Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Motor Generators

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

  • Rakarskiy
    replied
    https://youtu.be/Az0v79-vG_E

    The author from Indonesia did not bring his installation to its logical conclusion, "stumbling" precisely on the calculations and design of the generator. His mistake is that when changing the parameters of the generator, he did not change the rotor, leaving the magnetic induction in the same place, but lengthened the wire, reduced its cross section. As a result, he received the necessary EMF (no-load voltage), but excluded the possibility of obtaining the required current parameter in the wire. It was necessary to increase the number of magnets on the pole, change the design of the rotor, or add another (or more) block of the accelerator module, using the PUSH-PUL technology, in order to increase the speed of rotation of the rotor - a massive flywheel.
    EMF formula: E = B * L * V;
    where: B - magnetic induction (in teslas); L is the length of the conductor (in meters); V is the rate of change of the magnetic induction on the conductor (meters per second).

    Current formula: I = (E - Ubat) / R + rZ + r0;
    where: E - EMF of the no-load phase (in volts): Ubat - operating voltage of the storage battery (in volts); R, rZ, r0 - resistances of the loop, load and phase wires (in Ohm)

    The second formula does not change, we use it to calculate the current, i.e. battery voltage and resistance cannot be changed, only one EMF parameter remains. To fulfill the condition for changing the conductor length parameter (in the first formula), in the corresponding case, it could not be changed, or it could be performed with a large cross-section to preserve the phase conductor resistance parameter r0 (in Ohms), but the volume of the package did not allow this. There are only two parameters left: B - magnetic induction (in tesla) - increase, this means adding magnets to the stack, or V - the rate of change of magnetic induction on the conductor (meters per second), adding one more or other accelerating nodes of the PUSH-PUL system. ..

    Perhaps in the future, the author will still achieve the correct calculation of his design and receive a self-propelled gun with recharging the ballast battery.

    If you read what the authors of EARTH ENGINE (Gravity Generator) from the USA say about their design


    "We 'push' a large mass by manipulating the magnetic field. When the two opposite sources of 'fuel' (magnetic fields) driving the flywheel mass are in the correct position, the engine generates a small electromagnetic charge, about 52 W. This charge allows the opposing sources of fuel." "see each other and can create a significant force to rotate a large mass of the flywheel. This inertial force of the rotating mass is then transmitted through a separate magnetic link to a generator, which generates electrical energy. This force can also be used mechanically."
    (Source: https://ie.energy/about.html)

    It is clear that the principle is the same, but a different, larger-scale design. All this can be done independently, including counting
    http://rakarskiy.narod.ru
    Attached Files
    Last edited by Rakarskiy; 06-15-2021, 06:07 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Shake and bake simplified





    0:00 Debunk Einstein Special Relativity
    0:23 Clock Paradox 2:09 Spherical Wave Proof
    2:33 Debunk Quantum Mechanics
    3:21 Schrodinger Wave Demo
    4:02 Max Born Collisions
    5:08 Quantum Particle Demo
    5:56 Quantum Computers Fake
    6:15 Photon Particle Problem
    7:07 Electron Capacitor Problem
    8:17 Now What? #physics #quantum #einstein






    Last edited by BroMikey; 06-15-2021, 05:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Debunkified E=MC2 2 peas in a pod

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Here is a basic run down easy for anyone who actual got thru that BS theory.

    https://beyondmainstream.org/special...flawed-part-1/


    Originally posted by Quantum_well View Post
    The speed of light and light are not the same thing. Light is an observers personal attribute cum characteristic to maintain a stable visual environment for that observer only. That is why the speed of light is invariant not absolute, irrespective of how fast the observer is moving. So, we can move faster than the speed of light, but not light.
    Hope this helps.
    There is negative torque but if you use it you either replace it or grind to a halt.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Start here for the major flaws

    http://www.mrelativity.net/FatalFlaw...Relativity.htm


    Originally posted by BroMikey View Post

    The Einstein relativity doctrine is false, yes, but I was where you are in the past. No more. Keep digging. Really tho you won't find many people like Aaron who can explain this. You can look thru past posts but things have changed twice in the last 10 years and I am still finding things.

    We did go thru this several times.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by Quantum_well View Post
    That is why the speed of light is invariant not absolute, irrespective of how fast the observer is moving. So, we can move faster than the speed of light, but not light.
    The Einstein relativity doctrine is false, yes, but I was where you are in the past. No more. Keep digging. Really tho you won't find many people like Aaron who can explain this. You can look thru past posts but things have changed twice in the last 10 years and I am still finding things.

    We did go thru this several times.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quantum_well
    replied
    This is a water analogy of Thane's idea. It works!

    IMG_20210614_202321.jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • Quantum_well
    replied
    The speed of light and light are not the same thing. Light is an observers personal attribute cum characteristic to maintain a stable visual environment for that observer only. That is why the speed of light is invariant not absolute, irrespective of how fast the observer is moving. So, we can move faster than the speed of light, but not light.
    Hope this helps.
    There is negative torque but if you use it you either replace it or grind to a halt.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Originally posted by BroMikey View Post

    The question is where does the free negative work come from in the video's posted by Thane?
    From Thane's imagination. It certainly isn't real.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by Quantum_well View Post

    Bro', you're in a hole and the best bit of advice is to stop digging!
    Why because you think relativity is the sacred holy grail? I know what you think. These discussions have been covered for decades. It is flawed science, even longitudinal energy travels faster than light. See how you are missing the point? I don't care what you think, I know the truth. Your response is i must be in a hole looking for a way out. I know exactly where the flaws are and why the science people cover up the real truth, do you? Why worry that I am right or wrong? Now stop changing the subject and answer the questions.

    The question is where does the free negative work come from in the video's posted by Thane? You can not answer because you don;t even know the material. You won't cover the video info because you have made up your mind ahead of the question. What is it they say about a person who answers a question before it is heard?HUH?

    Leave a comment:


  • Quantum_well
    replied
    Originally posted by BroMikey View Post

    I am glad you think that relativity is just perfect and that you finally got it. I hate to break the news, it is also flawed science. Things do in fact go faster than the speed of light.
    Bro', you're in a hole and the best bit of advice is to stop digging!

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by Quantum_well View Post
    If you can't see something you can't see it. I must have been over 60 when I finally "got" basic relativity. And then another 5 years till I "got" induction. And all of that was courtesy of YouTube!
    I can't say more than that.
    I am glad you think that relativity is just perfect and that you finally got it. I hate to break the news, it is also flawed science. Things do in fact go faster than the speed of light.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quantum_well
    replied
    If you can't see something you can't see it. I must have been over 60 when I finally "got" basic relativity. And then another 5 years till I "got" induction. And all of that was courtesy of YouTube!
    I can't say more than that.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by Quantum_well View Post


    There's and old biblical saying "Never argue with a fool"
    Am I a fool for quoting you guys? All I have said is that your science models have unanswered questions as Thane has shown. No one can answer? Why resort to the standard university intimidation tactic because you are on the losing end of this discussion? Common sense does prevail. Shameful name calling only tells us all who schooled you. That is not scientific reasoning.

    This is the same ole little god factor. Why not answer the question on negative work? Because you don't have the capacity to get your head around the subject matter and that is no crime. Just admit you don't understand.

    Cogging is negative work and Bye has stated for years that "at speed" cogging adds no additional cost. Just quoting you guys. Make ya mad huh? Negative work done for free.

    You guys need to answer the question as it has been put to you by the best or take up knitting.

    Thane is asking the question and because you are unable to answer you demand everyone answer all your questions. Projection and confusion is your game.

    Negative work can not be done for free. BEMF is negative work in the form of cogging. What's so hard about that? Cogging occurs when one pole approaches another where BEMF resists the rotors foreword rotation and after TDC these pole attract, resisting the rotor poles departure.

    That is the definition of BEMF/ cogging, you say that "at speed" is done at no addition cost. We have had this talk for years now. Look back in the record. The fact is you guys are not qualified to even answer his question.

    The mistake occurred in 1830 when the science dept tried to say Newtonian law was the same as all of the Faraday and electrical laws.

    Are you prepared to dust off the books? No I think not so you are infuriated. Get your thoughts in order or go plow the garden.

    All you guys do is post pretty graphs. You know very little about winging it. You hide behind the teacher told me apron strings.
    Last edited by BroMikey; 06-14-2021, 09:23 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quantum_well
    replied
    Originally posted by bistander View Post

    You don't understand plain English. Thane admitted voltage is NOT maximum at TDC so everything he says in that video about coil behavior is WRONG.

    I should have realized that you would not understand a rehtorical question like volts and joules being the same. You and Thane probably don't know anyway.
    bistander I put a graph on 1748 that explains energy balance. You can't argue with that.

    There's and old biblical saying "Never argue with a fool" and someone put a rider "They'll bring you down to their level then beat you with experience "
    You might as well pull the plug on it!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X