Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Motor Generators

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

  • pmgriphone
    replied
    Originally posted by BroMikey View Post
    By the way Michael Faraday was self taught, he was not an EE, yet Thane in his 4th year EE student was thrown out for his discoveries that conflicted with science models today. Of course everywhere we read Thane is a college drop out flunky who was almost done with his degree in his 20's like most young boys are able to do when he was driven out. After 20 year was somehow unable to achieve the few weeks needed to have his shingle EE, I don't think he wants anyway, not from these crooks.
    Thane makes the exact same mistake again. He doesn't realize that a moving wire around a magnet will cause a CEMF in the wire.

    Bromey, you keep on posting all this stuff. If you really want to convince us, why don't you do the experiment that Thanes describes and do the power measurements with and without the magnet and you will see that the consumed power is different for the two cases due to the generated CEMF. And don't use a battery, use a power supply instead.so the supply voltage remains constant.

    Since you are so sure that Thane is right, why don't you do the experiment and show us the numbers. If you can really show the numbers are different, then you will have a point. But until you show us that, it's is just another post with more of the same you know what.

    And so you will either prove we are wrong, or YOU are wrong and then all these posts can end.
    Last edited by pmgriphone; 06-18-2021, 07:19 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rakarskiy
    replied
    At one time (in the twentieth century, back in the USSR) a physicist from Novosibirsk said wise words to me. The science of physics (rather the laws ... that it describes) is a library of different concepts. Real physics is physics that engineers take over, turning it into technology. And it doesn't matter energetically or in substance.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    By the way Michael Faraday was self taught, he was not an EE, yet Thane in his 4th year EE student was thrown out for his discoveries that conflicted with science models today. Of course everywhere we read Thane is a college drop out flunky who was almost done with his degree in his 20's like most young boys are able to do when he was driven out. After 20 year was somehow unable to achieve the few weeks needed to have his shingle EE, I don't think he wants anyway, not from these crooks.

    In this video we see the inescapable reality of how Faraday's motor operated and calculations are made today. Faraday's motor did negative work in the form of the magnetic field while 100% of the electricity was completely burnt out in heat energy.

    Michael Faraday's motor and mercury bath experiment here.


    Last edited by BroMikey; 06-18-2021, 04:05 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Shooting down the standard model in physics flaw due to old theories when the electromagnetic component is ignored. So many flawed parallels and broken pathways to connect dot dot in science. We are told you will understand later, another lie. Laws that don't work. 9 minutes shattering the entire science community foundations. Go Thane.

    Last edited by BroMikey; 06-18-2021, 04:18 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...c/watcir3.html

    Thane Heins relates the advice of a professor "Our Motors and Generators Concepts professor in college always warned us students to stay away from the 'water' analogy which tends to lead us astray because it fails to take into account the magnetic field energy produced around all current bearing wires and especially the work this energy does when producing the counter-electromotive-torque/work produced inside all electric generators and the change in kinetic energy of the system this work performs when generators are placed on-load."





    Last edited by BroMikey; 06-18-2021, 02:18 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rakarskiy
    replied
    Originally posted by Quantum_well View Post
    Rakarskiy, I'm an old man and have been a manual worker. It's only in the last few years have I studied this sort of thing (the Internet is awesome). Having had a quick look it seems that "spin" is going to be involved.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics
    Although I'm riddled with arthritis I can still manage a bit of digging., Bro will laugh, I planted a lovely row of beans and peas and two days later a bird demolished the lot. Luckily I have a fencing company and have access to copious amounts of wire netting and I'm getting everything protected.
    When I was getting my engineering degree in the 80s of the last century, our curator told us the following: “... The symbol of higher education is unchanged. independent study of the new and fundamental ... ". I think self-study is the most important thing for anyone who wants to master knowledge. But the information you want to get is not always true, you need to be able to separate the grain from the spit. I also love to babysit my grandson, but my wealth is my family and my knowledge.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quantum_well
    replied
    Rakarskiy, I'm an old man and have been a manual worker. It's only in the last few years have I studied this sort of thing (the Internet is awesome). Having had a quick look it seems that "spin" is going to be involved.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics
    Although I'm riddled with arthritis I can still manage a bit of digging., Bro will laugh, I planted a lovely row of beans and peas and two days later a bird demolished the lot. Luckily I have a fencing company and have access to copious amounts of wire netting and I'm getting everything protected. IMG_20210617_110028.jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • Quantum_well
    replied
    Rakarskiy, thank you for that insight. I'm no expert so it will be a project for me to research. I basically see what you're getting at, John.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rakarskiy
    replied
    Originally posted by Quantum_well View Post

    We know the mechanics of motor/generator operation. As for how nature does these things I think is still a mystery.
    Would you agree with my post 1763?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relati...ectromagnetism
    It is impossible to deny the obvious knowledge that has been shaped by centuries of research. But I do not agree with the Lorentz force, it is practically the opposite of the Ampere force. In this case, where does the electric charge (q) come from, if the process of formation of an electric vortex field is the result of friction of magnetic fields (more precisely, their spiral lines of force). For example, a strong magnetic field striking a ferromagnet (iron wire), a paramagnet (aluminum wire), a diamagnet (copper wire). Here is the pure mechanics of the spiral lines of force of these fields. EMF is a consequence, and electric current (magnetic field of a vortex ring) is a consequence of electrostatic induction in a conductor. Personally, I leave this position to myself.
    Last edited by Rakarskiy; 06-17-2021, 08:28 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quantum_well
    replied
    Originally posted by Rakarskiy View Post
    You are wrong when you roll the dice for all of science. Science is never unscientific; the media do it. Unfortunately, the mainstream general education system is also not conducive to enlightenment. Basic education is special. For example, how a generator works, a student and a future designer are taught different concepts. Believe, for example, how the current is injected into the generator core in detail, none of the most advanced scientists will tell you. All we know is that it appears there when the magnetic force changes. For frequent seekers, having almost reached their goal, but following stereotypes, they abandon their knowledge, never realizing what they did wrong. Usually, many professional electricians, when I asked them to calculate the EMF of the gas generator phase with a connected load of 1 kW and an operating voltage of 220 volts, looked at me like an idiot. If you know how to calculate, you will already know exactly what is happening there, at least by the gradation of parameters.
    We know the mechanics of motor/generator operation. As for how nature does these things I think is still a mystery.
    Would you agree with my post 1763?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relati...ectromagnetism

    Leave a comment:


  • Rakarskiy
    replied
    You are wrong when you roll the dice for all of science. Science is never unscientific; the media do it. Unfortunately, the mainstream general education system is also not conducive to enlightenment. Basic education is special. For example, how a generator works, a student and a future designer are taught different concepts. Believe, for example, how the current is injected into the generator core in detail, none of the most advanced scientists will tell you. All we know is that it appears there when the magnetic force changes. For frequent seekers, having almost reached their goal, but following stereotypes, they abandon their knowledge, never realizing what they did wrong. Usually, many professional electricians, when I asked them to calculate the EMF of the gas generator phase with a connected load of 1 kW and an operating voltage of 220 volts, looked at me like an idiot. If you know how to calculate, you will already know exactly what is happening there, at least by the gradation of parameters.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quantum_well
    replied
    I've great respect for the scientists that gave us the seeds for our current understanding. David Hilbert and Albert were neck and neck with SR. Lorentz had provided the pieces and the likes of Poincare and Larmor were well clued up.

    Leave a comment:


  • pmgriphone
    replied
    Originally posted by BroMikey View Post
    The thing you won't admit is that everything we know is a lie. All based on a false premise. You don't need anyone, start winning today. Experiment with an open mind and throw all of the fancy math books out. You can keep ohms law and so on. Up to 7th grade. The rest of it might keep you from reaching your full potential. Can't be done is the signal.
    BroMie, you are contradicting yourself above. Clearly, not everything is a lie. But you are probably going to say that 2+2=4 is also a lie as you probably only learned that after 7t grade.

    I think you have gone off the cliff and landed in that hole that you dug and now you can't get out of it anymore so the only thing left for you to do is to keep digging and digging and digging. Maybe if you keep on digging long enough you will end up in communist China. They might cover you up over there as that is what they are good at: covering up things and distorting the truth saying it's a lie. Their nuclear leak is the next thing coming... so you better bring your radiation protection suit.
    Last edited by pmgriphone; 06-16-2021, 01:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    The thing you won't admit is that everything we know is a lie. All based on a false premise. You don't need anyone, start winning today. Experiment with an open mind and throw all of the fancy math books out. You can keep ohms law and so on. Up to 7th grade. The rest of it might keep you from reaching your full potential. Can't be done is the signal.

    Leave a comment:


  • pmgriphone
    replied
    Originally posted by BroMikey View Post
    Debunkified E=MC2 2 peas in a pod

    Indeed, E=mc02 is just a special case of E(t)=1/2 mc2(t) where c(t) = cA sin(wt)

    I pondered the strangeness of the missing factor 1/2 in Einstein's equations when all other energy equations have a factor of 1/2 in them, e.g. E=1/2 LI2, E=1/2 CV2, E=1/2 mv2, E=1/2 m w2 etc.

    So I finally figured out that the speed of light is not a constant. It's varies with time like a sin wave with some frequency w and amplitude cA. However this frequency is too fast or too slow for us to observe, so all we can observe is some time average (frequency is too fast) or some instantaneous value (frequency is too slow) of the speed of light which we call c0.

    So e.g. if you do the time integral (RMS) over E(t), the factor of 1/2 will disappear and you will end up with E=mc02.

    So here also, if Einstein would have looked at all other energy equations that have the factor 1/2, he would have come to the conclusion that something was amiss in his equation and he would have found that his equation was a special case of a much larger set of possibilities.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X