Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Motor Generators

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

  • Turion
    replied
    And when you show some supposed device partially wound and make claims HERE about the machine’s performance without posting videos, test results or data, it would appear you fall under the exact same classification, n’est-ce pas SENOR EUNUCO?

    Therefore, according to YOUR own definition, you are a liar, fraud and con man, as well as scum of the earth and a pathetic loser for hiding in the dark.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Originally posted by Turion View Post
    I’m having LOADS of fun! LOL. So you admit you NEVER proved claims about YOUR machine HERE as required by “bistander law”, therefore, according to YOUR own definition, you are a liar, fraud and con man, as well as scum of the earth and a pathetic loser for hiding in the dark. I couldn’t be happier.


    Edit: After all, you DID make the claims about its performance here with absolutely NO proof. Are we expected to take YOUR word? LOL

    Turion,

    I built a fixture, conducted tests which supported my contentions about the forces involved and posted that inviting discussion. You were in hiding or unwilling to respond. After about three months, I dismantled the experiment and put it to rest. I am satisfied with the results. That is what I claim. Call me a liar about it if you wish. You and your fanboy misconstrue my statements or even alter quotes of mine to have your fun. I don't care.

    What I have or have not done, who I am, or what you think about me are irrelevant. You made an extraordinary claim to me publicly. I want proof. Your unwillingness to provide that proof justifies calling it a lie.
    bi
    ​​​​​​

    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    I’m having LOADS of fun! LOL. So you admit you NEVER proved claims about YOUR machine HERE as required by “bistander law”, therefore, according to YOUR own definition, you are a liar, fraud and con man, as well as scum of the earth and a pathetic loser for hiding in the dark. I couldn’t be happier.


    Edit: After all, you DID make the claims about its performance here with absolutely NO proof. Are we expected to take YOUR word? LOL

    Last edited by Turion; 02-27-2022, 07:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Originally posted by Turion View Post
    I have proved it. Countless times on the bench. I have had it to the independent lab twice to verify total input and they verified the output of three coil pairs at that time, but could NOT verify the output of all six pair because they did not have enough “certified” meters to test all six pair and I had it set up to run six different loads. I have had many individuals into the shop to put their OWN meters on the machine and see it working.

    I never saw the machine you “claim” to have completed run, nor have I seen test data from that machine. Therefore, by YOUR logic, it is a LIE and you are a LIAR.

    Yes, I have called you much worse than a liar and will continue to do so. Hide in the dark and get what you deserve. I WAS reserving my response to you for only YOUR thread, but it can be applied here in the future also.

    IN MY BOOK, SOMEONE WHO HIDES IN THE DARK LIKE YOU DO IS A PATHETIC LOSER. AND DON ’T GIVE ME THAT B.S. ABOUT WHO YOU ARE NOT BEING IMPORTANT. WHEN YOU CALL SOMEONE A LIAR, A FRAUD AND A CON MAN WITHOUT REVEALING WHO YOU ARE, YOU ARE THE LOWEST SCUM ON THE PLANET.

    oh wait. You are also a FRAUD and a CON MAN.
    Simply prove your claim of 1800-2000 watts of real power output using less than 300 watts input. Bits and pieces of past hearsay are not proof. What I have or have not done is irrelevant. You can not prove your claim because it is a physical impossibility. Nobody has ever done such a thing. 1.5kW of free energy from a table top device would change the world. You expect me to believe you have it. Just keep lying about it. You can't even light up that bulb. And have no clue why. I offer to help but you'd rather just argue, lie about the past, and call me names. Having fun yet?
    bi



    ​​​​​​
    ​​​​​​

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by bistander View Post

    Prove for all. Prove for truth. I know truth. So do you. I do not.
    bi
    You are slipping bye



    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    I have proved it. Countless times on the bench. I have had it to the independent lab twice to verify total input and they verified the output of three coil pairs at that time, but could NOT verify the output of all six pair because they did not have enough “certified” meters to test all six pair and I had it set up to run six different loads. I have had many individuals into the shop to put their OWN meters on the machine and see it working.

    I never saw the machine you “claim” to have completed run, nor have I seen test data from that machine. Therefore, by YOUR logic, it is a LIE and you are a LIAR.

    Yes, I have called you much worse than a liar and will continue to do so. Hide in the dark and get what you deserve. I WAS reserving my response to you for only YOUR thread, but it can be applied here in the future also.

    IN MY BOOK, SOMEONE WHO HIDES IN THE DARK LIKE YOU DO IS A PATHETIC LOSER. AND DON ’T GIVE ME THAT B.S. ABOUT WHO YOU ARE NOT BEING IMPORTANT. WHEN YOU CALL SOMEONE A LIAR, A FRAUD AND A CON MAN WITHOUT REVEALING WHO YOU ARE, YOU ARE THE LOWEST SCUM ON THE PLANET.

    oh wait. You are also a FRAUD and a CON MAN.
    Last edited by Turion; 02-27-2022, 06:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Originally posted by Turion View Post

    No. I have not lied. And you have not proven that I have.



    You're beginning to sound a bit like a cave man or someone who has gone off their meds. Do you need us to call someone?



    Right, like when you said you did the 7th grade science experiment, and then we find out you did some OTHER experiment you thought was better? That was the truth? The truth for YOU is whatever supports your conclusions. Unfortunately for YOU, the truth is what we see on the bench.

    Everybody who has done the 7th grade science experiment now knows I spoke the truth. And that YOU ignore the facts when they don't support your conclusions. You can't ignore the results of that experiment for much longer. Too many people are replicating it.
    Turion,
    that is a load of crap. Your "7th grade experiment" was vaguely defined by you and I built a fixture to demonstrate the principles which I was talking about. While I had that fixture running, I did approach the rotor with a handheld magnet, which I guess is your "7th grade experiment". So what is it that I have lied about? I did not notice the rotor speed up. But I never said your rotor didn't. That was not the point. You might think it proves something. I don't. No lies there.

    But call me a liar, you call me much worse. That doesn't change the one reason I'm here. Prove your claim of 1800-2000 watts of real power output using less than 300 watts input. You made that claim to me and the world. Prove it.
    bi
    ​​​​​

    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    Originally posted by bistander View Post

    You lie to the world.
    No. I have not lied. And you have not proven that I have.

    Originally posted by bistander View Post
    Prove for all. Prove for truth. I know truth.
    You're beginning to sound a bit like a cave man or someone who has gone off their meds. Do you need us to call someone?

    Originally posted by bistander View Post
    But you lie. I do not.
    Right, like when you said you did the 7th grade science experiment, and then we find out you did some OTHER experiment you thought was better? That was the truth? The truth for YOU is whatever supports your conclusions. Unfortunately for YOU, the truth is what we see on the bench.

    Everybody who has done the 7th grade science experiment now knows I spoke the truth. And that YOU ignore the facts when they don't support your conclusions. You can't ignore the results of that experiment for much longer. Too many people are replicating it.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Originally posted by Turion View Post

    LOL. Wow! That's some philosophy you have. Pretty pathetic. You are not the center of the universe. You're not even a speck of dust. Nothing about you matters to me in the slightest. I will do what I CHOOSE to do. But thanks for thinking of me.
    You lie to the world. Most of all, to yourself. Prove for all. Prove for truth. I know truth. So do you. But you lie. I do not.
    bi

    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    Originally posted by bistander View Post
    Prove it, or it's a lie.
    bi
    LOL. Wow! That's some philosophy you have. Pretty pathetic. You are not the center of the universe. You're not even a speck of dust. Nothing about you matters to me in the slightest. I will do what I CHOOSE to do. But thanks for thinking of me.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Hey Dave
    Great rundown on past rotors. The one you sent me has 2 rotors with a thin sheet to separate them where a 2" magnet X 1/4" go on each side for a pull force of 154lbs. I thought this was what you called the clunker, my mistake. You really have the versions over there

    So you have a 12 pole version that has 2 x 57lb magnets. got it now thx. It makes more sense to me now. you need more than the 2 magnets at 52lb each, plus watch the gap.

    114lb per pole- 104lb per pole - 157lb per pole

    In this video 3 regenx coils send 398 watts back to the regular bike motor batteries @ 75.1v X 5.3amps. clear sailing

    Last edited by BroMikey; 02-27-2022, 04:28 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Originally posted by Turion View Post
    bro,
    I started out with six 2" diameter by 1/4" thick magnets on the rotor. They were not stacked, so the pull force was only 77 lbs. Then I went to twelve 1" inch by 1/2" thick magnets on the rotor. Then I went to twelve 3/4" b y 3/4" magnets on the rotor. When I put two magnets in the rotor, back to back with a thin piece of plastic between as I did with many of my early rotors, you do not get double the pull force. In fact, if you STACK two magnets that are alike, you get additional pull force, but NOT double. Never.

    The old clunker machine has twelve groups of two 3/4 by 3/4 magnets with a 5/8 magnet sandwiched between them. Because both of the larger magnets are attracted to the smaller one, they hold in place by magnetic attraction and I don't have to worry about them coming OUT of the rotor. In fact, removing them is nearly impossible without destroying the rotor. But the pull force exerted is about the same as a single 3/4 by 3/4 magnet. which I believe is 48 lbs.

    Rotor.jpg



    The magnets (N52) on the old rotor have a 48 pound pull force. I will compare that to what is on the NEW machine. If I am forced to build a new rotor I will use 1" diameter by 2" MAGNETS in a 2" thick rotor, and put a set screw in to hold the magnets in place, besides gluing them in. They have 180 lbs of pull force or 375% of what the current magnets have. Then I can go to a I" diameter coil core and add a little to the length of the core to allow the same amount of wire on the coil. That is my plan. That way I can use the wire from all the existing coils on new coils. And I can TRY the existing coils to see the output BEFORE I build any new coils. I need to see if I am maxing out the flux in the existing core before I go with a larger diameter core.

    bi,
    YOUR assertion that I have never had a machine that output 1800-2000 watts of power while running on less than 400 watts is a lie. You are a liar. That is a fact. Just because YOU haven't seen it doesn't mean it didn't exist. I could put all the old coils in the old clunker right now, and it would output exactly what I claim. I don't know if it would run for 30 seconds or 30 minutes before it got out of adjustment, but while it is running, it will do EXACTLY what I claim it would. The fact that the earth revolves around the sun never required anyone to prove it to be a fact. The fact that you are an idiot requires no proof, yet it is a fact. Facts are facts, whether you choose to believe them or not. They are facts whether or not you are aware of their existence.
    Originally posted by Turion View Post
    I could put all the old coils in the old clunker right now, and it would output exactly what I claim.
    Prove it, or it's a lie. Go ahead. Make my day. By all you say, you'll soon have all the parts on hand. No excuses. Talk is talk. Do the walk. Prove that you are not a liar.
    bi

    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    bro,
    I started out with six 2" diameter by 1/4" thick magnets on the rotor. They were not stacked, so the pull force was only 77 lbs. Then I went to twelve 1" inch by 1/2" thick magnets on the rotor. Then I went to twelve 3/4" b y 3/4" magnets on the rotor. When I put two magnets in the rotor, back to back with a thin piece of plastic between as I did with many of my early rotors, you do not get double the pull force. In fact, if you STACK two magnets that are alike, you get additional pull force, but NOT double. Never.

    The old clunker machine has twelve groups of two 3/4 by 3/4 magnets with a 5/8 magnet sandwiched between them. Because both of the larger magnets are attracted to the smaller one, they hold in place by magnetic attraction and I don't have to worry about them coming OUT of the rotor. In fact, removing them is nearly impossible without destroying the rotor. But the pull force exerted is about the same as a single 3/4 by 3/4 magnet. which I believe is 48 lbs.

    Rotor.jpg



    The magnets (N52) on the old rotor have a 48 pound pull force. I will compare that to what is on the NEW machine. If I am forced to build a new rotor I will use 1" diameter by 2" MAGNETS in a 2" thick rotor, and put a set screw in to hold the magnets in place, besides gluing them in. They have 180 lbs of pull force or 375% of what the current magnets have. Then I can go to a I" diameter coil core and add a little to the length of the core to allow the same amount of wire on the coil. That is my plan. That way I can use the wire from all the existing coils on new coils. And I can TRY the existing coils to see the output BEFORE I build any new coils. I need to see if I am maxing out the flux in the existing core before I go with a larger diameter core.

    bi,
    YOUR assertion that I have never had a machine that output 1800-2000 watts of power while running on less than 400 watts is a lie. You are a liar. That is a fact. Just because YOU haven't seen it doesn't mean it didn't exist. I could put all the old coils in the old clunker right now, and it would output exactly what I claim. I don't know if it would run for 30 seconds or 30 minutes before it got out of adjustment, but while it is running, it will do EXACTLY what I claim it would. The fact that the earth revolves around the sun never required anyone to prove it to be a fact. The fact that you are an idiot requires no proof, yet it is a fact. Facts are facts, whether you choose to believe them or not. They are facts whether or not you are aware of their existence.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Hey Dave your old machine had 2 magnets 1/4" x 2" @n52 77lbs x 2 = 154 pull. The new machine has 65lbs total magnet. I didn't catch that until now, sorry. You need bigger stronger.

    A 1" x 1" n52 = 115lbs less pull than the old clunker. the new magnets translate to 20 thousands gap needed. Pull that rotor and put 1" dia magnets or put n52 same size and pray.

    Last edited by BroMikey; 02-27-2022, 02:19 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by bistander View Post

    i never said it was a 4 pole machine.

    false

    it really doesn't matter which is stationary (stator) and which is rotating (rotor), field or armature, as long as the relative motion is there.

    false

    the principles apply.

    false

    you never had a device produce 1800-2000 watts of real output power while using less than 300 watts input

    false

    bi
    same ole bi-sexual slander

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X