Motor Generators

[bistander]

No. I have not lied. And you have not proven that I have.



You're beginning to sound a bit like a cave man or someone who has gone off their meds. Do you need us to call someone?



Right, like when you said you did the 7th grade science experiment, and then we find out you did some OTHER experiment you thought was better? That was the truth? The truth for YOU is whatever supports your conclusions. Unfortunately for YOU, the truth is what we see on the bench.

Everybody who has done the 7th grade science experiment now knows I spoke the truth. And that YOU ignore the facts when they don't support your conclusions. You can't ignore the results of that experiment for much longer. Too many people are replicating it.

Turion,
that is a load of crap. Your "7th grade experiment" was vaguely defined by you and I built a fixture to demonstrate the principles which I was talking about. While I had that fixture running, I did approach the rotor with a handheld magnet, which I guess is your "7th grade experiment". So what is it that I have lied about? I did not notice the rotor speed up. But I never said your rotor didn't. That was not the point. You might think it proves something. I don't. No lies there.

But call me a liar, you call me much worse. That doesn't change the one reason I'm here. Prove your claim of 1800-2000 watts of real power output using less than 300 watts input. You made that claim to me and the world. Prove it.
bi

[Turion]

You lie to the world.

No. I have not lied. And you have not proven that I have.

Prove for all. Prove for truth. I know truth.

You're beginning to sound a bit like a cave man or someone who has gone off their meds. Do you need us to call someone?

But you lie. I do not.

Right, like when you said you did the 7th grade science experiment, and then we find out you did some OTHER experiment you thought was better? That was the truth? The truth for YOU is whatever supports your conclusions. Unfortunately for YOU, the truth is what we see on the bench.

Everybody who has done the 7th grade science experiment now knows I spoke the truth. And that YOU ignore the facts when they don't support your conclusions. You can't ignore the results of that experiment for much longer. Too many people are replicating it.

[bistander]

LOL. Wow! That's some philosophy you have. Pretty pathetic. You are not the center of the universe. You're not even a speck of dust. Nothing about you matters to me in the slightest. I will do what I CHOOSE to do. But thanks for thinking of me.

You lie to the world. Most of all, to yourself. Prove for all. Prove for truth. I know truth. So do you. But you lie. I do not.
bi

[Turion]

Prove it, or it's a lie.
bi

LOL. Wow! That's some philosophy you have. Pretty pathetic. You are not the center of the universe. You're not even a speck of dust. Nothing about you matters to me in the slightest. I will do what I CHOOSE to do. But thanks for thinking of me.

[BroMikey]

Hey Dave
Great rundown on past rotors. The one you sent me has 2 rotors with a thin sheet to separate them where a 2" magnet X 1/4" go on each side for a pull force of 154lbs. I thought this was what you called the clunker, my mistake. You really have the versions over there

So you have a 12 pole version that has 2 x 57lb magnets. got it now thx. It makes more sense to me now. you need more than the 2 magnets at 52lb each, plus watch the gap.

114lb per pole- 104lb per pole - 157lb per pole

In this video 3 regenx coils send 398 watts back to the regular bike motor batteries @ 75.1v X 5.3amps. clear sailing

[bistander]

bro,
I started out with six 2" diameter by 1/4" thick magnets on the rotor. They were not stacked, so the pull force was only 77 lbs. Then I went to twelve 1" inch by 1/2" thick magnets on the rotor. Then I went to twelve 3/4" b y 3/4" magnets on the rotor. When I put two magnets in the rotor, back to back with a thin piece of plastic between as I did with many of my early rotors, you do not get double the pull force. In fact, if you STACK two magnets that are alike, you get additional pull force, but NOT double. Never.

The old clunker machine has twelve groups of two 3/4 by 3/4 magnets with a 5/8 magnet sandwiched between them. Because both of the larger magnets are attracted to the smaller one, they hold in place by magnetic attraction and I don't have to worry about them coming OUT of the rotor. In fact, removing them is nearly impossible without destroying the rotor. But the pull force exerted is about the same as a single 3/4 by 3/4 magnet. which I believe is 48 lbs.





The magnets (N52) on the old rotor have a 48 pound pull force. I will compare that to what is on the NEW machine. If I am forced to build a new rotor I will use 1" diameter by 2" MAGNETS in a 2" thick rotor, and put a set screw in to hold the magnets in place, besides gluing them in. They have 180 lbs of pull force or 375% of what the current magnets have. Then I can go to a I" diameter coil core and add a little to the length of the core to allow the same amount of wire on the coil. That is my plan. That way I can use the wire from all the existing coils on new coils. And I can TRY the existing coils to see the output BEFORE I build any new coils. I need to see if I am maxing out the flux in the existing core before I go with a larger diameter core.

bi,
YOUR assertion that I have never had a machine that output 1800-2000 watts of power while running on less than 400 watts is a lie. You are a liar. That is a fact. Just because YOU haven't seen it doesn't mean it didn't exist. I could put all the old coils in the old clunker right now, and it would output exactly what I claim. I don't know if it would run for 30 seconds or 30 minutes before it got out of adjustment, but while it is running, it will do EXACTLY what I claim it would. The fact that the earth revolves around the sun never required anyone to prove it to be a fact. The fact that you are an idiot requires no proof, yet it is a fact. Facts are facts, whether you choose to believe them or not. They are facts whether or not you are aware of their existence.

I could put all the old coils in the old clunker right now, and it would output exactly what I claim.

Prove it, or it's a lie. Go ahead. Make my day. By all you say, you'll soon have all the parts on hand. No excuses. Talk is talk. Do the walk. Prove that you are not a liar.
bi

[Turion]

bro,
I started out with six 2" diameter by 1/4" thick magnets on the rotor. They were not stacked, so the pull force was only 77 lbs. Then I went to twelve 1" inch by 1/2" thick magnets on the rotor. Then I went to twelve 3/4" b y 3/4" magnets on the rotor. When I put two magnets in the rotor, back to back with a thin piece of plastic between as I did with many of my early rotors, you do not get double the pull force. In fact, if you STACK two magnets that are alike, you get additional pull force, but NOT double. Never.

The old clunker machine has twelve groups of two 3/4 by 3/4 magnets with a 5/8 magnet sandwiched between them. Because both of the larger magnets are attracted to the smaller one, they hold in place by magnetic attraction and I don't have to worry about them coming OUT of the rotor. In fact, removing them is nearly impossible without destroying the rotor. But the pull force exerted is about the same as a single 3/4 by 3/4 magnet. which I believe is 48 lbs.





The magnets (N52) on the old rotor have a 48 pound pull force. I will compare that to what is on the NEW machine. If I am forced to build a new rotor I will use 1" diameter by 2" MAGNETS in a 2" thick rotor, and put a set screw in to hold the magnets in place, besides gluing them in. They have 180 lbs of pull force or 375% of what the current magnets have. Then I can go to a I" diameter coil core and add a little to the length of the core to allow the same amount of wire on the coil. That is my plan. That way I can use the wire from all the existing coils on new coils. And I can TRY the existing coils to see the output BEFORE I build any new coils. I need to see if I am maxing out the flux in the existing core before I go with a larger diameter core.

bi,
YOUR assertion that I have never had a machine that output 1800-2000 watts of power while running on less than 400 watts is a lie. You are a liar. That is a fact. Just because YOU haven't seen it doesn't mean it didn't exist. I could put all the old coils in the old clunker right now, and it would output exactly what I claim. I don't know if it would run for 30 seconds or 30 minutes before it got out of adjustment, but while it is running, it will do EXACTLY what I claim it would. The fact that the earth revolves around the sun never required anyone to prove it to be a fact. The fact that you are an idiot requires no proof, yet it is a fact. Facts are facts, whether you choose to believe them or not. They are facts whether or not you are aware of their existence.

[BroMikey]

Hey Dave your old machine had 2 magnets 1/4" x 2" @n52 77lbs x 2 = 154 pull. The new machine has 65lbs total magnet. I didn't catch that until now, sorry. You need bigger stronger.

A 1" x 1" n52 = 115lbs less pull than the old clunker. the new magnets translate to 20 thousands gap needed. Pull that rotor and put 1" dia magnets or put n52 same size and pray.

[BroMikey]

i never said it was a 4 pole machine.

false

it really doesn't matter which is stationary (stator) and which is rotating (rotor), field or armature, as long as the relative motion is there.

false

the principles apply.

false

you never had a device produce 1800-2000 watts of real output power while using less than 300 watts input

false

bi

same ole bi-sexual slander

[bistander]

Wow, so you built something. Ever finish it?

Yes, on time and on budget. I mentioned how it performed. Miss that?

Can you do the math? How many magnets go past each coil on my machine? It sure isn't 4.

My math is fine. As in the video, I am talking about pole pitch and coil span. You have a 24 pole field (on the rotor). I never said it was a 4 pole machine. At any instant in time, there are 4 magnets (poles) (NSNS) on average influencing each coil. Pay attention to the instructor in the video where he discussed the pole over the coil side and drew the small sinewave looking graphs. Now do it for your case.

Therefore it is not a four pole machine. Just because you can divide six coils into 24 magnets means nothing. That's just you, twisting words as usual. In a standard generator or motor design there are fixed poles on the stator. And you count those "fixed positions." With this machine there are not, and you know it. You are trying to apply concepts you MAY understand to a machine you know nothing about. And it shows.

No. It really doesn't matter which is stationary (stator) and which is rotating (rotor), field or armature, as long as the relative motion is there. The principles apply. I've designed and built axial flux machines with rotating fields.

Again you ignore the fact that you knew NOTHING about how "coil span" applies to this machine. You were WRONG about the 7th grade science experiment, so just avoid it altogether.

I was wrong about nothing except a slip about that nonlinear quantity. Sorry to be human and make a single mistake, which I quickly corrected and owned up to.

I have no intention of EVER acting civil toward someone who called me a liar, a fraud and a con man.

Again, proven attributes. You never had a device produce 1800-2000 watts of real output power while using less than 300 watts input as you claim, for like what, 6 years now. And you don't have and never had functional prototypes the whole while as you claim. Prove otherwise or those stand as lies. Hide from truth much?

Especially when he continues to prove he has no clue what he is talking about and just throws terms out there to try and impress people or confuse the issues at hand, and ignore the mistakes he makes and lies he tells when confronted with them.

I do no such thing and you know it.

The old machine and the new machine have the same size rotors. The geometry of the coil relationship to the rotor is exactly the same. The NEW machine has less air gap between coil cores and rotor magnets, and more magnets on the rotor. That is essentially the only differences between the two machines yet the voltage output of the coils is 30-40 volts LESS with the new machine. As everything else is EXACTLY the same, and I use the same two coils in both machines, I have to believe it is one of those two differences that is responsible for the issue. Now it COULD be that the magnets on the new rotor were N42 instead of the N52 that were ordered, and I KNOW the magnets on the old machine were N52. That is something I will have to check with a gauss meter when the old machine gets here. Other than that, I am stumped.

more magnets on the rotor

Hence a difference in the pole pitch.
bi

[BroMikey]

........ only differences between the two machines yet the voltage output of the coils is 30-40 volts LESS with the new machine.

As everything else is EXACTLY the same, and I use the same two coils in both machines, I have to believe it is one of those two differences that is responsible for the issue.

Now it COULD be that the magnets on the new rotor were N42 instead of the N52 that were ordered, and I KNOW the magnets on the old machine were N52.

That is something I will have to check with a gauss meter when the old machine gets here.

Other than that, I am stumped.

Good thinking. The n42 3/4" x 1" = 65lb pull force n52 = 75lb this translates to a greater gap and you will need to reduce the 1mm gap down to say half mm.

A 1" x 1" n52 = 115lbs

your old 2" x 1/4" = 77lb @n52

[BroMikey]

This is a photo which I posted on citfta's thread

Your generator design is atypical of commercial conversion machinery,

FALSE

......the principles apply

FALSE

.......if you act civil.
FALSE

bi

YOU DON'T KNOW THE MEANING OF CIVIL, BUT WHAT ELSE IS NEW?

YOU AND YOUR KIND ONLY HAVE EYES FOR THE STONE-AGE MOTOR DESIGNS PUT FORTH BY OUR FORE FATHERS (GREAT, GREAT, GREAT GRAND PAPPY)

YOU ARE AS YOU WILL ALWAYS REMAIN, COMPLETELY BLIND. THAT OLD MOTOR DESIGN ONLY APPLIES TO THAT TYPE OF CONTINUOUS CORE ASSEMBLY AND TOOK 230 YEARS TO EXPLAIN. THE OLD WAY DOES NOT WORK OUT IN THE MATH. ALL THAT YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT CONVENTIONAL GENERATING IS NULL AND VOID. THIS MAKES ALL OF YOUR COMMENT NON APPLICABLE. THIS MAKES YOU IRRELEVANT REGARDLESS OF WHAT ALL OF YOUR LAP DOG BACK SLAPPERS TELL YOU. YOU HAVE MISSED THE BOAT AGAIN.

A COMMON CORE DESIGN IS OLD AND TOTALLY YOU.

[Turion]

Wow, so you built something. Ever finish it?

Can you do the math? How many magnets go past each coil on my machine? It sure isn't 4. Therefore it is not a four pole machine. Just because you can divide six coils into 24 magnets means nothing. That's just you, twisting words as usual. In a standard generator or motor design there are fixed poles on the stator. And you count those "fixed positions." With this machine there are not, and you know it. You are trying to apply concepts you MAY understand to a machine you know nothing about. And it shows.

Again you ignore the fact that you knew NOTHING about how "coil span" applies to this machine. You were WRONG about the 7th grade science experiment, so just avoid it altogether.

I have no intention of EVER acting civil toward someone who called me a liar, a fraud and a con man. Especially when he continues to prove he has no clue what he is talking about and just throws terms out there to try and impress people or confuse the issues at hand, and ignore the mistakes he makes and lies he tells when confronted with them.

The old machine and the new machine have the same size rotors. The geometry of the coil relationship to the rotor is exactly the same. The NEW machine has less air gap between coil cores and rotor magnets, and more magnets on the rotor. That is essentially the only differences between the two machines yet the voltage output of the coils is 30-40 volts LESS with the new machine. As everything else is EXACTLY the same, and I use the same two coils in both machines, I have to believe it is one of those two differences that is responsible for the issue. Now it COULD be that the magnets on the new rotor were N42 instead of the N52 that were ordered, and I KNOW the magnets on the old machine were N52. That is something I will have to check with a gauss meter when the old machine gets here. Other than that, I am stumped.

[bistander]

bi,
There is nothing to be civil about. You demonstrate your total lack of understanding of my machine by calling it a “four pole for every coil” machine, yet still believe you know more about what it can do than I do. But I notice you avoided bringing that up. As usual. Ignore EVERYTHING you get wrong. You are unable to apply “coil span” to my design, a term YOU brought up. Perhaps you can tell us where I would measure on my machine to determine “coil span overlays pole pitch”. Until you can, it would appear you are just throwing terms around to appear important.

I build things on my bench. I make changes to see what will happen. I accumulate data. I make mistakes. It as called research. You have yet to build the 7th grade science experiment I showed and at least 8 others have now replicated that shows what I say is true. You dismiss it by saying I couldn’t hold the magnet steady enough with my hand. On my big machine the magnets do the same thing and they screw in and out on threaded rods. You ignore the truth and facts to focus only on those arguments you think you can win.

Turion,


This is a photo which I posted on citfta's thread long ago during a discussion with Ufopolitics. You may have missed it. There were a few others of my bench on that post. This is an armature which I designed and wound by hand about half way complete. It is about 7 inch diameter with 5 inch long core. 65 slots, 65 commutator bars, 4 pole wave wound, simplex, retrogressive. Three turns per coil of AWG #10. It was the first prototype of a clean sheet design and performed within acceptable limits requiring no mods. Since you watched that video, I assume, on coil pitch and span, perhaps you can appreciate that I am familiar with the concepts.

Your generator design is atypical of commercial conversion machinery, but the principles apply. 4 poles per coil referred to one side of your rotor having 24 magnets, poles, facing 6 coils, hence 4 poles for each coil. I can relate the other details if you act civil.
bi

[Turion]

bi,
There is nothing to be civil about. You demonstrate your total lack of understanding of my machine by calling it a “four pole for every coil” machine, yet still believe you know more about what it can do than I do. But I notice you avoided bringing that up. As usual. Ignore EVERYTHING you get wrong. You are unable to apply “coil span” to my design, a term YOU brought up. Perhaps you can tell us where I would measure on my machine to determine “coil span overlays pole pitch”. Until you can, it would appear you are just throwing terms around to appear important.

I build things on my bench. I make changes to see what will happen. I accumulate data. I make mistakes. It as called research. You have yet to build the 7th grade science experiment I showed and at least 8 others have now replicated that shows what I say is true. You dismiss it by saying I couldn’t hold the magnet steady enough with my hand. On my big machine the magnets do the same thing and they screw in and out on threaded rods. You ignore the truth and facts to focus only on those arguments you think you can win.