Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Motor Generators

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

  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by bistander View Post
    How can you say that guy in that video is right?

    And what do the two videos you linked have to do with the bad math guy?

    bi
    You can choose and pick equations tell it is all endless math with no bench
    time (You). Your problem? You assume that this man is a stupid fool
    because his flywheel numbers don't fit your ideas. I have watched Engineers
    disagree on the smallest of conventionally established devices cite
    separate math formulas. Each Engineer thinks he is right of course.

    This is nothing new. (Boring) What you need to know is that first the man
    in the video is not stupid. His way of explaining it may differ from the next
    guy is all.

    Whenever 2 or 3 people disagree on something that is working due to
    speculative conjecture, all of them should agree with the bench results.

    Figure out the math for it then.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    absolutely NOT right

    Originally posted by Rakarskiy View Post
    You absolutely correctly noticed that there is no load, no torque response. The mechanics of torque can be compared to electric amperes in a conductor. The calculation is made by a guy for potential energy.
    This is a massive flywheel, a product and a system of magnets on the rotor flywheel and gear shift levers. In fact, no matter what he pushes, an electromagnet or a lever with a magnet. The main thing is that the magnets melt in a circle, and not closer to the device shaft. So the guy from the video is absolutely right, and he has an understanding.

    https://youtu.be/UbWkIKgehLI

    https://youtu.be/1bA2OMRcxKo
    How can you say that guy in that video is right? He uses T = M * g * r for the torque developed by the rotor. Tell me how that is even remotely connected to that equation.

    It's possible there is confusion due to similarly of units of torque and energy. This should help.

    "The units for torque, as you stated, are Newton-meters. Although this is algebraically the same units as Joules, Joules are generally not appropriate units for torque.

    Why not? The simple answer is because

    W=F⃗ ⋅d⃗
    where W is the work done, F⃗ is the force, d⃗ is the displacement, and ⋅ indicates the dot product. However, torque on the other hand, is defined as the cross product of r⃗ and F⃗ where r⃗ is the radius and F⃗ is the force. Essentially, dot products return scalars and cross products return vectors.

    If you think torque is measured in Joules, you might get confused and think it is energy, but it is not energy. It is a rotational analogy of a force.

    Per the knowledge of my teachers and past professors, professionals working with this prefer the units for torque to remain N m (Newton meters) to note the distinction between torque and energy.

    Fun fact: alternative units for torque are Joules/radian, though not heavily used."
    https://physics.stackexchange.com/

    And what do the two videos you linked have to do with the bad math guy?

    bi

    Leave a comment:


  • Rakarskiy
    replied
    You absolutely correctly noticed that there is no load, no torque response. The mechanics of torque can be compared to electric amperes in a conductor. The calculation is made by a guy for potential energy.
    This is a massive flywheel, a product and a system of magnets on the rotor flywheel and gear shift levers. In fact, no matter what he pushes, an electromagnet or a lever with a magnet. The main thing is that the magnets melt in a circle, and not closer to the device shaft. So the guy from the video is absolutely right, and he has an understanding.

    https://youtu.be/UbWkIKgehLI

    https://youtu.be/1bA2OMRcxKo

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    The guy in the video is an idiot

    Originally posted by BroMikey View Post
    Standard equations for calculating OVER UNITY that any Engineer
    is using. Motor generator efficiency can be determined through the
    measurements of mass rotation this weight.


    [VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M6EInBlv8A[/VIDEO]
    Even a freshman engineering student realizes the need to use the pertinent and appropriate equations. It is meaningless to just pull out any old equations from a textbook and punch numbers into a calculator as this fellow in your video has done. A minimum level of understanding physics is needed.

    He knows the mass of his rotor. The equation to find force from Mass. F = M * a. Acceleration? Just use the gravitational 9.81 m/s^2. (Which actually just yields the rotor weight). Now he has a force. He multiplies times the radius of the rotor. Bingo. He has a torque number, so he thinks. Find the next equation, power = torque * rotational velocity. Plug in a conversion of RPM to radians/second and he has 1799 watts. That's 2.4 hp. He uses that as output power from his motor to calculate efficiency. Nevermind that nothing is connected to the motor shaft, so motor output power is necessarily zero. Therefore efficiency is zero.

    But apparently all it takes to convince you of OU is a video of something rotating and some flashing LEDs.

    bi

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Standard equations for calculating OVER UNITY that any Engineer
    is using. Motor generator efficiency can be determined through the
    measurements of mass rotation this weight.


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

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Modified BEDINI from the wizard of FE.

    John Bedini's dream was that people would build it like he showed,
    then make the changes to other practical applications. Lenz buster
    circuit, flywheel and much more.


    [VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG6Brdzq9B4[/VIDEO]

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Improved generator design lowers cogging to near zero by using the
    geometry of staggering rotor magnets and gen coils. think about it.

    No while claims.


    [VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHwrs4jwNfM[/VIDEO]

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Shorted coil speed up (delay Lenz) the rotor for free validation.
    baby steps first.

    [VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCFak6CYzIQ[/VIDEO]

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    bypass lenz law with coil shorting

    [VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1j2oYRt2jc[/VIDEO]

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    m-g

    [VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiLoZK6w_kg[/VIDEO]

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    mg

    [VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyN7lKKLsbE[/VIDEO]

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    motor gen

    [VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue2ckMnQ4Bs[/VIDEO]

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Adams motor generator long long ago.

    [VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2bPDDWqSvM[/VIDEO]

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by Rakarskiy View Post
    Estimated connection of the coils in the generator Andrei Slobodian.

    [VIDEO]watch?v=mUOwgixqWfY[/VIDEO]
    Good video reminder. I am trying to see it, not sure I get
    the phasing yet but I will. Thanks for your entry.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rakarskiy
    replied
    Estimated connection of the coils in the generator Andrei Slobodian.

    [VIDEO]watch?v=mUOwgixqWfY[/VIDEO]

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X