View Single Post
 
Old 10-03-2019, 01:35 AM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,706
Saved

Quote:
Originally Posted by NROC View Post
This is spot on. The fact is that the Lenz force does not appear instantaneously, it takes time for the currents to form in the materials, and therefore if your talented enough you can build a motor that has only frictional losses. NO LOSS DUE TO LENZ. Whether you do it by setting your impedance of the coil to avoid it like dave has, or whether you make your rotating element non circular like jim murray did in his dynaflux machine (which was patented by the way and authorised by the patent office as doing what it said it would do) is up to you. THESE DEVICES EXIST. Although they have received little attention by the main engineering body, which is an absolute afront to science in my opinion, they work.

With these motors it doesnt cost you anywhere near as much to turn you motor or generator as a conventional motor or generator. If you take it a step further like dave has then you can keep adding more coils to get more power out, you couple that with a 3bgs and your laughing. There really is no refuting these lenz free motors because they have to be demonstrated to a patent officer before approval. In the dynaflux machine even the non linear dynamics are shown in the patent just for engineers to see how it works because otherwise ot wouldnt have been accepted.

This is why i find bistanders opinion so dumb. 1) because he just quotes wikipedia and 2) because published info is already available.

I guess quantum well is the new bistander lol.

Anyway i wont waste anymore time driving traffic to biproducts thread. Dave only responds to you because he feels like it. We are doing the work behind the scenes to take these things much further than has been done already. I hope in the future people will thank Matt and Dave for how much they gave freely to people.
Quoted for later use.
bi

First edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NROC View Post
This is why i find bistanders opinion so dumb. 1) because he just quotes wikipedia and 2) because published info is already available.
I have over 1600 posts. I recall only a few times that I quoted Wikipedia. I do quote other references. And always indicate such when I do. I don't understand point 2. I regularly search and read already published info. But because it is published doesn't make it true. Just because I post something doesn't make it true. I strive to only post truth and fact, but being human, I can be fooled or make errors. And unlike some here, I appreciate being corrected (preferably politely) as that is a good method of learning. But the reader needs to beware and check everything they see on the interwebs.
__________________
 

Last edited by bistander; 10-03-2019 at 03:46 AM. Reason: Added comment
Reply With Quote