Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Motor Generators

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

  • Turion
    replied
    Originally posted by BroMikey View Post
    Basic circuits for non practical app. showing concept only. Note split positive powering main coil.

    My latest device uses a very good mosfet (MTY100N10E) and a commutation schottky diode (MBR6045WT) in parallel.

    1. Wind one or two solid 24awg stators in series, and get the stator/s running slightly chilled, the power transistor ambient, and the stator supply wire cold. Any rotor instability, air gaps over 1.5mm, etc, will kill off the cooling effect fairly quickly. The basic low tech mechanical stuff most certainly has to be done correctly, and the over-unity effect is quite sensitive to the rotor / stator geometry, which is where the 'action' happens. In my experience, the real test of the depth of resonance you obtain, can be found in the stator supply wire - it should have a very clear ambient thermal sink effect. THIS IS THE COLD PART. Do not expect the whole device to be universally cold, it is not. Simple ambient running for extended periods is a very good result.
    WOW! So now you are claiming credit for stuff we absolutely KNOW was built by others? Shame on you, bro. Shame, shame, shame. You know postings circuits and YouTube videos of others does not compensate for your lack of actual contributions to ANYTHING. LOL

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d...dmentno104.htm

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Cole data

    http://www.eternaltruth.net/Science/...AB%20NOTES.htm




    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Grown up circuits. This is not a toy

    http://www.zyneng.com/?p=1127

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied

    Basic circuits for non practical app. showing concept only. Note split positive powering main coil.

    My latest device uses a very good mosfet (MTY100N10E) and a commutation schottky diode (MBR6045WT) in parallel.

    1. Wind one or two solid 24awg stators in series, and get the stator/s running slightly chilled, the power transistor ambient, and the stator supply wire cold. Any rotor instability, air gaps over 1.5mm, etc, will kill off the cooling effect fairly quickly. The basic low tech mechanical stuff most certainly has to be done correctly, and the over-unity effect is quite sensitive to the rotor / stator geometry, which is where the 'action' happens. In my experience, the real test of the depth of resonance you obtain, can be found in the stator supply wire - it should have a very clear ambient thermal sink effect. THIS IS THE COLD PART. Do not expect the whole device to be universally cold, it is not. Simple ambient running for extended periods is a very good result.

    https://www.freeenergyplanet.biz/ada.../circuits.html







    Last edited by BroMikey; 04-02-2022, 11:55 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by Turion View Post

    I hear no claims of that from Peter or Aaron. Only from you. (Peter told us COP 8 in the instructional) you didn't watch

    If you DO show it running on one battery and charging another, why should we pay attention.

    Play by your own rules. The Zero force motor can do it as well,

    I NEVER doubted that this motor can run on 1/4 what it would take to run a conventional motor and do the same work. That's what eliminating the CEMF DOES.

    You're just making stuff up.
    yup I'm making up stuff so you don't have to worry. Besides, the boogieman might get everyone if they even suggest OU. You should be able to relate to why everything is not posted. If you were shown all of the truth then you would have to be put out of your misery, you know what I mean? I'm playing by your rules now, how do you like it?

    The truth is right in front of you with the posted video so me looping one to prove it to you won't make any difference since you already know. Yes JB had many looped OU machines before you ever started teaching and playing arm chair commander. same old dave.

    I can't prove it to a made up mind who thinks they are the only one. Show us anything dave. Talk is all you have. Show us a cop 20 or 30 as you have said you could do using the 3 battery gen to your speed up under load coils.

    I think it is possible but not probable because you still have not even shown a looped 3 battery nor did you ever post real data, you just say you did it. All your COP bragging does not prove you can.

    You haven't learned from your teachers. We can't measure data that was never posted of your contraption. Thane can show that it works because he learned in school the importance of data and math of which you claim is to hard for you. Yet you were first? come on dave admit JB finally showed the world a looped 14ft wheel. He had that stuff for decades and was threatened for wanting to show it openly way back in the 1970's. That's 50 years ago.

    You know it is true because you have been scared bro to show anyone a looped device. So play by your own rules bro. Do you or don't you? Did they or didn't they already do it before you did?

    You see everyone is scared of the boogieman and how they might be removed off the playing field so they all play the game never showing the complete truth. So where is your looped anything. I mean you are the only one and are the first one. Right?

    I guess the conference will be the first real data and I am going to buy a copy. I was going to buy a copy of your data for 3 years now but you hid when it came time. All talk. Everyone can now see that you are all talk after 3 consecutive years of standing us all up.
    If I say it doesn't prove anything, you did that for us all. Don't blame me, cement man.

    I know Thane Heins work and JB work but your work is still unknown.

    Everyone knows I've defended you and buttered you up hoping you would come thru in the end never having more than blind faith. It is time to produce facts without using govt sponsored stozzy tactics
    Last edited by BroMikey; 04-02-2022, 06:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    Originally posted by BroMikey View Post
    Here are a few results or data. In the 2.5hr video it was shown how for the same motor power conventional uses 4x the energy. Learn to measure with the data. Your puckering up is funny. Why should I do another video to teach if you can't learn from Pete?
    You CAN'T do "another" video. Because YOU haven't done a "first" one. You haven't built it. All you do is post the work of others and talk. So I guess you could POST another video of someone else's work. LOL

    The posted demo runs on a variac. If it can run on a battery and output more than it takes to run to charge another battery, why isn't it looped? Where is the video of that? Where is the video of it running on one battery and charging another faster than the one it is running on? No video of that either? I hear no claims of that from Peter or Aaron. Only from you.

    If you DO show it running on one battery and charging another, why should we pay attention. According to YOU, we shouldn't because John Bedini "did it first." Play by your own rules. The Zero force motor can do it as well, as can ANY pulse motor (with a collapsing coil) with the proper circuit. And a LOT of motors could be run that way.

    I NEVER doubted that this motor can run on 1/4 what it would take to run a conventional motor and do the same work. That's what eliminating the CEMF DOES. Whatever CEMF a motor produces negates THAT MUCH of the energy input into the machine, so it is all wasted. This machine eliminates that waste. So does the Zero Force motor. But where is the evidence that it puts out 64 watts of power as you claim? Don't see it. Watched the whole video. 64 watts output NEVER came up. You said it output 8 times the input. Input is 8 watts. I saw them charge a battery, and the measurement across the battery went up by a few hundredths. If you were putting 64 watts of power into that battery, it would be reflected in the voltage across the battery. So I can almost guarantee that there isn't 64 watts of power being put into that battery. Remember, amps are the SAME everywhere in a circuit. So if only milliamps are being put into the circuit, can you get more out than that? Voltage yes, but amps? And if the amps out is milliamps and they SHOW the voltage out as 2 volts, where does the magical 64 watts come from?

    In this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EIcOZ9hxYQ&t=15s Aaron CLEARLY says that the output is simply from a flyback spike. You think that's 64 watts of power? Guess again. They SHOW the flyback voltage to the load coming from the motor at 2 volts. So it must be 32 amps to get 64 watts! WOW! Incredible! NOT LOL

    You're just making stuff up. If you actually ever BUILT anything and tested it YOURSELF, you would know what is possible and what isn't. Yeah, we know you built a rotor. You keep showing videos of the same rotor you built over and over. Same coil too. Impressive.
    Last edited by Turion; 04-02-2022, 08:15 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    More instructional data for Klan and company

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    In the video of the Lindemann instructional, input for standard conventional for 1/4hp is 120ac @1.5amps =180w

    Yet Peter is getting at least 1/5hp using 20vdc @ 400ma =8w plus charging a lead acid battery used to start a riding mower. Cop is not 1 it is somewhere way out there.

    I'd like to see daves dual floppy ZF motor put to this test. (Cough) go measure or go home

    Last edited by BroMikey; 04-01-2022, 11:23 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    More on principles for Dave and group. Nice shop dave, lots of parts and remodeling tools. The car points are nice. Hey dave show your ZF whatever powering a 2nd battery, there is no moron.

    Last edited by BroMikey; 04-01-2022, 10:38 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Here are a few results or data. In the 2.5hr video it was shown how for the same motor power conventional uses 4x the energy. Learn to measure with the data. Your puckering up is funny. Why should I do another video to teach if you can't learn from Pete?

    Last edited by BroMikey; 04-01-2022, 10:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    Originally posted by BroMikey View Post
    You just admitted the you did not comprehend the Lindemann video and the cop 8.
    8 x (almost nothing for input) is still not a whole lot. It's a motor, not a generator.

    Originally posted by BroMikey View Post
    You guys charged a battery like matt? No JB is the guy who used 1 source battery and 1 charge battery but you credit whoever you want.
    Thanks, we will. The circuit we are using is not JB's circuit, so it is not the same.
    Is a VW a Tesla, just because they are both cars? Don't think so. Is everybody who owns a TESLA supposed to bow down to VW because VW made their car first? LOL

    Originally posted by BroMikey View Post
    Just like you changed the names of your motor using the zero force principle.
    Yes, we did, so we could tell the two apart when talking about them. Would you prefer that all children were named Bob just because they are children, or would you rather we gave them different names so we could tell them apart when talking about them. YOU are ridiculous.

    Originally posted by BroMikey View Post
    All I see is 2 plastic rotor turning and the high speed of 50rpm in your video. These are not results. You have no data. Go back to the Lindemann motor secrets instructional and learn how to present data.
    Again, you are a moron. I need no data. The motor was built for ONE PURPOSE. It was a prototype to see if the machine could be run as a Zero Force type motor in a totally different configuration. It PROVED that it could. That was the entire purpose. It needed to either succeed or fail. It succeeded. Therefore it did EXACTLY what it was designed to do. PERFORMANCE data is an entirely different thing. Any researcher would know that.

    Originally posted by BroMikey View Post
    You can only get out as much as you put in to the coil is false. Of course you will deny you said it if boxed in.
    I never said that, and you know it. I said the output is limited to the input + the CEMF + the spike from coil collapse. But since the Lindemann attraction motor HAS no CEMF, the output is limited to the input + the spike from the coil collapse. If you know another way to get power out of a coil used in THAT configuration, please show us all how smart you are, or are not. And THAT motor is limited to one coil and is expensive to build.

    By the way, there ARE ways to get more power out of a coil, but I wonder if YOU know what they are, and none of the ones I know would work in THAT configuration.
    Last edited by Turion; 04-01-2022, 10:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    You just admitted the you did not comprehend the Lindemann video and the cop 8.
    You guys charged a battery like matt? No JB is the guy who used 1 source battery and 1 charge battery but you credit whoever you want. Just like you changed the names of your motor using the zero force principle. Then because you say it's all obsolete and time to move on. Same ole long winded dave. said very little, oh other than Lindemann's attraction motor can only do COP1. These statements are false, go listen to the video again.

    All I see is 2 plastic rotor turning and the high speed of 50rpm in your video. These are not results. You have no data. Go back to the Lindemann motor secrets instructional and learn how to present data.

    You can only get out as much as you put in to the coil is false. Of course you will deny you said it if boxed in. You think all of these ideas come from your group? Show me something other than your big ole mouth. Show me data like Peter does.
    Last edited by BroMikey; 04-01-2022, 09:38 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    The motors are just prototypes, as is the Matt motor. Each teaches us something. The Matt motor was a prototype to TEACH A CONCEPT, not to run your house. Take the best from EACH and combine it. The "Zero Force" motor is a perfect example. Bob French and I both built SEVERAL versions of that motor. In the video you posted, you see John run a rotor between two "poles" wrapped with wire. Bob and I saw that we could get it to work with a double rotor configuration as shown below. My "prototype" was built out of two of the original rotors from my generator, and one of my old generator coils. It wasn't built to look good, it was built to test a CONCEPT. That was the first build, and the only reason there is a video of it in existence is because I made it to show Bob that it would work. You don't see it in the video, but this thing just continued to speed up and up and up.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXOu49oVhHs

    THEN we took the coil out and replaced it with a circle of plastic about 1/4" thick (which allowed the rotors to move in VERY close to each other) that is shaped like a toroid, and wound coils around this FLAT piece of plastic that was as wide as the 2" wide magnets I had on these rotors. So between the coils the plastic was only 1/4" thick plus the wire wrapped around it. Because the coil was curved, the two coils went most the way around the circle. It gave INCREDIBLE torque, speed, and the amp draw went down. It doesn't take much to fire the coil between two North facing magnets and produce TREMENDOUS torque, because two N facing magnets compressed together magnify the magnetic field, and this "SUPER" magnet wants to follow the flux field in the coil just like a regular magnet. We called it the "Superpole motor" to distinguish it from the Zero Force Motor. It's really a "super rotor" motor, but Superpole sounded cooler, and we DID modify the way the coil was wound. THEN we put FOUR coils on the "toroid". We took what John gave us, which I have always said was his GREATEST GIFT to us, and used what we ALREADY KNEW to vastly IMPROVE on it. That is the purpose of prototypes. Test concepts, find something that works, and improve it. You should try it instead of making fun of the work I have done. But wait, you don't have one. Haven't built one. Don't know what is good or bad about it. It's strengths and weaknesses. Have NEVER modified one and tried to improve production. Are happy to sit there and put down the work of others when you know nothing about it.

    Originally posted by BroMikey View Post
    Dave's zero force whatever
    Then we ran THAT on the 3 battery system and recovered much of the energy because it is a pulse motor and works as an "interruptor" which lets the input voltage plus the coil collapse go into the charge battery. (which we learned is possible from the Matt Motor prototype.) Oh, and it does it BETTER than the Matt modified motor, so I haven't built a Matt modified motor in YEARS. But that doesn't mean it was not VALUABLE and didn't teach me anything, because it DID. There IS no CEMF in the ZFM as John explains in the video you posted.

    Now, as good as the IMPROVED Zero Force motor was, we found something BETTER and moved on. Because that's what you DO when you are researching. The ONLY benefit of the Zero Force motor is it did not produce CEMF or back EMF, so ran on far less. Its torque was limited, but it was capable of high speeds.

    But once you learn to harness the CEMF so that it is not fighting the input voltage, you want as MUCH of it as possible. And THAT is the step beyond the Superpole motor if you want a MOTOR.

    Now start looking at the benefits and negatives of the Lindemann attraction motor. A coil will never put out MORE than is input + the CEMF+ the collapsing spike x the number of times it is fired, which is once per rotation on this machine. If you think his motor will "generate" more than that, you are living in Fantasy Land. And the machine HAS no CEMF (No Lenz, remember) and only ONE coil to produce power. So you LOSE the benefit of CEMF to gain 0 Lenz operation.
    It has no LENZ. That is its only advantage, other than the TORQUE from the larger coil with a core that may produce more flux than what is used to do work in the Zero Force motor. I know how much MORE torque the Superpole motor has than the Zero Force motor, so I will stick with it. Which costs less and is simpler to build? The Zero Force motor or the Lindemann Attraction Motor? As far as I am concerned, it is a no brainer.

    For those needing a high voltage and high amperage magnetic switch

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRJRo2nENkk&t=8s

    If you glue a magnet under the movable piece just below where it makes contact, you can use a magnet on the rotor of the same polarity to push it UP and make the contact. So this whole thing can be above the rotor instead of below it. Lots of options, limited only by your creativity and imagination.
    Last edited by Turion; 04-01-2022, 08:46 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Everybody has a zero force motor except me but no one tells you the results of recycled power.

    That is because something must keep COP to under one

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X