The bistander thread

[bistander]

Not only did you say that multiple times (Unless you went back to edit?) but you also stated that a 4 ton rotor takes no more power AT speed to run than a 4 pound rotor. Hilarious dude, lots of gas.Stop clownin and fess up.

You can't find where I said that because I never did, and I didn't edit it out.

And if on frictionless bearings in a vacuum, it would take exactly the same power to rotate a 4 ton rotor and a 4 pound rotor at constant speed. I'll take credit for saying that although credit really belongs to Sir Isaac Newton.

bi

[bistander]

My claim all along about magnetic neutralization has been that adding coils (with cores) would decrease the RPM of the motor and increase the amp draw of the motor to the point where it will burn up if you add enough coils, which magnetic neutralization offsets, and you said it is "irrelevant." That's the same as saying that the amp draw and rpm of the motor are NOT affected by the addition of coils (with cores) isn't it? You said magnetic neutralization is irrelevant. It is NOT, as you have finally admitted. They are CRITICAL. Case closed. Grow up.

I made no claims about "core losses". Just crap you're throwing in to obfuscate the issue. YOU WERE WRONG. ...

Turion,

It irrelevant not because motor current won't increase when cores are added (adding cores will increase motor current), it's irrelevant because magnetic neutralization does nothing to mitigate core loss and increased core loss is the reason motor current increases. Magnetic neutralization does not affect core loss, that is why magnetic neutralization is irrelevant at speed in regards to generator output. That's what I've said from the start. You just never took the time to understand that.

When you talk about your magnetic neutralization reducing loss at speed, you're saying it reduces core loss whether you know it or not.

bi

[Turion]

Watch the videos I posted. With NO COILS IN PLACE the motor draws only 7 amps and runs at over 4,000 rpm. With 12 coils in place it draws MOPRE amps and the RPM drops. That means not only does it cost MORE to turn the rotor with coils (and cores) in place, but the output of the coils as generator coils is LESS, because the RPM is reduced. A DOUBLE WHAMMY. Those are the FACTS.

Then I show the machine running with Magnetic Neutralization in place and all 12 coils in position (along with their cores) and the the amp draw goes DOWN and the RPM goes UP.

You WERE wrong. You ARE wrong, and you will ALWAYS BE wrong. How about that bet? Put up or shut up. But you WON'T, because you are WRONG and you know it.

[bistander]

Watch the videos I posted. With NO COILS IN PLACE the motor draws only 7 amps and runs at over 4,000 rpm. With 12 coils in place it draws MOPRE amps and the RPM drops. That means not only does it cost MORE to turn the rotor with coils (and cores) in place, but the output of the coils as generator coils is LESS, because the RPM is reduced. A DOUBLE WHAMMY. Those are the FACTS.

Then I show the machine running with Magnetic Neutralization in place and all 12 coils in position (along with their cores) and the the amp draw goes DOWN and the RPM goes UP.

You WERE wrong. You ARE wrong, and you will ALWAYS BE wrong. How about that bet? Put up or shut up. But you WON'T, because you are WRONG and you know it.

Post the video here. I never saw where you posted a test with and without magnetic neutralization all else being equal.
bi

[Turion]

You know what? I really don't CARE what you saw or didn't see. The facts remain the facts. I am not REQUIRED to prove anything to you. Never have been. So your demands mean less than NOTHING to me.
I showed amp draw just turning the rotor at 7.78 amps on 36 volts at at least 3800 RPM and it shows over 4,100 for one fleeting moment before I moved the camera. I know it will do over 4,000
Amp draw with 4 coils in place and some adjustment with magnetic neutralization made at 12.5 amps at 3556 RPM
Amp draw with 6 coils and no FURTHER adjustment of magnetic neutralization at all 16.34 amps at 3420 RPM.
Those videos were all posted HERE on this thread recently. Go find them if you want. Not MY problem.

I don't think I posted a video of the machine running with magnetic neutralization in place IN THAT SERIES, but it runs on 13 amps at 36 volts, whether YOU believe it or not. And I HAVE shown that in the past. Now you're gong to whine about videos because you are wrong and can't weasel your way out of it? LOL We ran it on the 14 amp power supply we show in the video at 36 volts as our source of power so there would be NO DOUBT. So what is your position NOW that I have shown you have NO IDEA what you are talking about? That magnetic drag does indeed exist, but my "magnetic neutralization" has no effect on it? Do you have any idea how many amps it would take to turn that rotor with all 12 coils in place? Well I do, and it is above the rated amp draw of the motor, which is, I believe, around 36 amps.

You haven't built the machine. You haven't run it. You haven't tested it. Yet you believe you know everything about it. Wow! Maybe you could work as a Doctor in a hospital since I'm sure you saw one on TV once.

PATHETIC

Edit: I just checked. That motor is rated for ONLY 26 amps. NO wonder I burnt so many up. 12 coils will pull way more than that.

And just to show magnetic neutralization in action, here is Greyland spinning the rotor with one finger with all 12 coils in place, where the motor will not even BUDGE the rotor without magnetic neutralization with that many coils in place. But you go on believing it is irrelevant. Like I said, the only thing irrelevant is YOU.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5Kw...ature=youtu.be

[BroMikey]

Turion,

It irrelevant not because motor current won't increase

it's irrelevant because magnetic neutralization does nothing to mitigate core loss

neutralization is irrelevant at speed in regards to generator output. That's what I've said from the start. bi

Stop using my favorite word (irrelevant) which just means in your case carefully crafted mumbo Jumbo that seemingly pertains to this project so far over your book smarts (6th grade science)

have some class and find a new word.

Anyway if the people have been following along on this research see these unrelated comments, they know your reasoning is flawed as a deliberate tool for confusion. What we need to say is that Dave has done a good job in this field of work even if you don't see all in play. Admit it, Dave is a star.

[bistander]

You know what? I really don't CARE what you saw or didn't see. The facts remain the facts. I am not REQUIRED to prove anything to you. Never have been. So your demands mean less than NOTHING to me.
I showed amp draw just turning the rotor at 7.78 amps on 36 volts at at least 3800 RPM and it shows over 4,100 for one fleeting moment before I moved the camera. I know it will do over 4,000
Amp draw with 4 coils in place and some adjustment with magnetic neutralization made at 12.5 amps at 3556 RPM
Amp draw with 6 coils and no FURTHER adjustment of magnetic neutralization at all 16.34 amps at 3420 RPM.
Those videos were all posted HERE on this thread recently. Go find them if you want. Not MY problem.

I don't think I posted a video of the machine running with magnetic neutralization in place IN THAT SERIES, but it runs on 13 amps at 36 volts, whether YOU believe it or not. And I HAVE shown that in the past. Now you're gong to whine about videos because you are wrong and can't weasel your way out of it? LOL We ran it on the 14 amp power supply we show in the video at 36 volts as our source of power so there would be NO DOUBT. So what is your position NOW that I have shown you have NO IDEA what you are talking about? That magnetic drag does indeed exist, but my "magnetic neutralization" has no effect on it? Do you have any idea how many amps it would take to turn that rotor with all 12 coils in place? Well I do, and it is above the rated amp draw of the motor, which is, I believe, around 36 amps.

You haven't built the machine. You haven't run it. You haven't tested it. Yet you believe you know everything about it. Wow! Maybe you could work as a Doctor in a hospital since I'm sure you saw one on TV once.

PATHETIC

Edit: I just checked. That motor is rated for ONLY 26 amps. NO wonder I burnt so many up. 12 coils will pull way more than that.

And just to show magnetic neutralization in action, here is Greyland spinning the rotor with one finger with all 12 coils in place, where the motor will not even BUDGE the rotor without magnetic neutralization with that many coils in place. But you go on believing it is irrelevant. Like I said, the only thing irrelevant is YOU.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5Kw...ature=youtu.be

So you don't have video of a test of constant rated speed with and without magnetic neutralization using 12 cores in place, like you said you did. And spinning with one finger is only showing cogging or mitigation of cogging and had nothing to do with core loss. If your motor is incapable of accelerating the rotor to rated speed with 12 cores, then run a comparative test with and without magnetic neutralization using only 2 or 3 cores, at rated speed.

But all the numbers that you just posted support my position more than your's.

This is exactly why I've tried to avoid discussing your little methods. They don't mean anything in regards to your main claim that your apparatus will deliver 1800 watts of real power requiring less than 300 watts input. Your "magnetic neutralization" and "speed-up under load" are merely distractions because they don't affect the generator output power or efficiency at full load and rated speed. To prove me wrong, prove your claim of 1800 out/300 in.
bi

[Turion]

Every core material has core loss. Your babble about magnetic neutralization having no effect on core loss is, to use YOUR term, “irrelevant”.

In every generator that uses permanent magnets, there is increased amp draw on the motor with the addition of each coil (And it’s core) in proximity to the rotor magnets. To output 2,000 watts you need a bunch of coils, which means a motor that is big enough and can handle enough amps to do the job. Even THEN you would probably have SOME loss of motor RPM and therefore loss of output from the generating coils. Which is why they use gas or diesel motors to turn generators, not electric motors.

With magnetic neutralization I can run a small motor on very few amps turning a large rotor with lots of magnets past a whole lot of coils with relative ease. With the addition of coils that allow me to outrun Lenz, there is not much to slow the rotor or increase the MOTOR amp draw. Results? Low input with high output. Those are the facts. I’m done with your stupidity. If people cannot see the truth in this from what I have shown they deserve what they get. I am on to other things.

By the way, what are you going to say when a large company comes out with generators that incorporate both these high capacity coils that enable you to outrun Lenz as well as magnetic neutralization? It’s in the works. It’s real, and THAT’S why you hide your identity in the shadows. But it doesn’t matter. You will still be a fool no matter WHO you are.

[bistander]

Every core material has core loss. Your babble about magnetic neutralization having no effect on core loss is, to use YOUR term, “irrelevant”.

In every generator that uses permanent magnets, there is increased amp draw on the motor with the addition of each coil (And it’s core) in proximity to the rotor magnets. To output 2,000 watts you need a bunch of coils, which means a motor that is big enough and can handle enough amps to do the job. Even THEN you would probably have SOME loss of motor RPM and therefore loss of output from the generating coils. Which is why they use gas or diesel motors to turn generators, not electric motors.

With magnetic neutralization I can run a small motor on very few amps turning a large rotor with lots of magnets past a whole lot of coils with relative ease. With the addition of coils that allow me to outrun Lenz, there is not much to slow the rotor or increase the MOTOR amp draw. Results? Low input with high output. Those are the facts. I’m done with your stupidity. If people cannot see the truth in this from what I have shown they deserve what they get. I am on to other things.

By the way, what are you going to say when a large company comes out with generators that incorporate both these high capacity coils that enable you to outrun Lenz as well as magnetic neutralization? It’s in the works. It’s real, and THAT’S why you hide your identity in the shadows. But it doesn’t matter. You will still be a fool no matter WHO you are.

Turion,

Now you're changing your story. You had said your magnetic neutralization eliminated drag. I said, and still say, all it can do is to mitigate cogging. So it doesn't eliminate or mitigate drag at rated speed and has no effect on generator output or input required for said output. The drag at speed is due to core loss, friction and aero drag. When loaded additional drag, most call torque, develops from Lorenz force. Going on about Lenz is a whole other thing. Speaking of which, you say you outrun Lenz, how fast is Lenz? Show me in scientific literature or a legitimate test where the speed of Lenz is addressed, calculated or measured. It is something that you totally made up or learned from some quack like Thane Heins.

But so what? All you need to do is prove your output/input claim. I'll be the happiest person on the planet when you or your company proves that and sells me a product which can do that. But that will never happen.

bi

[BroMikey]

Turion,

Now you're changing your story.

Show me in scientific literature or a legitimate test where the speed of Lenz is addressed,

It is something that you totally made up or learned from some quack like Thane Heins.

bi

Parroting again, real people make up present day reality. Your hero's are all dead who were paid off puppet's while they were alive, just like you. Comfy?

[Turion]

bi,
you take a term I use “magnetic drag” and attempt to manipulate it to support your erroneous conclusions. Show me one place in the literature that differentiates between drag and cogging. Or where do they talk about magnetic drag. They don’t. You are nothing but paid Opposition. But we see through you shadow man. I’ll listen to you when you quit hiding in the dark like a whiny little baby and put your money where your mouth is.

I have no company bi. I gave this all away and then fought like heck to keep idiots like you from burying it before someone with some actual expertise and backing could come along. That has happened. My job is done.

[bistander]

bi,
you take a term I use “magnetic drag” and attempt to manipulate it to support your erroneous conclusions. Show me one place in the literature that differentiates between drag and cogging. Or where do they talk about magnetic drag. They don’t. You are nothing but paid Opposition. But we see through you shadow man. I’ll listen to you when you quit hiding in the dark like a whiny little baby and put your money where your mouth is.

I have no company bi. I gave this all away and then fought like heck to keep idiots like you from burying it before someone with some actual expertise and backing could come along. That has happened. My job is done.

Turion,

I have gone over this "drag" terminology for your benefit a number of times. You just don't pay attention or have a bad memory.

Cogging defined ... the TORQUE necessary to break the alignment of the magnet with the iron core

vs

DRAG ... is the magnetic ATTRACTION of the magnets to the iron

It's the same thing!

Perhaps you're misusing terminology. I mentioned this to you a few years ago, when you called me Mr. potatohead. Remember that?

Adding a magnetic neutralization trick to reduce this drag will only reduce the B field, which is counterproductive for a generator.
_______


Screenshot_20200626-171522.png

That insert is from Wikipedia. It is one of a few places that use the term in magnetics. It explains drag as used in Eddy current brakes. The same phenomena is present in motors and generators as core loss along with hysteresis loss. Even before the above referenced post, I asked you to clarify what you meant by drag because it is not a commonly used word in electric machinery engineering and industry.

By "your company" I was referring to this:

One of the reasons I am no longer concerned with the progress on this thread is that I was contacted by someone with TONS of experience with motors and generators. He is actually in the management of a company that specializes in motors and generators, so he might know a thing or two. He is the individual who came to Greyland's shop and SAW the generator running. He was impressed enough that he will be incorporating the magnetic neutralization into the prototype he is building. His budget is a little more than mine, O Machine.jpg

bi

[Turion]

I have explained what I mean by DRAG many times. It is YOU who do not pay attention. My magnetic neutralization does NOT reduce the B field. It has NOTHING to DO with the generator cores or the magnets moving past them. There is a separate set of magnets on the rotor and a separate set of magnets on the stator that are adjustable. When two magnets of the same polarity are forced together, it "Neutralizes" the attraction of the rotor magnets to the core of the coils. That attraction is still there and as strong as ever, and so is the effect of the magnet on the core of the coil, but there is now an OPPOSITE reaction that is just as strong. Once again you prove you have NO UNDERSTANDING of what I have built. You're not a researcher, not a builder, contribute nothing. Just a wikipedia addict with a computer. I believe you know what you can do with your "B Field" BS.

Refer to whatever you want. I have no company and am associated with no company. At least not in regards to THIS project.

[bistander]

I have explained what I mean by DRAG many times. It is YOU who do not pay attention. My magnetic neutralization does NOT reduce the B field. It has NOTHING to DO with the generator cores or the magnets moving past them. There is a separate set of magnets on the rotor and a separate set of magnets on the stator that are adjustable. When two magnets of the same polarity are forced together, it "Neutralizes" the attraction of the rotor magnets to the core of the coils. That attraction is still there and as strong as ever, and so is the effect of the magnet on the core of the coil, but there is now an OPPOSITE reaction that is just as strong. ...

I never said anything contradictory to the above explanation, in fact, I pretty much said the same thing just a few posts ago when I pointed out since magnetic neutralization doesn't affect the main pole magnets and cores, it cannot reduce core loss at speed, and since cogging is irrelevant at speed, magnetic neutralization has no benefit at speed. Remember that?
bi

[bistander]

Hi Altrez and all,
I've been working on a 4 cell LiFePO4 battery. Just got it to a point where I can start testing. I want to go through several cycles and purposely overvolt, overcurrent and unbalance cells to verify the BMS is working properly as well as check out my wiring.
Cells are A123 brand LiFePO4, 26650 (26mm dia × 65mm long). Cells are a few years old but never used however appear to be disassembled from packs, probably DeWalt tool batteries. They are 3.3 volts nominal.

Screenshot_20200808-220639.png
ANR26650M1A-Datasheet-APRIL-2009.pdf

And a couple photos:

IMG_20200808_175554350.jpg

IMG_20200808_175527203.jpg

Just a short 'see if it works' test. Discharge at ~1A.

IMG_20200808_175747093.jpg

Next, a cell logger. It will keep track of the 4 individual cell voltages during the tests.

IMG_20200808_175636586.jpg

If tests go ok I'll heat shrink the 4 cells and BMS together in a nice little 2.3Ah 12V battery.

Link to BMS if you're interested:
https://www.electriccarpartscompany....agement-System

Regards,
bi