Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Motor Generators

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rakarskiy
    replied
    The device of the compensated two-phase generator of the increased efficiency Russian patent RF 2317628

    The disadvantage of existing synchronous machines is that the magnetic flux created by permanent magnets of the rotor poles crosses the conductors of the stator winding located in the grooves of the inner surface of the stator. In this case, the generated electrical power in the generator is equal to the required mechanical power supplied to the generator rotor (excluding energy losses in the stator and mechanical energy losses in the rotor).
    In connection with the above, the efficiency of all existing synchronous generators is always less than one.

    The technical result, to achieve which the present invention is directed, is to create simple in design two-phase electric generators with efficiency greater than one.
    Figure 1 Figure 2

    Leave a comment:


  • alexelectric
    replied
    Originally posted by lotec View Post
    Hi,
    I had this rough diagram I wanted to put out there for consumption. Although I think it is in the spirit of the first experiment in SkyWatchers latest thread, I thought it might be better if I posted it here so as not to be too bigger distraction.

    It is a partial side view of an axial flux generator with a two piece rotor, that is bolted together, as it passes the gen coils. The hope here is that the flux made by the generator coil, ignores the rotor, and chooses it's closed circuit path. It's untried and untested by myself.

    The blue shows the flux path that does the inducting, when the generator is not conducting, and the red shows the hoped for flux path of the gen coil when it is conducting.



    Edit....... ps I forgot the washers that space out the 2 pieces of the rotor.
    the design is fine, in fact in the network there is a configuration of this type that has only the magnets on the one hand, this configuration has been configured and working to have double pole its N and S by the inductive part of the core will be more V / amp.
    when I visualized in other images of the network and had only one pole, I thought that why not close for the other end with the opposite pole.
    You can also try the top where the coil is not, the nucleus can be separated as Mr. Alex does.
    all these prototypes should be tried with a small replica and according to the results try to make one of larger size and capacity, as well as wind turbines from 1000w to 2500w or more, the advantage if built with this coil anti lenz would move easier .
    forward continue with your projects greetings

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Benchwork

    Originally posted by BroMikey View Post
    Very funny, the man in the video said hypothetically he was way
    over unity tho he said he had not finished by attaching a generator.

    My question is base on the weight of the wheel tell us how much
    he could get out of it. It is zero yes, which shows how absurd you
    are in defending your position.

    Answer plz. How much. See how incapable you are? There is no shame.

    It is best to be evasive like you are doing since no bench work will follow.
    Since you favor benchwork, do it and find out for yourself.

    Or, go to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel , scroll down to the physics section and calculate it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rakarskiy
    replied
    Originally posted by lotec View Post
    Hi,
    I had this rough diagram I wanted to put out there for consumption. Although I think it is in the spirit of the first experiment in SkyWatchers latest thread, I thought it might be better if I posted it here so as not to be too bigger distraction.

    It is a partial side view of an axial flux generator with a two piece rotor, that is bolted together, as it passes the gen coils. The hope here is that the flux made by the generator coil, ignores the rotor, and chooses it's closed circuit path. It's untried and untested by myself.

    The blue shows the flux path that does the inducting, when the generator is not conducting, and the red shows the hoped for flux path of the gen coil when it is conducting.



    Edit....... ps I forgot the washers that space out the 2 pieces of the rotor.


    Dear colleague! Anti Lentz is a great "duck" of General science, tucked among those who are looking for the formula of their device. This figure correctly shows the formula of magnetic switching, their total vector, action-counteraction, rotor rotation, which will be minimal. But the magnetic flux in the core and how EMF is formed are fundamentally wrong. Apply the "right hand" rule to the solenoid core, to the electromagnet and as the receiving coil of the external field of excitation? You won't see the difference. The greater the external flow, the greater the attraction between the magnet and the core, and more EMF.

    Leave a comment:


  • lotec
    replied
    Hi,
    I had this rough diagram I wanted to put out there for consumption. Although I think it is in the spirit of the first experiment in SkyWatchers latest thread, I thought it might be better if I posted it here so as not to be too bigger distraction.

    It is a partial side view of an axial flux generator with a two piece rotor, that is bolted together, as it passes the gen coils. The hope here is that the flux made by the generator coil, ignores the rotor, and chooses it's closed circuit path. It's untried and untested by myself.

    The blue shows the flux path that does the inducting, when the generator is not conducting, and the red shows the hoped for flux path of the gen coil when it is conducting.



    Edit....... ps I forgot the washers that space out the 2 pieces of the rotor.
    Attached Files
    Last edited by lotec; 04-20-2019, 11:09 AM. Reason: add on

    Leave a comment:


  • Rakarskiy
    replied
    Originally posted by bistander View Post
    Yes, flywheel and capacitor are energy storage devices. A capacitor plays no part in a circuit where voltage does not change. Likewise, a flywheel plays no part on a rotational mechanical system where the angular velocity does not change.

    The video idiot uses bad math of flywheel angular momentum to attempt to calculate torque of a constant speed rotating member. Angular momentum and stored energy of the rotor is irrelevant at unchanging RPM where he attempts to calculate mechanical power and motor efficiency.

    bi, again
    I also do two flywheel torque calculations based on classical and centrifugal forces. The flywheel is a capacitor (drive) and at constant load (speed) will only discharge. The kinetic pulse is also a charge discharge, only in the dynamics of velocities. "The "bad mathematician" miscalculated the torque of the flywheel for the reason that T= (1/360 F)* R, must be used to calculate the arm's arm, not the circle. But first calculate the centrifugal force F=m*ω^2*R, calculate the torque of the flywheel at different speeds according to the proposed method and on the basis of the classical formula, the moment of inertia. Then overlay both graphs on top of each other and see the difference. The classical method is a linear result that is essentially wrong.
    Provided that the radius in both calculations is the same. If we consider that the radius of the center of mass changes with increasing speed of the flywheel. Then the calculation will be even more categorical. To deny it in favor of the bigots of money, nothing could be simpler.
    Last edited by Rakarskiy; 04-20-2019, 08:58 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Very funny, the man in the video said hypothetically he was way
    over unity tho he said he had not finished by attaching a generator.

    My question is base on the weight of the wheel tell us how much
    he could get out of it. It is zero yes, which shows how absurd you
    are in defending your position.

    Answer plz. How much. See how incapable you are? There is no shame.

    It is best to be evasive like you are doing since no bench work will follow.
    Last edited by BroMikey; 04-20-2019, 06:31 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Originally posted by BroMikey View Post
    ...
    Let's put it like this. Does anyone know the input power in the video?
    ...
    At time marker 13:15, input power is 48.84 watts from voltmeter and ammeter on the batteries.

    There is no load on the motor shaft so output power is necessarily zero.

    Then efficiency at the 900 RPM constant speed (which he measured) is output power / input power * 100% which is 0 watts output / 48.84 watts input * 100% = 0% efficient.

    bi

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Gentlemen thanks for your hard work running numbers. I can't do
    that most days unless I refresh then I forget it all.

    You both are good at the figuring, it is a gift or a curse sometimes.

    Let's put it like this. Does anyone know the input power in the video?

    For the sake of the laymen, (Like me) what kind of power could he get
    off that big flywheel? Does it seem like he can do more work with his
    flywheel than he is putting in?

    I don't remember if he shows the input. The man is no dummy and is
    doing bench work that will pay off and feels like he has something
    special. I wonder if he knows the difference with normal closed loops
    systems VS what he thinks he has found?

    We must work from the premise that he has some education and knows
    how conventional systems work. To assume someone is a lunatic based
    on a differing calculation without hands on is showing a closed door.

    The "I'm always right" attitude is on display leaving no opening for
    learning outside the box. Mathematicians and inventors are two
    separate animals. Generally the inventors just go ahead and make it
    work unable to frame the equations after the fact.
    Last edited by BroMikey; 04-20-2019, 02:33 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Again

    Originally posted by Rakarskiy View Post
    ... Just a flywheel is a drive comparable to an electric capacitor. ...
    Yes, flywheel and capacitor are energy storage devices. A capacitor plays no part in a circuit where voltage does not change. Likewise, a flywheel plays no part on a rotational mechanical system where the angular velocity does not change.

    The video idiot uses bad math of flywheel angular momentum to attempt to calculate torque of a constant speed rotating member. Angular momentum and stored energy of the rotor is irrelevant at unchanging RPM where he attempts to calculate mechanical power and motor efficiency.

    bi, again

    Leave a comment:


  • Rakarskiy
    replied
    bistander, The “cunning mathematician” amused a little, but touched on interesting points. I don't want to judge him, especially calling him an "idiot." Just a flywheel is a drive comparable to an electric capacitor. Torque can be compared with the current strength. Closing the circuit, these components begin to work. I explain to people that in a kinetic chain with a constant load it is useless. Between the battery and the lamp, turn on the electric capacitor in parallel and wait for a miracle. Similar and flywheel between engine and generator with constant mechanical strength. The flywheel works in a system where a kinetic impulse is created, which can be compared with pulsed electrical circuits.
    Best wishes, be good!

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    No

    Originally posted by Rakarskiy View Post
    The fact that I counted, in the video, our "cunning mathematician" did not impress me. I disagree with his calculations. The fact that it takes into account the radius of the flywheel in the calculation is true. Judging because it introduces the force for acceleration of the flywheel, not through the axis, but closer to the circumference line, it is also true (similarly impose the force of the jolt and your American engineers). You argued that the calculation is not true, and there is not any additives. The calculation is really slippery, but the flywheel at certain speeds has a quadratic increase in the energy index. For this, I gave an example conducted under the guidance of Professor Guli (inventor of the super flywheel). My answer satisfied you.
    Thanks for your explanation, but the kinetic energy or angular momentum of the rotor (flywheel) does not enter into the power and efficiency calculations of the motor in the video demonstration because it is spinning at a constant speed at the point where the experimenter makes the measurements and calculations.

    As you can plainly see in the Russian paper you posted, they are interested in and measure the acceleration (and deceleration) of the flywheel. A change in speed (RPM) is needed to use or store energy in the flywheel. That energy is simply irrelevant in a constant speed power or efficiency calculation. That is why I call the bad math guy in the subject video an idiot.

    Sorry if you disagree but no sense of me posting more. I have explained my stated opinion.

    Thanks for the discussion.

    bi

    Leave a comment:


  • Rakarskiy
    replied
    The fact that I counted, in the video, our "cunning mathematician" did not impress me. I disagree with his calculations. The fact that it takes into account the radius of the flywheel in the calculation is true. Judging because it introduces the force for acceleration of the flywheel, not through the axis, but closer to the circumference line, it is also true (similarly impose the force of the jolt and your American engineers). You argued that the calculation is not true, and there is not any additives. The calculation is really slippery, but the flywheel at certain speeds has a quadratic increase in the energy index. For this, I gave an example conducted under the guidance of Professor Guli (inventor of the super flywheel). My answer satisfied you.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Relevance?

    Hi Rakarskiy,

    Please comment on my previous post and how you feel it relates to the subject video which started our exchange. Namely:

    [VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M6EInBlv8A[/VIDEO]

    Then explain the relevance of your last post, on the Russian flywheel experiment, to the subject video.

    Thanks,

    bi

    Leave a comment:


  • Rakarskiy
    replied
    In the summer of 2012, the Russian Superconductor Corporation completed the preparation of experimental documentation and the manufacture of an experimental sample of a high-power and energy-intensive kinetic energy storage (NKE). Upon completion of the fabrication and acceptance tests, full-fledged bench tests of the drive were performed with testing the performance of all its nodes, as well as some basic operating modes. This article describes the achieved results of the tests performed for the cyclic operation of a high-power and energy-intensive kinetic energy storage device created.

    Taking into account the conversion losses from electrical to mechanical, and back from mechanical to electrical, the efficiency indicator should be within 0.67 (67%)
    If everything is measured in kW, for clarity, we take the value of 1 kW of electrical energy. We accelerate the flywheel and accumulate 0.8 kW of mechanical energy. Next, generate electricity by absorbing mechanical energy, we get 0.67 kW of electrical energy. according to the rules of classical physics. In experience, a different indicator of 0.97 for the production of 0.97 kW of electrical energy, we need to spend 1.16 kW of mechanical. 1.16 -0.8 = 0.36 kW of mechanical energy is unknown from where it appeared, is not it.

    http://n-t.ru/tp/ts/ci5a.gif

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X