Open discussion for projects on this forum.

[bistander]

Originally Posted by ricards

...
There is nothing wrong about asking for proof, whats wrong is to ask it repeatedly to someone who clearly doesn't like you. ...

Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate your opinions.

What I believe is wrong is to repeatedly make the claim which is clearly wrong, false or mistaken. So I challenge BS. I ask intelligent pertinent questions, point out errors in logic, math and theory and request discussion. That is why they don't like me. I'm sure they do like those who agree with them and prefer to surround themselves with a fan club.

Regards,

bi

[Iamnuts]

If their claims are true they've got about the most valuable device on the
planet. World fame assured!!!!!
Well done guys.
John.

[bistander]

Originally Posted by ricards

Bi,
...
I did try and researched, and found that there really is something worth looking at the a pulse motor in a 3 battery arrangement.
...

I should mention too, that a single battery and a pulse motor with generator coils. Ala bedini style.. It is worth something, just not that something you could use large scale. But its still there, the concept that is the recovery of electrical energy after using it to generate mechanical motion

Ricards,

You'll notice that I kept my nose out of all his battery system threads. I just don't care about those. What interests me and where I chimed in is when he claims a motor with more output power than input power or his 1800 watt out, 300 watt in generator/motor combo.

Regards,

bi

[terence123]

Hi All,
I'm new to this thread but saw it is open for ideas, so here is mine:
I read about all this hi mileage carbs (pogue etc.) And all the stories, before all the additives to the gasoline, about how gasification of liquid fuel will/would extend mileage dramatically.
Now with lpg having only a slightly lower btu than gasoline and lpg actually having easy cheap options for turning it into a gas (from cooking sets) it should be not too difficult to setup a hi mileage lpg-carb.
I assume that a normal lpg conversion of a car is similar to gasoline, in that it is set way too rich to keep it close to the mileage of gasoline.
With all the problems of "cracking" liquid fuel into a useful gas that could be solved with letting lpg become a complete gas. Millions of household use this in their kitchen. So safety can be overcome. And, as an additional advantage, with a dedicated carb doing this, it can be used as an aircon too (since propane boils at -38deg C) making the compressor in the car obsolete.
Anyone having any comments/ideas on this?
Terence

[Sawt2]

Originally Posted by terence123

Hi All,
I'm new to this thread but saw it is open for ideas, so here is mine:
I read about all this hi mileage carbs (pogue etc.) And all the stories, before all the additives to the gasoline, about how gasification of liquid fuel will/would extend mileage dramatically.
Now with lpg having only a slightly lower btu than gasoline and lpg actually having easy cheap options for turning it into a gas (from cooking sets) it should be not too difficult to setup a hi mileage lpg-carb.
I assume that a normal lpg conversion of a car is similar to gasoline, in that it is set way too rich to keep it close to the mileage of gasoline.
With all the problems of "cracking" liquid fuel into a useful gas that could be solved with letting lpg become a complete gas. Millions of household use this in their kitchen. So safety can be overcome. And, as an additional advantage, with a dedicated carb doing this, it can be used as an aircon too (since propane boils at -38deg C) making the compressor in the car obsolete.
Anyone having any comments/ideas on this?
Terence

Here in America, they do have many vehicles that run on lp. I personally do not know about there efficiency. They also run vehicles on natural gas too.

[terence123]

Lpg setups in car are always near of that of gasoline systems (mileage). But if look to a cooking set (most of households in my country uses lpg) there is no watercooling, the liquid lpg comes out of the bottle and is ignited at the cookingpoint (pit). The lpg evaporator in a car is watercooled by the car's cooling circuit, indicating a different setup. In my eyes to get still a lot of liquid gas passed that point of the evaporator to setup a wasteful system. So the difference of a cookinggas evap. Is very different that a car setup. So what would happenif the cooking set evap. Would be used in a car? Or something like it...?

[mikrovolt]

There is a slight warming needed at times at the LNG regulator near the engine intake. Years ago the regulators would form ice on the outside of the regulator and inside caused a constriction so they would use a small heater blanket on the tank and around the regulator stem. This was known as an evaporator and the name remained. The term evaporator today has a wide variety of functional types.

when life was simple you needed a warmer at times.
http://www.lampworketc.com/forums/at...1&d=1357503412

The diesel engine cost is more expensive because it needs higher compression parts so why use diesel ? true it is not as cost effective to run a diesel engine on a single fuel liquid natural gas system unless the project is very large.
At least this has been the case from what we understand.

[lotec]

I was having a similar discussion with a friend of mine where I asked him why the siicon chip magazine's kttset project, for tuning a petrol motor, in terms of mixture, used a Boshe oxygen sensor, with leds. Wouldn't it be more accurate to use a sensor to detect unspent hydrocarbons.

He seemed to think that it was a coverup, and it would be better to run the engine leaner, and cool the valves with a watermist injection, rather than unspent gasoline. Is there unspent gasoline in the exhaust? Or how much? I really don't know these things.

My old campervan was duel fuel. It ran on lpg and petrol (gasoline). Bit by bit I replaced the entire system, except for the tank. and spent quite a few hours twiddiling the different knobs and stuff, trying to get the most grunt out of it. The mixer was heated by hot water from the motor, on it's way to the radiator. They say here in Ozzy that nearly all the lpg is burnt, but the valves are burnt out quicker, than using petrol. but you can buy upper cylinder lubricant injection kits.

Towards the end, it would only run on lpg. It was very old and the motor was shot, when I started running it on petrol, with an onboard hydrolizer unit. under those circumstances, it probably pays not to press too hard on the accerator when driving around town.

[bistander]

Originally Posted by Turion

Bi,
It is clear to everyone you aren’t man enough to come out into the open and attack me man to man.

All I did was to ask this guy to back up his claim with proof or evidence. Why does he think I want to attack him?

[bistander]

Originally Posted by Turion

Possibly because you said all of the following: ...

All of which I would have never said had you simply backed up you claims of having a motor with higher output power than input power and a generator which produced 1800 watts output while using less than 300 watts input. But you chose to insult and ridicule me.

I'll be more than happy to retract those statements and apologise publicly once you prove those claims.

Originally Posted by Turion

Can you say libel and defamation of character?

I'm no lawyer, but I don't think it is libel if it is true. Truth in this case is that you do not have a motor which outputs greater power than it uses and you do not have and never did have a generator which produces 1800 watts output while using less than 300 watts of input power.

Regards,

bi

[bistander]

Originally Posted by Turion

You wanted to know why I think you want to attack me. Proving that you already HAVE attacked me was the answer to your question. Your excuses for why you did it only prove that you already KNEW why before you asked the question. Oh wait, when you asked that question was everyone supposed to feel sorry for you?

Some of your statements WERE in reference to the 3 battery system which has been proven a million times to absolutely work when built correctly. That is proven by the statement you made below.


QUOTE=Turion;313950].

6. But over the course of the months, or maybe years, I've come to realize you could not possibly be that dense, so you are, in fact, perpetrating a scam of sorts, intentionally misrepresenting things, stating falsehoods and yes, lying about things on purpose.[/QUOTE

And when it comes down to producing a generator that does exactly what I say it does to win a lawsuit, I welcome that opportunity. Won’t that be fun to fire it up for the judge and jury? Because that is the only time you’ll EVER see it run. LOL But at least then you will know the truth, won't you? And it's gonna cost ya!

And to be perfectly clear, I said the output VOLTAGE on MATT'S motor was higher than the input voltage. It is a pulse motor and THAT is exactly what it does. SPIKES! I NEVER said the motor put out more than it took to run. I never said it was MY motor. I never said I HAD a motor design, because I have never built ANY motors that I have talked about on the forum except as replications of the work of others. That's YOU twisting my words or hearing what you WANT to hear so you can attack. The motor/Generator COMBINATION outputs more power than what it takes to run the motor. Get your FACTS straight.

Here goes again.

Your generator claim.

Originally Posted by Turion

Just want to point out that my generator puts out between 1800-2000 watts while running on a STOCK electric motor that requires 240 watts input.

Your motor power claim.

Originally Posted by bistander

... How can the power out of the motor be higher than the power into the motor?

Don't like the power supply? Here's Tinman using a battery. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RBuWQni0znU

Your reply to my quoted post directly above. Clearly we are talking about power.

Originally Posted by Turion

What do you know! He’s using a battery! A small victory. So on to the next issue. Is he running the motor between the positives? Don’t think so. Not enough batteries there for the 3 Battery system and NO boost module in sight. So how is his test ANYTHING like the way we are using the motor? Did I EVER say it would put out more than comes in when directly connected to ONE battery? ...

And when I talk about power into the motor and power out of the motor I am talking electrical power, which ONLY happens when you run between the positives. ...

And your battery systems; never did care about those and think I just mentioned it once where I quoted another member.

Originally Posted by bistander

You'll notice that I kept my nose out of all his battery system threads. I just don't care about those. What interests me and where I chimed in is when he claims a motor with more output power than input power or his 1800 watt out, 300 watt in generator/motor combo.

Turion referring to the quote above (bolded).

Originally Posted by Turion

Yep, that’s what I claim alright.

I think right there you confirm you did in fact claim a motor with more output power than input power. But what really interests me and caused me to press for proof was your public claim of 1800 watt output power using less than 300 watts input power generator. A machine that can do that equates to two horsepower free of any fuel and zero emissions. Net 1.5kW continuously. World be saved.

I'll gladly go to court with you to see that. Sue away.

bi

[Iamnuts]

Originally Posted by Turion View Post
“Just want to point out that my generator puts out between 1800-2000 watts while running on a STOCK electric motor that requires 240 watts input”.

That’s amazing, it’s like putting 120 amps into a 12v battery, I imagine it
would soon have said battery boiling!

When folk claim acceleration under load,if you think about it,it’s meaningless
if your motor isn’t 100% efficient to start with.
John.

[bistander]

Originally Posted by Iamnuts

When folk claim acceleration under load,if you think about it,it’s meaningless

Yep. That's what I've been saying. Same goes for cogging.

Cogging torque
Cogging torque of electrical motors is the [torque] due to the interaction between the permanent magnets of the rotor and the stator slots of a Permanent Magnet (PM) machine. It is also known as detent or 'no-current' torque. This torque is position dependent and its periodicity per revolution depends on the number of magnetic poles and the number of teeth on the stator. Cogging torque is an undesirable component for the operation of such a motor. It is especially prominent at lower speeds, with the symptom of jerkiness. Cogging torque results in torque as well as speed ripple; however, at high speed the motor moment of inertia filters out the effect of cogging torque.

From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogging_torque

Niether acceleration under load or cogging have any significant effect on generator performance at operational speed and load.

Regards,

bi

[citfta]

Originally Posted by bistander

Yep. That's what I've been saying. Same goes for cogging.



From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogging_torque

Niether acceleration under load or cogging have any significant effect on generator performance at operational speed and load.

Regards,

bi

Sorry Bi,

But our tests have proven both of those claims to be false. But since you insist on changing what is being said to suit your own purposes you won't see those results.

You keep taking what Dave says out of context. He clearly said that when used in the 3 battery system the motor produces more power than consumed. That is because the power used by the motor gets recycled back into the 3rd battery. And if you go back and read what Dave said it is clear that he meant exactly that and nothing else.

You are only making yourself look bad when you insist on calling Dave and Matt frauds. There are several of us that have proven beyond any doubt that the three battery system does extend the run time available from the batteries.

And even some skeptics have seen that the Matt modified motor does increase significantly the charging of the 3rd battery. I personally did the testing for Dave on the neutralizing of the magnetic cogging and saw how that caused the input power to drop when done properly.

I have not seen his large generator run, but I believe Dave about the input and output power because everything he and Matt have told me so far has been proven correct.

What is truly amazing is the personal attacks on a couple of guys that have very generously shared what they have learned. They have never asked for a dime from anyone that I am aware of. And I know Dave and Matt both have spent thousands of hours and thousands of dollars to get where they are now in their knowledge. They both have my total respect and admiration for their dedication and generosity.

Respectfully,
Carroll

[bistander]

Forget about cogging, batteries, splitting potential, and other stuff. All I am interested in is the 1800 watt generator which uses less than 300 watts input to produce the 1800 watts output power as Turion claims he has or had repeatedly.

Without that proof, what I have said about Mr. Turion stands on its own.

I disagree with you guys about those other topics, but they're not worth arguing over. The 1800W out/300W in generator makes all that other stuff irrelevant. Turion has stated numerous times that generator is independent of the battery system and can be run with a standard motor.

Look back on this in a few years and tell me who was right.

Regards,

bi

[bistander]

Originally Posted by Turion

...They decrease the amp draw of the motor significantly and increase the output of the generator. ...

I told you the fact (truth) about this and backed it up with a Wikipedia page. You don't believe me and that's alright. How about you changing the wiki article to reflect your version of machine output at speed and load? That ought to bring in few expert opinions.

[Iamnuts]

Turion and friends,
Unless you’re exceeding 100% efficiency, whatever you do, you’re within the rules as far as the physics go.
So what you’re claiming has got to be classed as perpetual motion.
Therefore your device must be capable of running forever, we all know
that eventually batteries and bearings wear out, but you get the general idea?
This is the 64 thousand dollar question, will your device run until something
wears out?
As the photon’s speed (in a vacuum) is C.,that must be taken into account.
Final question is dead simple, do you have perpetual motion? A yes/no answer
is all that’s needed.
John.

[bistander]

Turion,

All you're doing is avoiding the issue. The 1800 watt output/300 watt input machine is the only thing that maters. It is the falsehood you continue to insist you have. I know that is untrue. Prove me wrong. You can not. I don't care about your tricks and methods used to build your generator. I only care about the performance claim: 1800 watt output power with 300 watts input power.

Regards,

bi

[bistander]

Originally Posted by Turion

...
You said if this was for real, Thane Heinz would have made a fortune from it. Not really. First of all, Tesla’s patent on this topic is expired, putting it in the public domain. Thai me has patent applications, not patents. You can’t sell what you don’t own. ...

No, this is what I said.

Originally Posted by bistander

... So what if shorting a coil causes an increase in speed. That has nothing to do with it. Output power will not exceed input power. If Thaine Heinz had anything of value, why hasn't it been commercialized? He's got nothing of any value.
...

And the fact that he doesn't own a patent on it would enhance the opportunity for commercialization by others. The fact that it has been around for so long with no takers indicates its perceived value. Zilch.

We hashed through this years ago when bromikey was promoting him. I thought it was dead and buried. It should be.

bi

[bistander]

Originally Posted by Turion

...
You got burned on the 3 Battery system.
You got burned on speed up under load
You got burned on magnetic cogging
...

BS. I am right on all three counts. I just don't want to educate you enough for you to understand why. You don't even try to learn the real science

I never wanted to get into the battery systems with you. I know it's a loser. I avoided it for so long but mentioned it once quoting a Jeff Dove post. My mistake. I never claimed you lied about it.

Go back a few years of forum posts and read where I participated in an analysis of Thain Hiens' claims. I'm not searching for it and don't feel the need to prove anything to anybody about it. It doesn't do anything for performance or efficiency at load. Consider that my opinion. I don't care. I know you're mistaken about it but don't recall calling you a liar about it.

Cogging. Again. It, or the elimination of it, makes no difference at speed and at load. Ever notice the cogging torque on the rotor pulls it to the center of the core? Off to one side, it pulls CW. Off to the other side, it pulls CCW. So when the generator is rotating at normal speed with normal load, cogging contributes equal CW and CCW torque. Or in other words, net cogging torque is zero. This means it does not affect the average current or voltage, or average input torque or RPM. Cogging at speed and load appears as torque ripple which is annoying due to noise and vibration, but is not a factor in power conversion performance or efficiency except a possible fraction of a percent loss due to minor loop hysteresis. And again, I say you're wrong in your cogging statements, which isn't calling you a liar.

But, again, all that is distraction, or strawman tactics to avoid the real issue with me. You're lying and fraudulent about having a proven 1800 watt output/300 watt input generator. Prove that. Be a man and back up your statement.

bi

[bistander]

Turion,

Mr. Potato Head says such an experiment as you described would only demonstrate braking torque due to Eddy currents and core loss. You would need a sensitive torque transducer to actually see the cogging torque. If the drive motor isn't too noisy you might be able to see current ripple caused by cogging. But you knew that, right?

Regards,

bi

[bistander]

Originally Posted by Turion

There were at least a dozen people who posted videos of this concept back in the day, including myself and UFO. All of them prove the concept works, but Mr Potato Head “Kniws” it doesn’t. He has magical powers. LOL.

Time after time this guy says things don’t work that I have seen working on my bench for YEARS. It it wasn’t so ridiculous it would be funny.

Thanks for posting the video. Just more proof that he has no clue what he is talking about.

Hi Turion,

That is incorrect. I know exactly what I'm talking about. You don't know what I'm talking about. This is what I meant when I said I didn't want to educate you so you could understand what's really happening.

I never said you couldn't eliminate cogging. And yes, you can see the results on your test bench. What I'm telling you, and is fact supported by numerous authors and texts, is that cogging or the elimination of cogging makes no difference to the generator under load at operating speed.

bi

[Sputins]

Bi,

All your effort?

Why?

Your time?

It makes no sense...

Who would even care?

Unless it' s your job...

It is isn't it?

Yes...

We all know...

[bistander]

Originally Posted by Sputins

Bi,

All your effort?

Why?

Your time?

It makes no sense...

Who would even care?

Unless it' s your job...

It is isn't it?

Yes...

We all know...

Hi Sputins,

I like energy, power, physics, electric machinery and continue to research and learn. Along my journey I attempt to help a few and correct basic misconceptions or in some cases, expose fraud or scam. Not many, but some folks do appreciate my efforts and tell me so. It could just take one light bulb in one guy's mind going off to bring the world saving energy invention out of the mist. Maybe I can help that guy, or maybe that guy is me next week, or maybe it is Turion with his 1800/300 genny. Here, just trying to get Turion to come clean.

Not sure what you mean by job.

Thanks for chiming in.

bi

[bistander]

Originally Posted by Turion

bi,
Your right. It has NO effect. The application of magnetic neutralization is ridiculous. The FACT that the amp draw of the motor goes down and the RPM’s of both the motor and the generator go up and the output of the generator increases are obviously a result of faulty equipment or my inability to correctly read a meter. My mistake. If not for your wisdom where would I be? Thank you SO much. Now go along and help someone else see the light. You’ve done your duty here.

See? All of this is crap. It has nothing to do with 1800 watts output from a generator using 300 watts input. It's your way of avoiding to issue. Prove your claim of 1800 watts output from a generator using 300 watts input.

[Iamnuts]

Turion and some others,
I hate to say this but I believe bistander's physics to be sound.
Messing with motors and generators can give encouraging results but,
as I've tried to explain before, you're only altering the efficiency UNLESS
you're getting over 100%.
These days motor designers are managing 99% efficiency in some of
the larger motors running optimum load.
In essence C. O. P. 'is basically concentrating energy from a reservoir
of low grade energy into a useable but much smaller quantity of higher grade
energy. Example, thousands of gallons of ground water into 50. gallons of
warm water in your domestic tank.
I'm willing to say who I am, just PM. me.
I'm also up to being told that everything I say is utter crap, if I'm wrong
I'm wrong and apologise.
John.

[bistander]

Hi Turion,

https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/7/11/7105/htm

This is an interesting paper from 2014 on PMSG design. Physically I think it is about same size as your large genny, I assume the one you claim 1800 watts out/300 watts in. It is designed for slower speed and bit more power. But notice the design process.

Also notice the test rig in figure #13. It looks similar to equipment which I used years ago when developing motors and generators. Ah, the good old days, when men proved their claims.

Regards,

bi

[ricards]

Originally Posted by Iamnuts

Turion and some others,
I hate to say this but I believe bistander's physics to be sound.
Messing with motors and generators can give encouraging results but,
as I've tried to explain before, you're only altering the efficiency UNLESS
you're getting over 100%.
These days motor designers are managing 99% efficiency in some of
the larger motors running optimum load.
In essence C. O. P. 'is basically concentrating energy from a reservoir
of low grade energy into a useable but much smaller quantity of higher grade
energy. Example, thousands of gallons of ground water into 50. gallons of
warm water in your domestic tank.
I'm willing to say who I am, just PM. me.
I'm also up to being told that everything I say is utter crap, if I'm wrong
I'm wrong and apologise.
John.

low grade energy turned into a high grade?..
but what is energy?..

[Iamnuts]

Originally Posted by ricards

low grade energy turned into a high grade?..
but what is energy?..

Just Wikipedia energy and you'll realise how daft the idea of
300 watts in 1800 watts out really is!!!!!
John.

[Iamnuts]

Let’s have an alternative look at the problem.
According to Einstein E=MC squared.
Say your generator weighs 20kg.
Do the math and I reckon that gives us about 432,000 kilo ton of
TNT equivalent.
Could someone else check my math?
John.