Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines

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

  • Hello DadHav:

    This is not new, this technology have been around for about 20 years or more with satisfied customers all around the world, in fact they never made advertising and the company expanded by satisfied customers spreading the word.
    This is a real company with real products and real customers working for years , here their lab:


    The non advertising police kept them under the radar and I think they never had "interference".

    So under the radar that even most of the free energy comunity have not idea of their existence, never Peswiki or F.E. forums.
    This guys are awesome, with one of their devices you can turn an old bad electric motor, with high Q factor, into a free energy generator with COP=6. Old and bad is better because good motors have the cooper doped to lower their Q factor.
    Here is a PDF about this:
    http://www.ortronic.com/ENGLISH/pdf/DEMO_MPES.pdf

    Here some pictures of the device:







    Ufopolitics and John Bedini are masters of DC Radiant Energy and Ortronic of AC Radiant Energy.
    Like AC is basically DC changing polarity 60 cicles per secon I think in their principles must to be all very similar.

    Here is their site:

    Ortronic, the only technology that recovers the reactive energy

    Best Regards
    Attached Files
    Last edited by pedroxime; 10-06-2015, 02:01 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by pedroxime View Post
      Hello DadHav:

      This is not new, this technology have been around for about 20 years or more with satisfied customers all around the world, in fact they never made advertising and the company expanded by satisfied customers spreading the word.
      This is a real company with real products and real customers working for years , here their lab:

      The non advertising police kept them under the radar and I think they never had "interference".

      So under the radar that even most of the free energy comunity have not idea of their existence, never Peswiki or F.E. forums.
      This guys are awesome, with one of their devices you can turn an old bad electric motor, with high Q factor, into a free energy generator with COP=6. Old and bad is better because good motors have the cooper doped to lower their Q factor.
      Here is a PDF about this:
      http://www.ortronic.com/ENGLISH/pdf/DEMO_MPES.pdf

      Here some pictures of the device:

      Pics omitted.........

      Ufopolitics and John Bedini are masters of DC Radiant Energy and Ortronic of AC Radiant Energy.
      Like AC is basically DC changing polarity 60 cicles per secon I think in their principles must to be all very similar.

      Here is their site:

      Ortronic, the only technology that recovers the reactive energy

      Best Regards
      Hi pedro,

      Interesting outfit but I wouldn't trust them. I spent a few hours going over some of their technical documents and find some disturbing mistakes or misunderstandings, or maybe even misrepresentations. One of these is at the very core of their claims. That is the confusion often associated with the electrical quantity called Q.

      1.) Q can represent the quantity of electrical charge in units of Coulombs and equal to one Ampere-second.

      2.) Q can be used to represent the reactive component of the power in an AC system and is expressed in units of VAR, Volt-Ampere-Reactive. The vector sum of this and the Real Power (sometimes called Active Power), P, measured in Watts, is the Complex Power, S, in Volt-Amperes. The magnitude of the S vector is the Apparent Power in VA.

      3.) Q factor for Quality factor in an under damped oscillator or resonator describing the bandwidth to the center frequency. For an inductive electric circuit, Q = 2πfL/R, dimensionless.

      One cannot pull equations out of #2 and #3 and set them equal then build theories around that misinterpretation as these guys have done. It just doesn't fly and neither do their other explanations and examples.

      Sorry, their math doesn't add up.

      bi

      Comment


      • No point throwing the baby out with the bath-water - so what if the math doesn't add up if the tech works! Besides, we are constantly told that OU is impossible to begin with, so we should expect problems math-wise. Also, at the very cutting edge of physics, similar math problems crop up all the time, or should I say, 'infinities' occur in the equations - the usual dodge is called "renormalization", which allows the boffins to proceed with the mathematical mastrubations. Other boffins rightly frown on this practice, pointing out that there is no rhyme or reason for doing this, other than to camouflage what is quite possibly a more fundamental problem. So this 'fudged-math' is standard practice - yet I see no grants being withdrawn because they can't be 'trusted'.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by sprocket View Post
          No point throwing the baby out with the bath-water - so what if the math doesn't add up if the tech works! Besides, we are constantly told that OU is impossible to begin with, so we should expect problems math-wise. Also, at the very cutting edge of physics, similar math problems crop up all the time, or should I say, 'infinities' occur in the equations - the usual dodge is called "renormalization", which allows the boffins to proceed with the mathematical mastrubations. Other boffins rightly frown on this practice, pointing out that there is no rhyme or reason for doing this, other than to camouflage what is quite possibly a more fundamental problem. So this 'fudged-math' is standard practice - yet I see no grants being withdrawn because they can't be 'trusted'.
          Like I said, Q isn't the only problem there. I'll put it another way. I think they are either crooks or idiots. Don't know which is worse, but I'm not putting any of my money into their stock. I've been calling out places like this for a long time and haven't been wrong yet. I wish it would happen. I'd gladly accept being wrong for a real energy revolution any day.

          Comment


          • I'm sorry but I have to stand with Bistander on this. I can't find one legitimate comment anywhere about the technology. Nothing can be kept that good of a secret. You say the secret is being passed on from one person to another but if you want to buy something you can go right to their site and make arrangements to spend your money. I guess I'll have to do without until I hear something about it from a source I trust. Thanks for spending the time presenting your views but I'd feel better if you tried it and came back with your findings. Oh I forgot you would be sworn to secrecy.
            John

            Comment


            • Hello DadHav and Bistander.
              I have no shares or connection with this company, here the point is that people in real world company uses this formulate in relation with Radiant Energy-reactive power, so we could take it for Ufopolitics Radiant Energy and similar stuff.



              The better I can say to you is that one of my best friends knows personally the inventor-owner and he have been in their labs and buildings, its for real.
              Here the people when they want to buy expensive machines call the company for customers telephones and adresses near, so you can speak and/or see the machines working from independent people.

              And for the math question, thanks for take the time but there is one equation that works for sure:

              They have 5 Electronic-Electric Engineers working full time in their labs and world patents so: Money coming in > money going out= things must to work

              Quoting Tesla:
              Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

              Thanks everybody, specially to Ufopolitics
              Attached Files
              Last edited by pedroxime; 10-11-2015, 11:44 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by pedroxime View Post
                Hello DadHav and Bistander.
                I have no shares or connection with this company, here the point is that people in real world company uses this formulate in relation with Radiant Energy-reactive power, so we could take it for Ufopolitics Radiant Energy and similar stuff.



                The better I can say to you is that one of my best friends knows personally the inventor-owner and he have been in their labs and buildings, its for real.
                Here the people when they want to buy expensive machines call the company for customers telephones and adresses near, so you can speak and/or see the machines working from independent people.

                And for the math question, thanks for take the time but there is one equation that works for sure:

                They have 5 Electronic-Electric Engineers working full time in their labs and world patents so: Money coming in > money going out= things must to work

                Quoting Tesla:
                Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

                Thanks everybody, specially to Ufopolitics
                I didn't mean to sound or be disrespectful. It's just very hard for me to believe. When I get caught up on things I'll look into it a little further.
                John

                Comment


                • Bad math

                  Originally posted by pedroxime View Post
                  Hello DadHav and Bistander.
                  I have no shares or connection with this company, here the point is that people in real world company uses this formulate in relation with Radiant Energy-reactive power, so we could take it for Ufopolitics Radiant Energy and similar stuff.
                  Hello pedro,

                  Have you noticed that Ufopolitics Radiant Energy and similar stuff does not work? And also notice that he uses his share of bad math on this thread. I read further on Ortronic's website after my last post. There is a lot more bad math and invalid assumptions and no proof. Only one installation is given with any detail and there is nothing remarkable there which can not be accomplished with standard inverter technology. Other installations were in India. You have to wonder about the competency of those making such decisions in India after reading things like this.
                  Originally posted by Danny B View Post
                  We already know the rumors coming from Iran concerning free energy from Keshe. Now, India wants to develop the Tewari device. India Won't Suppress Tewari's Free Energy Generator - Zen Gardner
                  What about EVUR?
                  "As current economic cold facts support, 53% of every tax dollar today, goes to the military, with most of that spent on securing the critical oil "Choke Points" around the globe. Add those costs to the single largest factor in our balance of trade deficit, the cost of imported foreign oil and you have the reason we are the largest debtor nation in the history of mankind using a failed private central bank's, Petro/Dollar "reserve currency scheme" to disguise our current pathetic national insolvency with their worthless Treasury "Note", ludicrously propped up by a 100 year old retarded engine."
                  The props seem to be falling out. What comes next?
                  https://www.gofundme.com/EVUR-ELECTRIC-VEHICLE
                  I also took a look at the US patent they tout.

                  Looks like an electromechanical inverter to me and expired protection.

                  I actually think the photos on the website are staged and presented to deceive. You can choose to believe in fairy tales, but I'll stick with the good maths and proofs.

                  bi
                  Last edited by bistander; 12-02-2019, 09:44 PM.

                  Comment


                  • The "Good Mathematician"...

                    Originally posted by bistander View Post
                    Hello pedro,

                    Have you noticed that Ufopolitics Radiant Energy and similar stuff does not work? And also notice that he uses his share of bad math on this thread. I read further on Ortronic's website after my last post. There is a lot more bad math and invalid assumptions and no proof.
                    Mathematics...comes after Physics experiments has demonstrated "A" Phenomena...then after the "Great Mathematicians" can not "explain" with numbers, after exhausting all their recourses with their known Integers, Algebra or else...then they will radically "not accepted it"...

                    Bistander, just go back to our History related to what I am citing above...go back to Faraday Discovery of Induction...it came first than math...and Mathematicians at that time could not "explain" the cited "Imaginary Lines of Force"...so, what did they do?...simply "did not accepted it"...

                    So, IF it wouldn't have been by the intervention of James Clerk Maxwell...a very respected mathematician at that time...that put together the known Faraday-Maxwell "formula"...then by this time we will never had Induction Generators working in every house or power plant.

                    And to "Whoever it may Concern"...I went all the way to Calculus IV required in my University Career (and was not a "Middle Technician" degree which here in U.S call them "An Engineer"...LOL...so watch your mouth here on what you write. I am ready for your Math demonstration about "My Bad Math"...guy.

                    I have been watching closely all the writings here so far...but now you are going way too much with wrong statements without the slightest proof.

                    And, I am NOT going to tolerate your BS on this Thread, My Thread...simple enough?

                    Bistander...or Citfta...(whoever applies)...what have you contributed so far to Free Energy readers?!


                    Ufopolitics
                    Last edited by Ufopolitics; 10-11-2015, 06:16 PM.
                    Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

                    Comment


                    • Bad math

                      Originally posted by Ufopolitics View Post
                      I am ready for your Math demonstration about "My Bad Math"...guy.
                      Here is one:



                      From post #7485. You say:

                      I am pretty sure you knew about all this right Mark?...so, do you think it would be EXACTLY the same to sweep Commutator Element-Brush at left as the smaller one at right?!

                      Of course not!...smaller circumference switching plates/brush are going to turn on-off faster than wider area switching at left image.
                      AND BOTH WITH SAME EXACT 30 ANGLES, AND TURNING THE SAME ROTOR DIAMETER.
                      This is clearly incorrect geometry and scaling and your argument with Mark is invalid due to your bad math. It is just one example I have noticed. But again, I am not here to argue with you. All I am really interested in is proof that this contraption is any good. And you can not show that. And neither can Ortronics. Hence the use of bad math and pretty pictures and videos for distraction.

                      There may be aether and radiant energy, but your machines and that crap from Ortronics do not demonstrate it. But don't let me discourage you. Please keep trying.

                      As for me, I have done a fair amount to improve energy efficiency in the field of electric machinery and energy storage. Decreasing losses of devices and systems actually being used to do work could be considered a contribution to energy.

                      Regards,

                      bi

                      Comment


                      • To Citfta/Bistander same thing...

                        Originally posted by bistander View Post
                        Here is one:



                        From post #7485. You say:

                        ]I am pretty sure you knew about all this right Mark?...so, do you think it would be EXACTLY the same to sweep Commutator Element-Brush at left as the smaller one at right?!

                        Of course not!...smaller circumference switching plates/brush are going to turn on-off faster than wider area switching at left image.
                        AND BOTH WITH SAME EXACT 30 ANGLES, AND TURNING THE SAME ROTOR DIAMETER.
                        This is clearly incorrect geometry and scaling and your argument with Mark is invalid due to your bad math. It is just one example I have noticed. But again, I am not here to argue with you. All I am really interested in is proof that this contraption is any good. And you can not show that. And neither can Ortronics. Hence the use of bad math and pretty pictures and videos for distraction.

                        There may be aether and radiant energy, but your machines and that crap from Ortronics do not demonstrate it. But don't let me discourage you. Please keep trying.

                        By what you are stating above, about "bad math" example...just leaves you in the ignorant circle, in red, and very well defined.

                        The only single reason why am getting involved to answer your stupid comment above...is to show the rest of readers on this Forum...who are the people criticizing our projects, our search for free energy, radiant energy, aether and magnetism research.


                        ************************************************** ******************************

                        That comment was due to inconsistency in CAD scaling from Mark Ross debate, because he kept drawing a much bigger commutator than the actual size was. And that was resulting in wrong CAD angles calculations with the same size rotor core.

                        [IMG][/IMG]

                        Radius 2= 4 X(times) r1,

                        say r1=1 Inch, then R2= 4 Inches

                        If we calculate Circumference 1 (Arc Length), based on r1 (1") and 30 it is approx 0.5 inches.

                        If we calculate Circumference 2 (Arc Length) for R2(4") and 30 it is approx 2.0 Inches

                        Now, you are going to tell me it will take the same time to sweep a Four (4) Inches contact segment than a 1/2 inch (0.5) segment ?!

                        And the brushes sizes/scaling you are seeing them in both CAD's above.

                        The smaller radius 1, brush is same size as arc segment.

                        In bigger size R2, Brush is NOT the same size as commutator segment.

                        In Brushed Motor World, ANY Motor that have smaller commutator diameters, compared to rotor cores are FAST SPEED/LOW TORQUE motors.

                        In Brushed Motor World, ANY Motor that have bigger commutator diameters, compared to rotor cores are SLOWER SPEED/HIGHER TORQUE motors.

                        Example: If I get an OEM, Symmetrical 12 pole motor, and take OEM Commutator off, and install the same number 12 number segments, connect them the same way, BUT, HALF smaller in diameter, that motor will spin about TWICE faster with lesser torque than OEM.

                        If I install a TWICE BIGGER Diameter than OEM Commutator, that Motor will spin around HALF way the OEM Speed with Higher Torque than OEM.

                        Both cases relate to the same number of commutator segments (12), therefore, the Angles are exactly the same for both cases above, meaning each arc segment would be around 360/12 minus spacing in between degrees.

                        So, if we have 2 spacing then:

                        360/12=30-2= 28 Angle for BOTH CASES ABOVE.

                        I could keep expanding a lot more detail and explanations about above facts, but it is not the time, not my desire to do so.


                        As for me, I have done a fair amount to improve energy efficiency in the field of electric machinery and energy storage. Decreasing losses of devices and systems actually being used to do work could be considered a contribution to energy.

                        Regards,

                        bi
                        I could only imagine what kind of "improvements" you have been able to achieve...with such poor knowledge about Basic Mathematics that I believe belongs to Elementary School.

                        @At ALL:

                        This is one of the guys on this Forum who spends his time criticizing our hard work...calling "ignorant" to others disclosing free information here...without the least information about who they are talking to...however, they dare, they have the AUDACITY to keep doing it!!!.


                        Unbelievable, but true!!


                        Ufopolitics
                        Last edited by Ufopolitics; 10-13-2015, 02:35 PM.
                        Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

                        Comment


                        • Bad math

                          Originally posted by Ufopolitics View Post

                          [IMG][/IMG]

                          Radius 2= 4 X(times) r1,

                          say r1=1 Inch, then R2= 4 Inches

                          If we calculate Circumference 1 (Arc Length), based on r1 (1") and 30 it is approx 0.5 inches.

                          If we calculate Circumference 2 (Arc Length) for R2(4") and 30 it is approx 2.0 Inches

                          Now, you are going to tell me it will take the same time to sweep a Four (4) Inches contact segment than a 1/2 inch (0.5) segment ?!
                          You jump from distance to time and this implies speed. From everything leading up to this and all context, any reasonable individual would assume the two cases (commutator with 1" radius and commutator with 4" radius) are rotating at the same speed. Let's use 1000 RPM for example.

                          The comm with the 1" radius has a circumference = 6.28". At 1000RPM, that is a surface speed of 104.67in/sec. The 30 sector has an arc length of 0.523". At 104.67in/sec, it takes 5mS to cover that distance.

                          The comm with the 4" radius has a circumference = 25.12". At 1000RPM, that is a surface speed of 418.67in/sec. The 30 sector has an arc length of 2.095". At 418.67in/sec, it takes 5mS to cover that distance.

                          Yes, it will take equal times to sweep the 30 sector on the two different size commutators.

                          Note: There is an inconsistency with the figures which I underlined in the quote from your post.

                          Comment


                          • continued response

                            Originally posted by Ufopolitics View Post
                            The smaller radius 1, brush is same size as arc segment.

                            In bigger size R2, Brush is NOT the same size as commutator segment.
                            Yes, this was incorrect scaling on your part. Mark's drawing increased the commutator and brush in the same proportion.

                            Originally posted by Ufopolitics View Post
                            Mark,

                            This is what I was referring to:

                            [IMG][/IMG]
                            You increased the brush size by a factor of 2 and the comm by 4. Using half the arc distance on the large comm (15 opposed to 30) then gives a time of 2.5mS vs 5mS for the smaller comm. Faster, not slower, contrary to this statement.

                            Originally posted by Ufopolitics View Post
                            smaller circumference switching plates/brush are going to turn on-off faster than wider area switching at left image.

                            See diagram in previous post for left image.

                            bi

                            Comment


                            • DC motor comm size

                              Originally posted by Ufopolitics View Post

                              In Brushed Motor World, ANY Motor that have smaller commutator diameters, compared to rotor cores are FAST SPEED/LOW TORQUE motors.

                              In Brushed Motor World, ANY Motor that have bigger commutator diameters, compared to rotor cores are SLOWER SPEED/HIGHER TORQUE motors.

                              Example: If I get an OEM, Symmetrical 12 pole motor, and take OEM Commutator off, and install the same number 12 number segments, connect them the same way, BUT, HALF smaller in diameter, that motor will spin about TWICE faster with lesser torque than OEM.

                              If I install a TWICE BIGGER Diameter than OEM Commutator, that Motor will spin around HALF way the OEM Speed with Higher Torque than OEM.
                              This is ridiculous. The commutator diameter does not enter into the speed and torque equations for DC motor performance. The number of segments do, but not the size.

                              This is off topic so I will just drop it with that.

                              bi

                              Comment


                              • Criticism

                                Originally posted by Ufopolitics View Post

                                By what you are stating above, about "bad math" example...just leaves you in the ignorant circle, in red, and very well defined.

                                I could only imagine what kind of "improvements" you have been able to achieve...with such poor knowledge about Basic Mathematics that I believe belongs to Elementary School.

                                @At ALL:

                                This is one of the guys on this Forum who spends his time criticizing our hard work...calling "ignorant" to others disclosing free information here...without the least information about who they are talking to...however, they dare, they have the AUDACITY to keep doing it!!!.


                                Unbelievable, but true!!


                                Ufopolitics
                                I don't criticize your hard work, just the poor or incorrect work. Would you not want to know what you've done wrong? If you don't care, maybe readers do.

                                Regards,

                                bi
                                Last edited by bistander; 10-13-2015, 04:06 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X