ReGenX Coils and ReGenXtra switching

[bistander]

Thanks for the update. I'm not wrong about anything related to physics of motion and Newton's Laws, just weary of trying to sort out your posts.

bi

[Turion]

When you’re wrong and you know it, change the topic. If you can distract for two or three posts you can hope people will forget.

I do have a bit of good news. I finished the downstairs at my house to the point where the contractor I hired is coming in to do the texturing of the drywall, which may take a few weeks as he only works Sunday’s. Then I have to go back and paint and trim it all out and put face plates on all electrical. But for NOW, the pressure is off for a bit. Still have work to do upstairs though.

But I had four days to work on my shop at the NEW house and have it cleaned up to the point where I have an entire workbench dedicated to the generator. It is stacked with all the parts and now I can FINALLY start putting it back together as I have time. Before this week I didn’t even haVe a clear bench to assemble it on. I intend to work on it some every day that I can squeeze an hour or two in.

So within a few dats I should at least have data on it running the rotor directly off the motor with no coils in place. This machine will only have 10 coils instead of 12, since it has an odd number of coils on each side and an even number of magnets, but at least it will be up and running so I can video each step and record data.

[BroMikey]

How's that build coming along? Got any data?

It should be read like this Dave.
"How's that build coming along? Got any data you liar?

And of course Dave is suppose to drop everything and fill in BYE on an experiment we won't do. Now he wants Dave to be a nice boy after ringing him out for hours.

Good luck with that.

[bistander]

Once again, you lie. I did not change my story. YOU are quoting a different post than the original to support YOUR side of the story. On old tactic you continue to try and use. My original statement was, and I quote:
"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." As you can see, I CLEARLY said HEAVIER, not LARGER. And and later I referred to the LARGER rotor to differentiate between the two, because that is the one with MORE MAGNETS IN IT, WHICH WOULD DEFINITELY MAKE IT WEIGH MORE, and has nothing to do with not knowing the difference between "heavier" and "larger". Once again. you try to focus on some tiny thing to bail yourself out from being absolutely WRONG. But it isn't working. Wrong again.

And yet ANOTHER lie. I did NOT just tell you nor do I continue to tell you I am right and Newton is wrong. You're mixing up two different things here. Its like the difference between BELIEVING you're and idiot and SAYING you're an idiot. How YOU interpret what I say is YOUR problem. You don't know what I "think." You are not privy to what is inside my head, so you do not know what I THINK. You only know what I say. I never said I know more than Newton. How many times do we have to catch you in the same lie?

Do you know what the difference is between an observation and a conclusion?
Obviously not.
You have observed my statements
You have drawn your own conclusion
Then you have stated your conclusion as "Just a true observation"
Wrong on TWO counts.
It is not an observation. It is not true.
They have dictionaries on line. You can look up the difference between an observation and a conclusion.
I promise. Give it a try.
Generally you have Observation
Then possibly hypothesis
Then experimentation or investigation
Then conclusion.
But not you. You jump right to conclusion
How scientific of you.

Oh, and the heavier, LARGER rotor takes more amps to turn than the light, SMALLER rotor. Don't want you to forget that part, even though you are doing your VERY BEST to derail the argument.

How's that build coming along? Got any data?

[Turion]

There you go again. Changing your story. I, and Newton, talk about mass. You originally said "heavier" meaning increased mass. Now you say "larger" meaning increased size. I guess you see no difference.

bi

Once again, you lie. I did not change my story. YOU are quoting a different post than the original to support YOUR side of the story. On old tactic you continue to try and use. My original statement was, and I quote:
"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." As you can see, I CLEARLY said HEAVIER, not LARGER. And and later I referred to the LARGER rotor to differentiate between the two, because that is the one with MORE MAGNETS IN IT, WHICH WOULD DEFINITELY MAKE IT WEIGH MORE, and has nothing to do with not knowing the difference between "heavier" and "larger". Once again. you try to focus on some tiny thing to bail yourself out from being absolutely WRONG. But it isn't working. Wrong again.

And yet ANOTHER lie. I did NOT just tell you nor do I continue to tell you I am right and Newton is wrong. You're mixing up two different things here. Its like the difference between BELIEVING you're and idiot and SAYING you're an idiot. How YOU interpret what I say is YOUR problem. You don't know what I "think." You are not privy to what is inside my head, so you do not know what I THINK. You only know what I say. I never said I know more than Newton. How many times do we have to catch you in the same lie?

Do you know what the difference is between an observation and a conclusion?
Obviously not.
You have observed my statements
You have drawn your own conclusion
Then you have stated your conclusion as "Just a true observation"
Wrong on TWO counts.
It is not an observation. It is not true.
They have dictionaries on line. You can look up the difference between an observation and a conclusion.
I promise. Give it a try.
Generally you have Observation
Then possibly hypothesis
Then experimentation or investigation
Then conclusion.
But not you. You jump right to conclusion
How scientific of you.

Oh, and the heavier, LARGER rotor takes more amps to turn than the light, SMALLER rotor. Don't want you to forget that part, even though you are doing your VERY BEST to derail the argument.

[bistander]

bi,
You are assuming the rotor resides in an alternate reality where no friction with air exists, no bearings are required, the motor itself will spin forever once you kill the power. I don’t live in that world, neither do you, and what do you know, neither does my rotor! If you ever did an ACTUAL experiment on the bench, your perception of reality might change. But you go right on living in your little dream world. Is Newton there with you?

The larger rotor requires more and to turn. Period.

You said I “told” you I know more than Newton. I never “told” you any such thing. That is, and alway will be, a lie on your part. Keep trying to spin your way out bi. You’re going to look like a pretzel.

...
The larger rotor requires more and to turn. Period.
...

There you go again. Changing your story. I, and Newton, talk about mass. You originally said "heavier" meaning increased mass. Now you say "larger" meaning increased size. I guess you see no difference.

And you did tell me and continue to tell me you're right and Newton is wrong on the subject. Which means that you think you know more than Newton on the subject. I see no lie on my part. Just a true observation.

bi

[Turion]

bi,
You are assuming the rotor resides in an alternate reality where no friction with air exists, no bearings are required, the motor itself will spin forever once you kill the power. I don’t live in that world, neither do you, and what do you know, neither does my rotor! If you ever did an ACTUAL experiment on the bench, your perception of reality might change. But you go right on living in your little dream world. Is Newton there with you?

The larger rotor requires more and to turn. Period.

You said I “told” you I know more than Newton. I never “told” you any such thing. That is, and alway will be, a lie on your part. Keep trying to spin your way out bi. You’re going to look like a pretzel.

[BroMikey]

You mean like this. This is the same thing, good luck with that. Yeah right!!

This is a direct quote. As long as nothing is changed?
So once I get up to speed FREE ENERGY?????Pull the fuel line at speed?
Better to experiment than sit around trying to figure out the math.

Both the heavy truck and the VW require no fuel to continue motion .................

[bistander]

The complete sentence quote.

... Both the heavy truck and the VW require no fuel to continue motion at the same speed in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. That is what Newton tells us and is fact.

Regards,

bi

[BroMikey]

Both the heavy truck and the VW require no fuel to continue motion at the same speed in the same direction ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Tell me that when you run out of gas, the next time you test your theories. Better call a tow truck not Newton.

[bistander]

How does it feel? Every post for 5 + years you have been changing our words around to suit.
How do you like it? Still your way of picking out small details without adding the entire amount is no different. Here let me show you how to talk right.

A 10ton truck gets 1 mpg going down the road at 75mph
A 1 ton VW gets 100 mpg going down the road at 75 mph

The big truck takes 100X more to run than the VW, but it doesn't cost any more than that as long as you don't go faster? HUH? Okay yeah, am I missing something here. It stays the same? Yeah it stays the same costing the truck 100X more but they are both running the same but not speeding up? HUH? Yeah

It's the unbalanced forces which require the energy to do the work not the mass. Ask a physics professor or read a physics textbook.

[bistander]

I absolutely agree with this. The ONLY time mass enters into the equation is when you are changing the speed of a SPECIFIC rotor or when that SPECIFIC rotor is affected by an unbalanced force. Then Newton's laws apply to THAT SPECIFIC (and to others as well) rotor as it sits. But we are talking about comparing two DIFFERENT rotors, not how Newtons' laws apply to one rotor. One rotor is light. One rotor is heavy. The power needed to accelerate one rotor to a specific speed and maintain it is different than the power needed to accelerate the OTHER rotor to a specific speed and maintain it. When both are running at exactly the same speed as maintained by the motor, one will draw MORE amps. Just like it takes more power to drive a VW bug at 30 miles per hour on a level road than it does to drive a semi at 30 mile per hour on a level road. Moving mass over distance requires energy. Moving MORE mass over that SAME distance requires MORE energy. Just because a rotor is ROUND doesn't mean there is no mass there that has to be moved to rotate it. You can quote anybody you want, but you cannot change the FACTS with theories. I understand EXACTLY what Newton teaches. Apparently you don't.

As to how this discussion began. As I recall, it began because you LIED and said I told you I know more than Newton, which I never said. Never. And you know it. And you still haven't admitted that I never said it. BUT whether you admit it or NOT the fact is, you lied. You keep trying to put those words in my mouth, but they don't fit, and never will.

Turion,

I don't have to put words in your mouth. You do it. In the first paragraph above you say you agree with Newton but then go on a few sentences later and totally contradict what he says in his first law of motion. So doesn't than mean that you think that you know more about physics of motion than Sir Isaac? How does that simple conclusion on my part constitute a lie? Seems valid to me.

You're entitled to disagree with Newton. You disagree with a lot of experts and established principles of physics from what I see you post. I try to give the members and readers the correct interpretation as I see it. Hopefully they will consider both views, research and study, or at least think about it instead of blindly following you.

Regards,

bi

[BroMikey]

It's not nice to alter one's quote.

Both the heavy truck and the VW require no fuel to continue motion at the same speed in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. That is what Newton tells us and is fact.

Regards,

bi

How does it feel? Every post for 5 + years you have been changing our words around to suit.
How do you like it? Still your way of picking out small details without adding the entire amount is no different. Here let me show you how to talk right.

A 10ton truck gets 1 mpg going down the road at 75mph
A 1 ton VW gets 100 mpg going down the road at 75 mph

The big truck takes 100X more to run than the VW, but it doesn't cost any more than that as long as you don't go faster? HUH? Okay yeah, am I missing something here. It stays the same? Yeah it stays the same costing the truck 100X more but they are both running the same but not speeding up? HUH? Yeah

[Turion]

Newton's Law always has the stipulation. Mass is not a factor when turning the rotor. It enters into the equation when changing speed or when affected by an unbalanced force, as Newton says. Generators typically run at constant speed.

I absolutely agree with this. The ONLY time mass enters into the equation is when you are changing the speed of a SPECIFIC rotor or when that SPECIFIC rotor is affected by an unbalanced force. Then Newton's laws apply to THAT SPECIFIC (and to others as well) rotor as it sits. But we are talking about comparing two DIFFERENT rotors, not how Newtons' laws apply to one rotor. One rotor is light. One rotor is heavy. The power needed to accelerate one rotor to a specific speed and maintain it is different than the power needed to accelerate the OTHER rotor to a specific speed and maintain it. When both are running at exactly the same speed as maintained by the motor, one will draw MORE amps. Just like it takes more power to drive a VW bug at 30 miles per hour on a level road than it does to drive a semi at 30 mile per hour on a level road. Moving mass over distance requires energy. Moving MORE mass over that SAME distance requires MORE energy. Just because a rotor is ROUND doesn't mean there is no mass there that has to be moved to rotate it. You can quote anybody you want, but you cannot change the FACTS with theories. I understand EXACTLY what Newton teaches. Apparently you don't.

As to how this discussion began. As I recall, it began because you LIED and said I told you I know more than Newton, which I never said. Never. And you know it. And you still haven't admitted that I never said it. BUT whether you admit it or NOT the fact is, you lied. You keep trying to put those words in my mouth, but they don't fit, and never will.

[bistander]

bi,
YOU are the one who is changing MY words by adding the phrase “a constant speed” to the end of my statements. I NEVER said “at a constant speed”

I said it takes more amps to turn a heavier rotor than it does a lighter one because more work is required. This is a FACT. Why don’t you put a VW engine in a semi? Because more weight is attached to the motor shaft so you need more power to turn it. Newton’s law DOES factor in when you talk about rotation at a constant speed but that is NOT what I said in my original quote. It is something YOU added in so you could try to sound superior. All it does is show you up for what you really are.

You said "turn". Not accelerate. And Newton's Law always has the stipulation. Mass is not a factor when turning the rotor. It enters into the equation when changing speed or when affected by an unbalanced force, as Newton says. Generators typically run at constant speed. Why would your machine be different?

... 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.
...

... For the LAST time, increased weight of the rotor is an increase in resistance to turning or increased LOAD on the motor. Come back when you have done your research and know what you’re talking about.

Neither of these two statements by you indicate in any way you're talking about acceleration or unbalanced force. Increased weight of the rotor is NOT an increase in resistance to turning, as you said.

If your vehicle was traveling at speed and there was no unbalanced force, it wouldn't need any engine to continue traveling at that same speed in the same direction. That is what Newton teaches. Learn it or ignore it.

Perhaps this current round of back&forth could had been avoided if you had engaged in a civil discussion when I first mentioned it instead of ridiculing me. But you still don't believe Newton, do you?

Regards,

bi