromagnetism principles
need to be reviewed.
Faraday's Law states that the voltage between the outputs of a coil
is proportional to the rate at which the coil moves through a certain amount
of magnetic flux. Thus, the stronger the magnet, the higher the number
of loops in the coil, or the faster the coil cuts through magnetic flux,
the greater the voltage generated. This really states that a changing magnetic
field is required for a coil to tap its magnetic energy in the form of
An example of this is a loop of wire rotating like a spinning coin between
opposite poles of a horseshoe magnet. Electricity is siphoned off the outputs
of the coil.
Lenz's law states that any coil of wire will set up an opposite magnetic
field to counteract any change in its externally applied field. So if you
bring the north pole of a magnet toward a coil's end, the electricity induced
within the coil sets up its own north magnetic field which repels the magnet,
causing you to put more energy into bringing them closer. Then, if you
pull the magnet away, the coil's end becomes south and pulls you back.
An example of Lenz's law is the following:
Much energy is lost in pushing the coil toward and pulling it away from
Ecklin's SAG 6 attempts to circumvent Lenz's law and produce electricity
by combining two well known principles.
First, metal flying past a magnet loses no energy. The piece of metal
velocity increases as it nears the magnet, and decreases as it leaves,
but both in equal amounts. So from frame A to frame C, no energy is lost.
You can prove this to yourself by tying a piece of metal to a string,
taping a button magnet to a table, and letting the metal swing back and
forth above the magnet. It does so for a long time, and only slows down
due to air friction and energy lost in the string's vibration.
Second, the following setup changes the magnetic polarity of a coil
without the need of a moving magnet OR moving coil:
Note that the only moving piece in this example is the shunt (piece
of magnetic metal), and as illustrated above, shunts lose no energy when
moving past a magnet. Still, from frame A to frame B, the magnetic field
within the coil changes, so electricity is produced.
Thus, because the shunts lose no energy, but electrical energy is still
produced, this set up is theoretically over-unity.
The SAG 6 is cleverly designed like this:
Here we have two opposite C-shaped magnets trying to influence the magnetic
polarity of the I-shaped core. Without the shunts, no magnetic difference
would exist between the top of the core and bottom. But since every quarter
turn one of the gaps between core and magnet is bridged by a shunt, one
magnet has greater influence over the core. By rotating the shaft, the
magnetic field within the core flips back and forth as the strength of
one magnet's influence over the other switches back and forth.
Because only the shunts are rotating, no energy is lost, and yet the
I-shaped core still carries an alternating magnetic field whose energy
is tapped by the coil wrapped around the core. The magnets and core remain
stationary, hence the name "stationary" armature generator. Zero energy
in + lots of energy out = free energy.
My first several models of this device were pathetic, for I had no experience
in using the tools in my basement, but my sixth model was sturdy enough
to prove one thing: the SAG 6 does indeed generate electricity without
motion of magnets or core.
It lit a couple LED's, but since there was so much friction, with such
large airgaps, testing for over-unity was out of the question. An oscilloscope
reading measured ant-hill shaped sine waves of three volts peak to peak.
Output current was in the milliampere range. Since input power was around
30 watts, the efficiency of my model was miniscule. But it did produce
electricity, which was hopeful.
Materials employed were a race-car motor, blue radioshack C-magnets
and shunts, a core cut from a small transformer, 300 turns of #22 wire,
brass shaft and slip bearings, and a battery charger to run the motor.
This was done using elementary household tools, so I was not expecting
I have talked to David Colishaw, and he had built a model of the SAG
6, but his was also characterized by shoddy efficiency.
Now, the largest factor contributing to loss of generator efficiency
is wider than acceptable air gaps. There is much magnetic flux leakage,
and since the intensity of the magnetic field falls off as the square of
distance, any air gap whatsoever will contribute to weakening of the magnetic
In the SAG 6, the air gap factor is employed to alternatingly weaken
one of the magnet's influence over the core -- but look carefully at how
the shunts are designed. They are solid pieces of soft iron, which actually
channel the magnetic flux from the north pole to the south, leaving little
for the core.
Thus, a more accurate picture of what happens in the SAG 6 is as follows:
As you can see, the magnet with the stronger influence is the one with
a larger airgap. The size of this air gap is around .7 cm, and if that
is responsible for the strongest influence over the core, it is no wonder
my or David's models had terrible efficiency. A generator with air gaps
larger than a quarter millimeter will undoubtedly fail at being practical.
Why did Ecklin's design incorporate this fault? Was Ecklin naive? It
is a common practice for inventors of suppressed devices to publish their
findings with an artificially inserted flaw, such that hired scientists
of the "thought police" build the device, see it as faulty, and abandon
their persecution of the inventor. The wise reader, however, would see
the flaw, make the correction, and enjoy his over-unity model.
The corrected Ecklin generator would appear like so:
Now, the shunts do not channel flux from north to south pole, but from
the poles to the core. With careful construction, airgaps may be minimized,
and friction reduced, leading to efficiencies hundreds to thousands times
better than my model. I have not built this modified version yet, but will
in due time.
From what has been said here, it would appear that the SAG6 is built
upon sound theory. But a flaw in reasoning may still exist. Yes, a shunt
will not lose energy when moving past a magnet...UNLESS the magnetic influence
is diminished by an opposing magnetic field set up by the coil which cancels
out the original field.
As the shunt moves toward and away from the core, the pull of the magnet
may differ from frame A to frame C, such that extra energy is required
to pull the shunt away from the magnet after the field is first weakened,
This may be the achilles' heel of Ecklin's reasoning. It can't be said
for certain until models are built. From various articles written about
this device, actual over-unity models have been constructed which perform
as theorized, so perhaps it truly is genuine.
return to www.montalk.net