Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Motor Generators

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

  • dragon
    replied
    COP is loosely thrown around on the overunity sites as if it were something really special. A coefficient of performance is based on the combination of energies adding together to achieve a larger output of a device. Primarily used in air conditioning and/or a heat pump systems where energy from the environment is used in combination with a given input to produce an output greater than that input. A COP of 10 billion isn't unity let alone overunity.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    It would seem that most university students will have to hire all math done from that point on.

    Rotor input idling 180watt

    Efficiency = 180w + 70w = 250w
    50 divided by 250 = .2 or 20% efficiency

    Next we repeat by adding another 50w load.

    Efficiency = 180w + 140w = 320w
    100 divided by 320 = .31 or 31% efficiency

    Efficiency = 180w + 210w = 390w
    150 divided by 390 = .38 or 38% efficiency

    Efficiency = 180w + 280w = 460w
    200w divided by 460 = .43 or 43% efficiency

    Now up by 1000w loads

    Efficiency = 180w + 1600w = 1780w
    1200w divided by 1780w = .67 or 67% efficiency

    So as we can see with a mere 1780w our conventional generator efficiencies are going the right direction.

    Now lets look at the new generator COP at 1780w


    Efficiency = 180w + 0w = 180w
    1200 divided by 180w = 67 or 6.7 X % COP efficiency

    This is theoretical. In real world devices as Dave has pointed out the 180w figure may increase slightly at speed due to core drag. For instance in Dave's first design all magnets are set all together to line up with all of the cores, requiring a pipe wrench and a bar on the end to break the locked positions. Stepper motors overcome this by staggering.

    This means only 1 magnet is locking at any one time so drag is greatly eliminated.

    Now in this first case each additional core will add up. Lets say the lock/drag force equals 10lbs for each pole of dual coil pairs in a 6 pair machine, This is 60lbs required to break the lock and is also present at full speed. An lets say that the rotor with no cores needs 100watts to idle. With each added coil pairs the drive motor will increase by 100w. This is an additional 600w + 100w idling. This is unacceptable.

    All of this is at full speed with no power coming from a single coil. 700w drive input. Now counter magnets bring this down to 400w. Each generator coil set can produce 200watt X 6 pairs= 1200watts out. This is COP 3

    Still more theory. Staggering is another approach so only 100w = 1 coil or 100watts extra for the entire set of 6 pairs but additional drag come from imperfect alignments so add another 100watts or 1+1+1 = 300w not 700w. this is COP4 and a lot less costs.

    This is meant as a theoretical thought exercise, not to prove who is the biggest peacock on the subject


    Bench work not included.In your ear
    Last edited by BroMikey; 03-02-2021, 11:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quantum_well
    replied
    All I'm asking for is a bit of honesty. Claims are easy, it's the other bit that's difficult.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by Quantum_well View Post
    What about all that junk Thane Heins surrounds himself with? Its all part of a plot to confuse.
    Noise and sparks are all watts down the drain, as for kinetic energy, your guess is as good as mine.
    Look at a universal vacuum cleaner electric motor. If COP is not your goal then I would have to say keep 200 year old
    tech and collect the money. It's okay, we understand your embarrassment. You don't have the stamina like the rest of the university giants. Money is the goal, I understand.Happy banking that gets you off.

    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    I think probably everybody here has built some kind of coil that produces output when a rotor with magnets is turned near it.

    imagine your only input cost is what it takes to turn that motor.

    Imagine your output is whatever you were able to get out of that coil times as many coils as you are able to find places around the rotor for. That is your output.

    There is no drag on the motor from adding additional iron mass that the motor must force the magnet past.
    Magnetic neutralization cancels that.

    There is no drag on the motor from Lenz. Tesla style coils eliminate that issue.

    if you have a coil and you have such a rotor you can do the math to see what is possible. Or you can wait until after the conference and I will show you.

    I’m almost done with my board. Ordered a 60 amp DC meter for my motor because I wanted to be able to show the drag as I added coils and I usually maxed out or came close to it with a 30 amp meter. Gotta be accurate or bi will whine. Is he still hiding in the dark? Such a coward!

    Leave a comment:


  • Quantum_well
    replied
    What about all that junk Thane Heins surrounds himself with? Its all part of a plot to confuse.
    Noise and sparks are all watts down the drain, as for kinetic energy, your guess is as good as mine.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by Quantum_well View Post
    You can pay attention or not, as you like. In this video I want people to listen to the equipment, how the sounds change and most importantly how little noise is produced. For efficiency the designer has gone for low rpm, this does have a drawback in as far as there's a lot of copper used.

    https://youtu.be/SSKSKbq_yLA
    2 conventional cores and coil sets and then you take credit for how quiet this device is. Don't tell me how it is better, I need cop. Worthless crap.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quantum_well
    replied
    You can pay attention or not, as you like. In this video I want people to listen to the equipment, how the sounds change and most importantly how little noise is produced. For efficiency the designer has gone for low rpm, this does have a drawback in as far as there's a lot of copper used.

    https://youtu.be/SSKSKbq_yLA

    Leave a comment:


  • Rakarskiy
    replied
    Originally posted by BroMikey View Post

    Which is an absolute lie and excuse of false teaching. Willingly refusing to complete the picture for 100 years. Robbers and lying dogs at the helm. There is not excuse. Science has had the hard data and refuses to enter it.

    The military has and has created anti-gravity ships for decades. Science is a lie.
    Science is different:
    Academic science - creates generators with "crazy" braking torque for alternating current, as well as generators in which the electromagnetic moment on the shaft tends to zero. It doesn't matter where it was made Russia, USA, Australia, Germany, etc.
    Engineering science, represented by Nikola Tesla, created an electromagnetic mechanical converter with an efficiency higher than unity (late 19th century) or, represented by the Spanish engineer Clemente Figuera, a static electromagnetic converter with an efficiency higher than unity (early 20th century). ... ... Everything that these two geniuses used is in the textbooks of academic physics. At the same time, all the same principle by which electric generators work at power plants today.
    This principle was repeated many times in a converter with an efficiency greater than unity in the 40s in Germany and in the USA in 1975 in the device of Robert Alexander. There is no other way out.
    But, unfortunately, this principle of construction is not promoted by general education and media science (and this is so), since this science is an element of the consumer market system.
    For example, modern engineers do not even try to repeat the simple model of the motor-generator of the Austrian Karl Luttmer (1986), trusting Google's sermons about the rejection of the patent.

    https://patents.google.com/patent/AU...q=AU53890%2f86
    https://overunity.com/18075/self-pow...topicseen/#new

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by Rakarskiy View Post
    Academic science and engineering is based on solid data. Braking while the generator is running generates a magnetic blocking torque
    Which is an absolute lie and excuse of false teaching. Willingly refusing to complete the picture for 100 years. Robbers and lying dogs at the helm. There is not excuse. Science has had the hard data and refuses to enter it.

    The military has and has created anti-gravity ships for decades. Science is a lie.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quantum_well
    replied
    Remember UFO?
    Screenshot_20210301-212917_Photos.jpg
    ​​​​​​​

    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    And man will NEVER fly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quantum_well
    replied
    Well, at least you got that bit right!
    Science today tells us that this is impossible.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rakarskiy
    replied
    Academic science and engineering is based on solid data. Braking while the generator is running generates a magnetic blocking torque (electromagnetic torque of the generator). to rotate the generator, a torque is required equal to the electromagnetic torque of the generator (for compensation) and also to rotate at a given speed. Therefore, conditionally (2T) drive + (-T) generator.

    Either find low-cost energy to create the upward torque of the drive force, Or create a generator where the electromagnetic moment of the generator goes to zero.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    All regular coils passing a magnet set to collect magnetic flux, changing into electricity always slows down the rotor if not dogging it down hundreds of rpm' s in some cases. 10watts in and 7 watts out.

    The new coils offer the same or more output with no drag to the rotor. 0 watts in and infinite watts out.

    In neither case have I added in the energy need to start the process. After idling the rotor energy inputs are achieved
    conventional generators need the idling input plus another 130% of the delivered power to the load. So let's say the static (no load condition) idling of the rotor costs 180watts. This is a free wheeling number. Now the utility throws the switch. 50 watts are produced but to get this output, the input had to be increase by another 65-75 watts during these tests.

    Efficiency = 180w + 70w = 250w
    50 divided by 250 = .2 or 20% efficiency

    Next we repeat by adding another 50w load.

    Efficiency = 180w + 140w = 320w
    100 divided by 320 = .31 or 31% efficiency

    As we repeat by adding another 50 watt load the efficiency continues to rise all of the way up to a max 90% once we reach a several thousand watt loaded condition. This is generator technology for the past 190 years.

    If you do this same calculation with the new generator, which is totally different structurally we find and infinite relationship. Since no drag is offered when loads are added, the system quickly exceeds the idling rotor input.
    Science today tells us that this is impossible.










    Last edited by BroMikey; 03-01-2021, 07:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X