My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines

[bistander]

Without math you should have equal contact time providing the brush and the commutator piece have been scaled proportionately.

Well, Yes. That has been obvious to me from the start. And exactly what I have said. Thanks.

bi

[bistander]

If I replace JUST commutator, not brushes, ...
In larger diameter than OEM Comm, coils STAY ON LONGER TIME...

So let's use the example from before. Replace the small comm (1"radius) with a larger comm (4" radius) and leave the smaller brush which had a contact of 30º on the smaller comm or an arc length of 0.523". Use 1000RPM for both cases.

The smaller comm surface speed is 104.67in/sec. The comm segment actual surface distance would be 0.473" when a .050" mica undercut is considered. The total time of contact between the brush and one comm segment = (0.523"+0.473")/104.67in/sec = 9.5mS.

The larger comm surface speed is 418.67in/sec. The comm segment actual surface distance would be 2.045" using the same .050" undercut. The total time of contact between the brush and one comm segment = (0.523"+2.045")/418.67in/sec = 6.1mS.

The contact duration is shorter on the larger commutator.

This would have negligible effect on torque and speed of the motor, probably unnoticeable.

bi

[DadHav]

Maybe in your classic physics books did not tell you...you will have to find out by yourself, by experimenting.

If I replace JUST commutator, not brushes, and put either a smaller or bigger diameter ones, I am affecting the CONTACT TIME to Energize Coils, therefore, performance.

In larger diameter than OEM Comm, coils STAY ON LONGER TIME every 180º cycle (for symmetry), therefore, magnetic drag is greater related to stators interactions, hence torque is greater, speed is reduced.

The complete opposite process occurs when smaller diameter commutators are installed.

The only one who is ridiculous here is you, and your ego thinking you know it all, plus criticizing everyone here with your DOUBLE IDENTITIES.

With respect to both UFO and Bi, I've been reading this and just want to see if I'm getting what I should out of it. Didn't UFO state there would be more contact time on a larger diameter brush and commutator than a smaller one? Without math you should have equal contact time providing the brush and the commutator piece have been scaled proportionately. No? The smaller set would have the same RPM and contact time with less surface speed over the contact surfaces. Now UFO said both brushes would be the same size and actually that would change things. Of course if your smaller diameter commutator has to big of a brush you have more problems than just timing. Just saying. I don't think the earlier drawings and explanations matched and I see how an argument can come of it.
John

[Ufopolitics]

Your expertise...great!

This is ridiculous. The commutator diameter does not enter into the speed and torque equations for DC motor performance. The number of segments do, but not the size.

This is off topic so I will just drop it with that.

bi

Maybe in your classic physics books did not tell you...you will have to find out by yourself, by experimenting.

If I replace JUST commutator, not brushes, and put either a smaller or bigger diameter ones, I am affecting the CONTACT TIME to Energize Coils, therefore, performance.

In larger diameter than OEM Comm, coils STAY ON LONGER TIME every 180º cycle (for symmetry), therefore, magnetic drag is greater related to stators interactions, hence torque is greater, speed is reduced.

The complete opposite process occurs when smaller diameter commutators are installed.

The only one who is ridiculous here is you, and your ego thinking you know it all, plus criticizing everyone here with your DOUBLE IDENTITIES.

[Ufopolitics]

So I am through. Like I said, I don't want to argue with you.

Excellent, then GO somewhere else to keep serving as the "Police" from Classic Physics of this Forum.

I just hate to see outfits like Ortronics get credit for free energy/over unity when it is apparent BS. Why pedroxime posted on this thread is a mystery.

Regards and keep up the good work.

bi

I could care less if you "hate" or not capisci?

Pedroxime is free to post here anytime he pleases, NOT YOU.

There is absolutely "no mystery" in his posting here.

What YOU DO have to do is just keep one Profile here, So is either Citfta or Bistander.

No "Double Personalities" allowed here.

@Aaron Murakami or any Admin:

Could you verify the Member "Bistander" and "Citfta" are the same exact IP?

Is this correct to do here?

What could be the purpose in ANY Public Forum like this one for one person to have TWO IDENTITIES?

Is obvious, malice, spreading false opinions, being able to "sneak" where the other one was burnt to keep criticizing, hating, injecting doubt, etc,etc...creating double responses with same purpose, therefore, obtaining more credibility...and then a billion more false beliefs ...etc...

In other words...Rats behavior and stinking personalities.


Thanks Aaron.

[bistander]

Angles

This was an argument about COILS SIZE/ANGLES versus CONTACTS AT COMMUTATOR TIMING.

In one CAD he showed one size comm-brushes...in another CAD, another size comm-brushes and IDENTICAL/SAME rotor core. And SINCE the main argument was referring to relation between Core/Coils Angles versus switching angles...The Brush Scaling being correct or not has absolutely NADA to do with this very old argument.

Could you be able to understand now?

When comm and brush are scaled proportionally (as Mark did), the core/coil switching timing is unaffected. That is the point you apparently are unable to understand.

So I am through. Like I said, I don't want to argue with you. I just hate to see outfits like Ortronics get credit for free energy/over unity when it is apparent BS. Why pedroxime posted on this thread is a mystery.

Regards and keep up the good work.

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Yes, this was incorrect scaling on your part. Mark's drawing increased the commutator and brush in the same proportion.



You increased the brush size by a factor of 2 and the comm by 4. Using half the arc distance on the large comm (15º opposed to 30º) then gives a time of 2.5mS vs 5mS for the smaller comm. Faster, not slower, contrary to this statement.



See diagram in previous post for left image.

bi

This was an argument about COILS SIZE/ANGLES versus CONTACTS AT COMMUTATOR TIMING.

There is absolutely NO BAD MATH here...and much less BAD GEOMETRY!

I have exactly the same type of 12 pole motor as Mark had, the measurements were taken to exact scale.

In one CAD he showed one size comm-brushes...in another CAD, another size comm-brushes and IDENTICAL/SAME rotor core. And SINCE the main argument was referring to relation between Core/Coils Angles versus switching angles...The Brush Scaling being correct or not has absolutely NADA to do with this very old argument.

Could you be able to understand now?

PLUS YOU are NOT one of the replicators of ANY of my work here, therefore, I have absolutely zero interest nor obligation to "REVIVE" this argument at ANY POINT just because you decided to do so.

FURTHERMORE, what I am NOT going to allow/tolerate is for you to keep spreading your false statements about "bad math" all over this forum, much less badmouthing me on MY THREAD!!

So, for me this is the end of writing to You here.

SO, remove your BS no reason to bring on comments here.

No regards, no respectfully nothing!

Citfta, why do you have TWO IDENTITIES with one SINGLE IP on this Forum?

Is this allowed by this Forum Rules?...I don't think so.

I will ask Aaron to look into this.

[bistander]

Criticism

By what you are stating above, about "bad math" example...just leaves you in the ignorant circle, in red, and very well defined.

I could only imagine what kind of "improvements" you have been able to achieve...with such poor knowledge about Basic Mathematics that I believe belongs to Elementary School.

@At ALL:

This is one of the guys on this Forum who spends his time criticizing our hard work...calling "ignorant" to others disclosing free information here...without the least information about who they are talking to...however, they dare, they have the AUDACITY to keep doing it!!!.

Unbelievable, but true!!


Ufopolitics

I don't criticize your hard work, just the poor or incorrect work. Would you not want to know what you've done wrong? If you don't care, maybe readers do.

Regards,

bi

[bistander]

DC motor comm size

In Brushed Motor World, ANY Motor that have smaller commutator diameters, compared to rotor cores are FAST SPEED/LOW TORQUE motors.

In Brushed Motor World, ANY Motor that have bigger commutator diameters, compared to rotor cores are SLOWER SPEED/HIGHER TORQUE motors.

Example: If I get an OEM, Symmetrical 12 pole motor, and take OEM Commutator off, and install the same number 12 number segments, connect them the same way, BUT, HALF smaller in diameter, that motor will spin about TWICE faster with lesser torque than OEM.

If I install a TWICE BIGGER Diameter than OEM Commutator, that Motor will spin around HALF way the OEM Speed with Higher Torque than OEM.

This is ridiculous. The commutator diameter does not enter into the speed and torque equations for DC motor performance. The number of segments do, but not the size.

This is off topic so I will just drop it with that.

bi

[bistander]

continued response

The smaller radius 1, brush is same size as arc segment.

In bigger size R2, Brush is NOT the same size as commutator segment.

Yes, this was incorrect scaling on your part. Mark's drawing increased the commutator and brush in the same proportion.

Mark,

This is what I was referring to:

[IMG][/IMG]

You increased the brush size by a factor of 2 and the comm by 4. Using half the arc distance on the large comm (15º opposed to 30º) then gives a time of 2.5mS vs 5mS for the smaller comm. Faster, not slower, contrary to this statement.

smaller circumference switching plates/brush are going to turn on-off faster than wider area switching at left image.

See diagram in previous post for left image.

bi

[bistander]

Bad math

[IMG][/IMG]

Radius 2= 4 X(times) r1,

say r1=1 Inch, then R2= 4 Inches

If we calculate Circumference 1 (Arc Length), based on r1 (1") and 30º it is approx 0.5 inches.

If we calculate Circumference 2 (Arc Length) for R2(4") and 30º it is approx 2.0 Inches

Now, you are going to tell me it will take the same time to sweep a Four (4) Inches contact segment than a 1/2 inch (0.5) segment ?!

You jump from distance to time and this implies speed. From everything leading up to this and all context, any reasonable individual would assume the two cases (commutator with 1" radius and commutator with 4" radius) are rotating at the same speed. Let's use 1000 RPM for example.

The comm with the 1" radius has a circumference = 6.28". At 1000RPM, that is a surface speed of 104.67in/sec. The 30º sector has an arc length of 0.523". At 104.67in/sec, it takes 5mS to cover that distance.

The comm with the 4" radius has a circumference = 25.12". At 1000RPM, that is a surface speed of 418.67in/sec. The 30º sector has an arc length of 2.095". At 418.67in/sec, it takes 5mS to cover that distance.

Yes, it will take equal times to sweep the 30º sector on the two different size commutators.

Note: There is an inconsistency with the figures which I underlined in the quote from your post.

[Ufopolitics]

To Citfta/Bistander same thing...

Here is one:



From post #7485. You say:

]I am pretty sure you knew about all this right Mark?...so, do you think it would be EXACTLY the same to sweep Commutator Element-Brush at left as the smaller one at right?!

Of course not!...smaller circumference switching plates/brush are going to turn on-off faster than wider area switching at left image.
AND BOTH WITH SAME EXACT 30º ANGLES, AND TURNING THE SAME ROTOR DIAMETER.

This is clearly incorrect geometry and scaling and your argument with Mark is invalid due to your bad math. It is just one example I have noticed. But again, I am not here to argue with you. All I am really interested in is proof that this contraption is any good. And you can not show that. And neither can Ortronics. Hence the use of bad math and pretty pictures and videos for distraction.

There may be aether and radiant energy, but your machines and that crap from Ortronics do not demonstrate it. But don't let me discourage you. Please keep trying.

By what you are stating above, about "bad math" example...just leaves you in the ignorant circle, in red, and very well defined.

The only single reason why am getting involved to answer your stupid comment above...is to show the rest of readers on this Forum...who are the people criticizing our projects, our search for free energy, radiant energy, aether and magnetism research.

************************************************** ******************************

That comment was due to inconsistency in CAD scaling from Mark Ross debate, because he kept drawing a much bigger commutator than the actual size was. And that was resulting in wrong CAD angles calculations with the same size rotor core.

[IMG][/IMG]

Radius 2= 4 X(times) r1,

say r1=1 Inch, then R2= 4 Inches

If we calculate Circumference 1 (Arc Length), based on r1 (1") and 30º it is approx 0.5 inches.

If we calculate Circumference 2 (Arc Length) for R2(4") and 30º it is approx 2.0 Inches

Now, you are going to tell me it will take the same time to sweep a Four (4) Inches contact segment than a 1/2 inch (0.5) segment ?!

And the brushes sizes/scaling you are seeing them in both CAD's above.

The smaller radius 1, brush is same size as arc segment.

In bigger size R2, Brush is NOT the same size as commutator segment.

In Brushed Motor World, ANY Motor that have smaller commutator diameters, compared to rotor cores are FAST SPEED/LOW TORQUE motors.

In Brushed Motor World, ANY Motor that have bigger commutator diameters, compared to rotor cores are SLOWER SPEED/HIGHER TORQUE motors.

Example: If I get an OEM, Symmetrical 12 pole motor, and take OEM Commutator off, and install the same number 12 number segments, connect them the same way, BUT, HALF smaller in diameter, that motor will spin about TWICE faster with lesser torque than OEM.

If I install a TWICE BIGGER Diameter than OEM Commutator, that Motor will spin around HALF way the OEM Speed with Higher Torque than OEM.

Both cases relate to the same number of commutator segments (12), therefore, the Angles are exactly the same for both cases above, meaning each arc segment would be around 360º/12 minus spacing in between degrees.

So, if we have 2º spacing then:

360º/12=30º-2º= 28º Angle for BOTH CASES ABOVE.

I could keep expanding a lot more detail and explanations about above facts, but it is not the time, not my desire to do so.

As for me, I have done a fair amount to improve energy efficiency in the field of electric machinery and energy storage. Decreasing losses of devices and systems actually being used to do work could be considered a contribution to energy.

Regards,

bi

I could only imagine what kind of "improvements" you have been able to achieve...with such poor knowledge about Basic Mathematics that I believe belongs to Elementary School.

@At ALL:

This is one of the guys on this Forum who spends his time criticizing our hard work...calling "ignorant" to others disclosing free information here...without the least information about who they are talking to...however, they dare, they have the AUDACITY to keep doing it!!!.

Unbelievable, but true!!


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Bad math

I am ready for your Math demonstration about "My Bad Math"...guy.

Here is one:



From post #7485. You say:

I am pretty sure you knew about all this right Mark?...so, do you think it would be EXACTLY the same to sweep Commutator Element-Brush at left as the smaller one at right?!

Of course not!...smaller circumference switching plates/brush are going to turn on-off faster than wider area switching at left image.
AND BOTH WITH SAME EXACT 30º ANGLES, AND TURNING THE SAME ROTOR DIAMETER.

This is clearly incorrect geometry and scaling and your argument with Mark is invalid due to your bad math. It is just one example I have noticed. But again, I am not here to argue with you. All I am really interested in is proof that this contraption is any good. And you can not show that. And neither can Ortronics. Hence the use of bad math and pretty pictures and videos for distraction.

There may be aether and radiant energy, but your machines and that crap from Ortronics do not demonstrate it. But don't let me discourage you. Please keep trying.

As for me, I have done a fair amount to improve energy efficiency in the field of electric machinery and energy storage. Decreasing losses of devices and systems actually being used to do work could be considered a contribution to energy.

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

The "Good Mathematician"...

Hello pedro,

Have you noticed that Ufopolitics Radiant Energy and similar stuff does not work? And also notice that he uses his share of bad math on this thread. I read further on Ortronic's website after my last post. There is a lot more bad math and invalid assumptions and no proof.

Mathematics...comes after Physics experiments has demonstrated "A" Phenomena...then after the "Great Mathematicians" can not "explain" with numbers, after exhausting all their recourses with their known Integers, Algebra or else...then they will radically "not accepted it"...

Bistander, just go back to our History related to what I am citing above...go back to Faraday Discovery of Induction...it came first than math...and Mathematicians at that time could not "explain" the cited "Imaginary Lines of Force"...so, what did they do?...simply "did not accepted it"...

So, IF it wouldn't have been by the intervention of James Clerk Maxwell...a very respected mathematician at that time...that put together the known Faraday-Maxwell "formula"...then by this time we will never had Induction Generators working in every house or power plant.

And to "Whoever it may Concern"...I went all the way to Calculus IV required in my University Career (and was not a "Middle Technician" degree which here in U.S call them "An Engineer"...LOL...so watch your mouth here on what you write. I am ready for your Math demonstration about "My Bad Math"...guy.

I have been watching closely all the writings here so far...but now you are going way too much with wrong statements without the slightest proof.

And, I am NOT going to tolerate your BS on this Thread, My Thread...simple enough?

Bistander...or Citfta...(whoever applies)...what have you contributed so far to Free Energy readers?!


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Bad math

Hello DadHav and Bistander.
I have no shares or connection with this company, here the point is that people in real world company uses this formulate in relation with Radiant Energy-reactive power, so we could take it for Ufopolitics Radiant Energy and similar stuff.

Hello pedro,

Have you noticed that Ufopolitics Radiant Energy and similar stuff does not work? And also notice that he uses his share of bad math on this thread. I read further on Ortronic's website after my last post. There is a lot more bad math and invalid assumptions and no proof. Only one installation is given with any detail and there is nothing remarkable there which can not be accomplished with standard inverter technology. Other installations were in India. You have to wonder about the competency of those making such decisions in India after reading things like this.

We already know the rumors coming from Iran concerning free energy from Keshe. Now, India wants to develop the Tewari device. India Won't Suppress Tewari's Free Energy Generator - Zen Gardner
What about EVUR?
"As current economic cold facts support, 53% of every tax dollar today, goes to the military, with most of that spent on securing the critical oil "Choke Points" around the globe. Add those costs to the single largest factor in our balance of trade deficit, the cost of imported foreign oil and you have the reason we are the largest debtor nation in the history of mankind using a failed private central bank's, Petro/Dollar "reserve currency scheme" to disguise our current pathetic national insolvency with their worthless Treasury "Note", ludicrously propped up by a 100 year old retarded engine."
The props seem to be falling out. What comes next?
https://www.gofundme.com/EVUR-ELECTRIC-VEHICLE

I also took a look at the US patent they tout.

Looks like an electromechanical inverter to me and expired protection.

I actually think the photos on the website are staged and presented to deceive. You can choose to believe in fairy tales, but I'll stick with the good maths and proofs.

bi