Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ReGenX Coils and ReGenXtra switching

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

  • BroMikey
    replied
    It looks like the newer heavier rotor takes 30% more than the old rotor naked without cores. If the old one was 14amp then the newer heavier rotor might be 20 amps or if the first light duty one cost 12 amps with cores (10-12) the heavy one may take 18 amps. It looks like a 30% increase approx.

    What are we going to do Albert says it is getting bigger and Newton says it stays the same? Humm..... better to do the test.

    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    WRONG AGAIN bi.
    This whole discussion began with THIS quote:

    Originally posted by bistander View Post

    Practically everything that you "know" and post here is erroneous or a falsehood. Just like your statement quoted above. Or a while back when you told me that you knew more about the physics of motion than Issac Newton.

    bi
    This is where you LIED and said I "TOLD YOU" I know more about physics than Isaac Newton. When I denied ever having said that, you attempted to bring up my original statement about a heavier rotor drawing more amps, which in your convoluted way of thinking was some kind of justification for LYING about what I said. You claim a heavier rotor does NOT use more amps. I have SEEN that it does. To back up my statement that a heavier rotor DOEAS INDEED draw more amps, I posted the following two videos:

    Proving bi is WRONG
    https://youtu.be/LFlnhVQLWPk
    https://youtu.be/RvB3arCUPNg

    They show once again that it is YOU who does not know what he is talking about.
    Videos to which you have FAILED TO RESPOND. And you continue to attempt to AVOID the videos and change the subject. But every time you post here I am going to bring them up until you address the fact that you were WRONG. As I said. You better get used to being wrong. Oh, and to being called a liar. LOL
    Last edited by Turion; 05-15-2020, 04:24 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by dragon View Post
    You guys argue over the stupidest things.... bistander is right, both heavy and light flywheels would require little to no energy to maintain once they were up to speed - with magnetic bearings in a vacuum.............................proving any claims but it's fun to read in the evening...sometimes it's therapeutic to laugh at least once a day...
    This is the reason Newton and other are there to cause confusion. A house divided. Order out of confusion is their metaphysical law. meanwhile in the real world. So those who do and those who talk are pitted one against the other. Newton's greatest success story.

    A dust particle has friction on it. Gravity and other forces are excused? Earth's magnetic fields? Nope, silence. Coming back now to the experiment the theorist sort out their dilemma. While the years of conflict roll on by, planned. Suckers. Dave went by all of you and he doesn't know half of the programmed rubbish.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Originally posted by Turion View Post
    There you go taking things out of context again. The statement I made where the term "heavier" was used was NOT my original statement and you know it. Once more you use whatever you can to try and twist words. ...
    Originally posted by Turion View Post
    My machinist has yet to call me with the results of trying to get the amp draw down to the 12 amps of my original build, but having thought about it for a couple weeks now, I am not sure how close he is going to be able to get. The rotor he is currently using is heavier than my original rotor so it may require more amps to turn it. It’s weight is almost double. That increased weight is because the magnets are twice as thick, but they SHOULD also put out more power than I have claimed because of it. So if he can get it down to anywhere between 12 and 14 amps, I am going to call that good enough and get on with the testing. It’s really the output that matters and I will live with a couple hundred watts more input than I claimed, since 80% of THAT can be recovered anyway. I know nobody believes THAT either, but I know what I know. If I haven’t heard from him by this evening I’ll call for an update. As for what I am putting back together, I’ll be working on it later today. Need to spend the morning on my house remodel project. Fun times.
    If this isn't your post that started this, please show us what is.

    Here, below, is my reply to you back then.

    Originally posted by bistander View Post

    Hi Turion,
    You've said this before and I have pointed out that it is wrong. The power, and therefore the motor current, required to turn the rotor at a constant speed is independent of the rotor mass. This is stated in Newton's first law of motion, paraphrased here.

    An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and direction unless acted upon by an external force.

    External forces would include friction, aerodynamic drag and magnetics. Or since it is not actually the same motor, the difference in current may be due to a difference in the motor compared to the one used earlier.

    Regards,
    bi
    ​​​​​
    I thought it was a polite post intended to help you understand a basic principle. Oh well.

    bi

    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    There you go taking things out of context again. The statement I made where the term "heavier" was used was NOT my original statement and you know it. Once more you use whatever you can to try and twist words. Well twist THIS:

    bi said a heavier rotor does not draw more amps. He's wrong.
    https://youtu.be/LFlnhVQLWPk
    https://youtu.be/RvB3arCUPNg


    I can post these two videos from now on every time you make a post Won't that be fun?
    Last edited by Turion; 05-15-2020, 01:13 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Originally posted by Turion View Post
    Notice how bi jumps all over my use of the word “heavier”. It was just a descriptor to differentiate the bigger, heavier rotor from the smaller, lighter rotor as I described what I saw. ...
    Your original statement:

    Originally posted by Turion View Post
    ... The rotor he is currently using is heavier than my original rotor so it may require more amps to turn it. It’s weight is almost double.
    ...
    Unless your changing the gravitational constant, heavier and weight refer to mass.

    I've stated my case. You can't handle it. I can.

    bi

    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    dragon,
    I said my larger rotor drew more amps when I put it on my machine. bi said Newton proves I don’t know what I am talking about. I get a little tired of him telling me things are not possible when I see them right in front of me. I fully understand Newton’s laws. I took physics in high school. And in college. I understand the CONDITIONS under which Newton’s laws take place. bi does not.

    Since he was proved wrong he’ll either hide for a couple days so the thread will move past this, or he will focus back on whining about data to prove my claims. Want to guess which? No contributions. No research to move anything forward. Just whining and attempts to discredit.
    Last edited by Turion; 05-15-2020, 12:49 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    Notice how bi jumps all over my use of the word “heavier”. It was just a descriptor to differentiate the bigger, heavier rotor from the smaller, lighter rotor as I described what I saw. I could just as easily said that the bigger rotor caused more vibration and what would he have done with that? All I did was make a scientific observation. The heavier rotor caused more vibration. That was an observable fact. I never stated WHY it caused more vibration. Maybe it was missing a piece. Maybe it was missing magnets, maybe the center hole wasn’t drilled straight. There could’ve been any number of reasons for what I observed. But bi “interprets it to mean” that I was saying “that overall mass was responsible for the vibration.” I never said that. Just like I never said I know more than Newton. Poor bi, he can’t get anything right.

    I tell you what I observe on the bench. I don’t know WHY the coils cause the motor to speed up under load. I have credited Tesla’s explanation as it is the best I have heard. I just have seen it happen. I don’t know why the opposition magnets cause some acceleration. Alex proposed an idea. I think it may be valid. I just know what I see. Just like I know what my generator will put out.

    I got an email from Aaron today where he talked about coil experiments he did and how coils wound the way I am winding mine were able to put out energy. But his results are his and not mine to share. I only tell you what MY coils put out.

    You aren’t required to believe any of what I say. But by the time I am done you will either have to admit I am telling the truth, or assume all my videos are faked.
    Last edited by Turion; 05-15-2020, 12:36 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • dragon
    replied
    You guys argue over the stupidest things.... bistander is right, both heavy and light flywheels would require little to no energy to maintain once they were up to speed - with magnetic bearings in a vacuum. The only difference would be the amount of energy required to bring them up to speed as the larger one would store more energy than the smaller one. Dave is also correct given poor bearings in an open air environment... I'm not sure what any of this has to do with proving any claims but it's fun to read in the evening...sometimes it's therapeutic to laugh at least once a day...

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    The proof is in the pudding. The force formula's used in the engineering of mechanics talks about the fulcrum point of a lever. Traveling a distance the measurement of energy needed to move an object. The number of additional math equations escapes me to figure many other variables in. I like Dave's method better where a person gets up of his or her backside and find out the actual.

    Albert says the rotor Dave has will keep getting bigger as it goes faster and faster to slow it back down and Isaac says it keeps going on out into infinity in his fictitious analogy. A 5 ton crank shaft on a 12 cylinder diesel power station generator takes the same energy to turn as a Homelite?

    Larger bearing have more friction and without a perfect balancing the slightest unnoticeable waver or vibration will have an exponential value attached to it for calculations. You can never reach perfection so the theories do not work out anywhere in the universe, only in the metaphysical, because all particles, even of dust or smoke have weight and all times is acted on by one outside force of another.

    Newton chatter is meaningless, nothing more than another snake cult charmer. Meanwhile the real world. Good starting point to show Dave, obviously.

    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    And once again you ignore the FACTS I have shown.

    And a heavier rotor that is as much out of balance as a lighter one causes much more vibration. What do you think the chances are that in the cobbled together setup I just showed to prove you have no idea what you are talking about, Something is about out of balance. And I never SAID heavier rotors couldn’t be more in balance than lighter ones. Trying to put words in my mouth again.

    How about that amp draw? I notice you ignored THAT completely. You only call attention to those things you THINK you can win an argument on, and when you LOSE you ignore it. So predictable.

    PROVING bi WRONG
    https://youtu.be/LFlnhVQLWPk
    https://youtu.be/RvB3arCUPNg
    Last edited by Turion; 05-14-2020, 10:13 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Originally posted by Turion View Post
    Really?
    https://youtu.be/LFlnhVQLWPk
    https://youtu.be/RvB3arCUPNg

    In case you are wondering why I only have one finger on the meter in the first video and am actually HOLDING it in the second video, it's because the heavier rotor caused more vibration.

    This is the EXACT same setup with both rotors. Sometimes you actually have to BUILD things and look at how they perform on the bench. All the crap you have stored between your ears isn't worth ANYTHING to me when it contradicts what I actually SEE on the bench. I'm so glad it is of value to YOU.
    Because you don't understand the fundamentals you attribute your observations on the bench to erroneous factors. As above, you say "because the heavier rotor caused more vibration" which is easily interpreted to mean that overall mass is responsible for the vibration. Heavier objects can and often are better balanced than less massive ones.

    bi

    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    Really?
    https://youtu.be/LFlnhVQLWPk
    https://youtu.be/RvB3arCUPNg

    In case you are wondering why I only have one finger on the meter in the first video and am actually HOLDING it in the second video, it's because the heavier rotor caused more vibration.

    This is the EXACT same setup with both rotors. Sometimes you actually have to BUILD things and look at how they perform on the bench. All the crap you have stored between your ears isn't worth ANYTHING to me when it contradicts what I actually SEE on the bench. I'm so glad it is of value to YOU.

    Is this what you call "proof of claim"?
    Last edited by Turion; 05-14-2020, 08:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bistander
    replied
    Originally posted by Turion View Post
    And AGAIN, you live in a world that DOESN'T exist. You think there is no resistance from the air around the rotor. NO resistance in the bearings? NO UNBALANCED FORCES acting on the rotor? DREAM ON! You think a heavier rotor has NO MORE WEIGHT ON THE BEARINGS? There are MANY things you are not taking into consideration in your "perfect world" where you apply Newton's law. Use your head for once. THINK.
    All those things are unbalanced forces requiring the power input. The increased mass is NOT the reason one rotor would require more "amps to turn" than another rotor.

    ​​​bi

    Leave a comment:


  • Turion
    replied
    And AGAIN, you live in a world that DOESN'T exist. You think there is no resistance from the air around the rotor. NO resistance in the bearings? NO UNBALANCED FORCES acting on the rotor? DREAM ON! You think a heavier rotor has NO MORE WEIGHT ON THE BEARINGS? There are MANY things you are not taking into consideration in your "perfect world" where you apply Newton's law. Use your head for once. THINK.
    Last edited by Turion; 05-14-2020, 07:01 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X