The bistander thread

[bistander]

No, What I have is a machine that works. All you have is your mouth, and that dark little corner you hide in because you are too scared to come out and face me like a man. COWARD
There are two others besides me who now have working prototypes and are testing coils. This isn’t the only forum I contribute to and there ARE still builders out there.

Without proof, it is just a false claim, and more childish name-calling.
bi

[dragon]

Ultra capacitor powered? Interesting experiment. What? No o.u. / cop claims? Thanks for sharing.
bi

Nothing OU about it and there is no external energy being extracted so there's no COP claims... I'd say it's reasonably efficient...

[BroMikey]

Shame on you BYE. Oh yeah I forgot, your kind are without shame. Why are you not rejoicing with the guys on their new found discovery that improves the design Turion pioneered? We should all be excited to hear new developments. Aren't you ever happy? Are you always full of hate spewing and poison? That stuff will eat your insides out. It is unkind to call liar liar.

Opposing magnets on my rotor help on both starting the rotor and if lined up plus adjusted at SPEED the operator can find the sweet spot. The sweet spot is not the point of entry/weakness, your terminology can be a mess.

Without proof, it is just a false claim, and more childish name-calling.
bi

He tried those ferrite cores and, as I reported, they were a dismal failure. He tried a steel core, and after 15 minutes he got a blister on his finger just touching it because of the heat. He tried a new core material yesterday and immediately called me. This is ENTIRELY HIS DISCOVERY. He was able to run for 30 minutes and the core was still stone cold. Not only that but he was outputting 200 volts from a SINGLE COIL, not a coil PAIR. .

Show the evidence of the " almost 30 amps" reduced to "only 9 amps". Those figures are your memories and observations which can't be trusted

to be verified by third party replications and testing.
bi

[BroMikey]

With no coils (and their cores) in place the motor draws 7 amps. With 12 coils (and their cores) in place the motor draws almost 30 amps. With magnetic neutralization in place the motor only draws 9 amps. These are the facts. You can read from Wikipedia all day long and it won’t change those numbers.

You would think folks would grab onto all of these free data points and build one. 30amp X 36v= 1080watts is a god awful big drag don't you think BYE.

Next 36v X 9amp =325watts with the magnets is great. Now do you want to build one BYE? You could prove yourself wrong, aren't you excited about the prospect? You should save us the trouble.

All those ideas and terms you quote from boyhood are college book manipulations designed to keep you in the dark. Didn't you ever question teacher as to the zhit they shoveled in the classroom? I guess not, somebody has to play the roll of stool pigeon. Maybe now that you are ancient? I guess not.

[Turion]

Whatever happened to that little 7th grade science experiment bi said he would do to see if magnetic neutralization was real or BS. No doubt he actually did it and discovered he’s been wrong all along so he can’t talk about it. Too funny!!

By the way, I have always stated that my reason for implementing magnetic neutralization was because when I added coils the amp draw of the motor went up and the RPM went DOWN. Master Debunker bi is the one who responded to that with “Cogging goes away at speed.” He is the one who brought up cogging, not me. I agree that cogging goes away at speed, but that magnetic attraction, that I call “magnetic drag” does NOT.

But magnetic neutralization offsets it and saves watts in input and eliminates RPM losses that reduce output. So it does have an effect on output at load. Show the 7th grade science experiment bi, if you dare. But you won’t. COWARD. You want to be spoon fed everything. Real researchers ACTUALLY do research. Ever heard of it?

[bistander]

Whatever happened to that little 7th grade science experiment bi said he would do to see if magnetic neutralization was real or BS. No doubt he actually did it and discovered he’s been wrong all along so he can’t talk about it. Too funny!!

By the way, I have always stated that my reason for implementing magnetic neutralization was because when I added coils the amp draw of the motor went up and the RPM went DOWN. Master Debunker bi is the one who responded to that with “Cogging goes away at speed.” He is the one who brought up cogging, not me. I agree that cogging goes away at speed, but that magnetic attraction, that I call “magnetic drag” does NOT.

But magnetic neutralization offsets it and saves watts in input and eliminates RPM losses that reduce output. So it does have an effect on output at load. Show the 7th grade science experiment bi, if you dare. But you won’t. COWARD. You want to be spoon fed everything. Real researchers ACTUALLY do research. Ever heard of it?

Attraction of the magnets to the core is cogging. Look it up.

Like I said, my experiment, I'll get to it when I get to it. If it produces valid data, I do intend to share it, regardless of what conclusions one may draw from it.
bi

[alexelectric]

Greetings
I did a simple test, and if the magnets help neutralize the magnetic attraction as Mr. Dave names it, I see it as taking a brake off a car, put a brake on a car and move forward and you will see how it forges the motor , remove the brake and motor of the car works better and with less effort and energy expenditure.

The important thing when I believe or do not believe in something is to check it, in my case if I do not have the magnetic neutralization I cannot move the rotor shaft by hand, having already installed the magnets of the magnetic neutralization I can rotate the axis with the hand of the generator rotor, it is the same that will be found in the motor, brake without neutralization, and without brake with magnetic neutralization.

If you have doubts, simply make the prototype to test it yourself.

There are interesting projects and when I want to know if a prototype works, I document the one who is doing it and proceed to do it, and so I realize if it is functional or not.

Here there are people with a lot of knowledge and talent, the important thing is to move forward and try something different, if they do not try to experience something different or new, they will not move forward.

[BroMikey]

Whatever happened to that little 7th grade science experiment biReal researchers ACTUALLY do research. Ever heard of it?

I found Bye's video update from his latest experiments. I didn't know he had it in him.

[bistander]

Greetings
I did a simple test, and if the magnets help neutralize the magnetic attraction as Mr. Dave names it, I see it as taking a brake off a car, put a brake on a car and move forward and you will see how it forges the motor , remove the brake and motor of the car works better and with less effort and energy expenditure.

The important thing when I believe or do not believe in something is to check it, in my case if I do not have the magnetic neutralization I cannot move the rotor shaft by hand, having already installed the magnets of the magnetic neutralization I can rotate the axis with the hand of the generator rotor, it is the same that will be found in the motor, brake without neutralization, and without brake with magnetic neutralization.

If you have doubts, simply make the prototype to test it yourself.

There are interesting projects and when I want to know if a prototype works, I document the one who is doing it and proceed to do it, and so I realize if it is functional or not.

Here there are people with a lot of knowledge and talent, the important thing is to move forward and try something different, if they do not try to experience something different or new, they will not move forward.

Hello Alex,
you say "if I do not have the magnetic neutralization I cannot move the rotor shaft by hand, having already installed the magnets of the magnetic neutralization I can rotate the axis with the hand of the generator rotor,".
I never claim otherwise and do not doubt what you say. First, how fast is the rotor spinning when you attempt to move it by hand? Zero RPM, right? Second, the reason you cannot move the rotor is the attraction between the magnets and core(s), right? And by "move the rotor", you mean rotate about the axis or shaft, right? So you apply torque to the rotor attempting to rotate it but the magnets and core develop an equal and opposite torque preventing the desired rotation, right? That is cogging. Look it up.

How much power can the generator put out at zero RPM? None, right? The generator works at speed, in this case like 2800 RPM, right? At that speed, the rotor, due to its mass, has a moment of inertia. That moment of inertia will tend to keep the rotor spinning at the same speed. It will develop shaft torque to do so, in excess of that amount of torque which you could not apply by hand. So at operational speed, that magnetic attraction between the rotor magnets and core(s) is inconsequential meaning the resulting torque is a small magnitude compared to rated torque and torque from moment of inertia, and is 50% aiding and 50% hindering rotation. Net result is cogging essentially disappears at rated RPM. Even Turion now agrees.

What Turion calls magnetic neutralization is just a method to counteract cogging. And I do not doubt that it can work. But it does nothing productive at rated speed, if fact, as you recently discovered, it produces losses in the extra magnets, which robs power from the machine. Anticogging is irrelevant to power from the generator at rated speed.

You want proof, ask Turion to test, or test it yourself, at rated RPM, with and without the "magnetic neutralization". The science which I use is accepted and well known and can be easily found in text on physics and electric machinery.

I've explained this many times. It, along with "speed-up-under-load", or bifilar coils, are irrelevant to Turion's claim of 2000 watts real power output using 300 watts input. These things are just distraction.

Good luck and have some fun building and testing.
bi

[alexelectric]

Greetings, ok let's start the purposeful dialogue,

Mr bistander
you say "if I do not have the magnetic neutralization I cannot move the rotor shaft by hand, having already installed the magnets of the magnetic neutralization I can rotate the axis with the hand of the
generator rotor, ".

I never claim otherwise and do not doubt what you say. First, how fast is the rotor spinning when you attempt to move it by hand? Zero RPM, right? Second, the reason you cannot move the rotor is the attraction between the magnets and core (s), right? And by "move the rotor", you mean rotate about the axis or shaft, right? So you apply torque to the rotor attempting to rotate it but the magnets and core develop an equal and opposite torque preventing the desired rotation, right? That is cogging. Look it up.

According to this comment, what happens for the drive motor at Zero RPM, if there is nothing that is consumed in the motor, there is no movement, there is no energy expenditure.

But we are going to start a movement, which happens with a motor at Zero RPM with a magnetic retention, the magnet core attraction "That is cogging" has a brake, a load, something MORE that will oppose its initial movement, which will happen with the motor in the initial movement?

But we are going to start a movement, what happens with a motor at Zero RPM without the magnetic retention, the attraction of the core and the magnet, there is no longer "That is cogging", that is, it no longer has a brake, a load, something LESS than Will it oppose its initial movement, even at its nominal motor speed, will it have a LESS brake, will the motor consumption be the same when starting the initial movement? Will the motor consumption be the same in both cases? the motor? in both cases at nominal motor speed.

I understand the starting torque and torque well.

But we continue in the analysis, at nominal motor speed, put a brake on the motor and try to maintain the nominal speed, what happens with the motor consumption? Of course I understand the inertia, the moment of inertia will try to maintain the speed at the same speed, but as you apply a brake to the motor and try to maintain the rated speed, what happens to the motor's consumption? To maintain rated speed.

Now we continue with this analysis, now we have a motor turning a rotor with 12 inductor magnets, 2 CORES of coils, we also have 12 magnets for magnetic neutralization in that rotor (there are no repulsive magnets in the stator yet), so we already have a mass with a specific weight, which will react to the movement and the variables that can be introduced, we turn the rotor with the motor at its nominal speed, and we have all that you say Mr. Bistander, so as not to repeat it, I mention it like this, how much consumption will we have at this nominal motor speed in these conditions? Now, start adding 2 MORE CORES to the stator, what happens? What happens to the engine consumption? What is driving the rotation of this rotor, put another 2 MORE CORES, there are already 6 CORES, what happens with the so-called “That is cogging”, you say Mr. Bistander that at the nominal speed it is “inconsequential”. Keep adding the remaining 6 CORES, what about the engine consumption? At nominal speed, will it be the same consumption of the motor? With 2 CORES, than 12 CORES, the moment of inertia will be EQUAL? To continue to maintain the nominal speed, the consumption of the motor will be the same. The moment of inertia helps up to a certain limit, but it has a limit to the so-called “That is cogging” and that you, Mr. Bistander, comment that it is “is inconsequential”.
bi

bi
You want proof, ask Turion to test, or test it yourself, at rated RPM, with and without the "magnetic neutralization".

I'd better ask you, Mr. Bistander, take the test.

Mr dave
“What happened to that little seventh grade science experiment that bi said he would do to see if magnetic neutralization was real or silly? "

Whoever does not dare to experience new things will not get new things, he remains locked in his paradigm of conformity.
Greetings

[dragon]

I believe all Bistander is saying is that in motion the magnets have an equal amount of magnetic attraction force during entry into the cores field as it does exiting the core so therefore the forces are balanced when the rotor is in motion. For instance if there were a flywheel on the unit the flywheel would store the energy as it was being attracted to the core then expel that energy as it passed the core - leaving a net loss/gain of zero. The neutralization technique is used to allow the unit to break free of this force of core attraction only on start up. Once in motion it's not needed.

[dragon]

Lets throw another force into the mix... with the neutralization magnet in place, opposing the incoming magnet on the rotor to reduce the force on entry and exit we now add a load to the coil ( generator action ). As current increases in the coil it is now opposing the incoming magnet as well as the neutralizing magnet - this seems self defeating. It would make more sense to me to set up a 12 magnet rotor with 9 coils and both situations are solved....

[Turion]

“It seems to me”. “It appears”. “I believe”. “ I think”. Wouldn’t it make more sense to do a simple experiment and actually know?

Here’s the really FUN part about bistander logic. He thinks if you go fast enough (at speed) you can outrun magnetic attraction of rotor magnets to coil (cores). Where magnetic attraction is a constant. But according to him you cannot outrun Lenz, which is a reaction that requires several steps.

if only we could outrun stupidity as easily as we can outrun Lenz.

If there is to be any kind of INTELLIGENT discussion on this topic there is one question that has to be resolved first. “Does the addition of more coils (and their cores) result in the increased amp draw of the prime mover and a decrease in its RPM’s”

I say it causes an increase in amp draw and a decrease in RPM’s and I can show you MANY videos that prove it. Oh wait, I already HAVE.

[alexelectric]

continuar, ok, good thanks for participating

I think the best thing is to do the experiment, and see the results, who has done it? What results did I get?

Otherwise we are going to spend commenting and commenting, it is better to do the test, do the tests and that will be the best.

There are already users who are conducting these tests, and they have the results, but ask them to show it, in the end they will not accept it, they will continue with the same system of postulates, schemes, theories (I do not discredit them), but without having done the tests, I want to refrute, invalidate an experiment, I have to perform the experimental check.

I respectfully tell you, to be in favor or against without performing the tests, so we do not have the verification of the result, as I can validate or invalidate it, we must go to the field of experimental tests and according to any result, it helps me to redirect what I am experiencing.

Every theoretical scheme is important to guide us, but they can fail at a given moment, new given conditions can be presented, or new and different results can be obtained, and hence renew the theoretical scheme, but it comes from experimental verification.

[bistander]

Greetings, ok let's start the purposeful dialogue,

Mr bistander
you say "if I do not have the magnetic neutralization I cannot move the rotor shaft by hand, having already installed the magnets of the magnetic neutralization I can rotate the axis with the hand of the
generator rotor, ".

I never claim otherwise and do not doubt what you say. First, how fast is the rotor spinning when you attempt to move it by hand? Zero RPM, right? Second, the reason you cannot move the rotor is the attraction between the magnets and core (s), right? And by "move the rotor", you mean rotate about the axis or shaft, right? So you apply torque to the rotor attempting to rotate it but the magnets and core develop an equal and opposite torque preventing the desired rotation, right? That is cogging. Look it up.

According to this comment, what happens for the drive motor at Zero RPM, if there is nothing that is consumed in the motor, there is no movement, there is no energy expenditure.

But we are going to start a movement, which happens with a motor at Zero RPM with a magnetic retention, the magnet core attraction "That is cogging" has a brake, a load, something MORE that will oppose its initial movement, which will happen with the motor in the initial movement?

But we are going to start a movement, what happens with a motor at Zero RPM without the magnetic retention, the attraction of the core and the magnet, there is no longer "That is cogging", that is, it no longer has a brake, a load, something LESS than Will it oppose its initial movement, even at its nominal motor speed, will it have a LESS brake, will the motor consumption be the same when starting the initial movement? Will the motor consumption be the same in both cases? the motor? in both cases at nominal motor speed.

I understand the starting torque and torque well.

But we continue in the analysis, at nominal motor speed, put a brake on the motor and try to maintain the nominal speed, what happens with the motor consumption? Of course I understand the inertia, the moment of inertia will try to maintain the speed at the same speed, but as you apply a brake to the motor and try to maintain the rated speed, what happens to the motor's consumption? To maintain rated speed.

Now we continue with this analysis, now we have a motor turning a rotor with 12 inductor magnets, 2 CORES of coils, we also have 12 magnets for magnetic neutralization in that rotor (there are no repulsive magnets in the stator yet), so we already have a mass with a specific weight, which will react to the movement and the variables that can be introduced, we turn the rotor with the motor at its nominal speed, and we have all that you say Mr. Bistander, so as not to repeat it, I mention it like this, how much consumption will we have at this nominal motor speed in these conditions? Now, start adding 2 MORE CORES to the stator, what happens? What happens to the engine consumption? What is driving the rotation of this rotor, put another 2 MORE CORES, there are already 6 CORES, what happens with the so-called “That is cogging”, you say Mr. Bistander that at the nominal speed it is “inconsequential”. Keep adding the remaining 6 CORES, what about the engine consumption? At nominal speed, will it be the same consumption of the motor? With 2 CORES, than 12 CORES, the moment of inertia will be EQUAL? To continue to maintain the nominal speed, the consumption of the motor will be the same. The moment of inertia helps to a certain extent the so-called “That is cogging” and that you, Mr. Bistander, comments that it is “is inconsequential”.

bi
You want proof, ask Turion to test, or test it yourself, at rated RPM, with and without the "magnetic neutralization".

I'd better ask you, Mr. Bistander, take the test.

Mr dave
“What happened to that little seventh grade science experiment that bi said he would do to see if magnetic neutralization was real or silly? "

Whoever does not dare to experience new things will not get new things, he remains locked in his paradigm of conformity.
Greetings

Hi Alex,
you say "what happens for the drive motor at Zero RPM, if there is nothing that is consumed in the motor, there is no movement, there is no energy expenditure."
This condition, zero RPM with power to the motor, is called stall. And the motor produces "stall torque". Look it up, please. At stall torque, the power output on the shaft is zero. (Power = torque * speed) However there is input power to the motor. (Power = voltage * current) So there is energy expenditure in the motor and the reason the motor will overheat. There is just no mechanical energy conversion taking place in the motor. So no energy or power delivered to the generator at stall.

When starting, at zero RPM, the motor is at stall. There, by definition, 0 RPM, no movement, no power transmitted, no mechanical work done. All that starts at "0+" RPM, at "0+" seconds after motion commences. Use calculus and infinitesimals to understand this.

When starting from 0 RPM, torque is needed to accelerate the mass of the rotor, both motor and generator. That requires power input to the motor. Once rotation starts, power from the motor is required to overcome friction and windage and magnetic drag which is caused by eddy current and hysteresis losses heat in the core(s). All of that required power is independent of cogging.

Energy used to accelerate the rotor is stored as kinetic energy in the moving mass. Energy used to overcome friction, windage, and core loss (magnetic drag) is lost as heat. Cogging is essentially net zero regarding energy consumption meaning it is not a loss factor. Cogging is torque aiding rotation approaching TDC and torque opposing rotation departing TDC. Of course if your motor, or hand, has insufficient torque to overcome the initial requirement (breakaway), rotation fails.

At rated RPM constant speed, power is required to overcome friction, windage and core loss. No power is required by the moment of inertia (rotor mass). No power is lost to cogging. Once electric load is applied, power is converted from mechanical to electrical in the generator therefore more power input from the prime mover is needed.

Don't just take my word for this. I don't want you to. Look it up. Study the science and learn the truth, facts and the way things actually work.

I'll run the little test when I get to it. But it really doesn't matter. Just like cogging doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is proof of Turion's extraordinary claim of a tabletop 1700 watt free energy device.

Just consider what I say and research it. You'll learn that I'm right and Mr. Turion is not.
bi