ReGenX Coils and ReGenXtra switching

[bistander]

And they prove you were WRONG

bi is WRONG

https://youtu.be/LFlnhVQLWPk

https://youtu.be/RvB3arCUPNg

The kicker is, that your statement: "Pretty much all they show are a lot of unbalanced forces." Which is referring to the videos is exactly why I am right and YOU are wrong. I never said there were NO unbalanced forces. I said the amp draw of the larger, heavier rotor was greater. YOU are the one who insisted that Newton's law proves I'm wrong, and now you are attempting to use that same law to justify being incorrect? You are an absolute JOKE! As if somehow the unbalanced forces are responsible for the increased amp draw? Well of COURSE they are!!! That was the whole point I attempted to make from the beginning of this argument when I said friction in the bearings and other things YOU WEREN'T taking into consideration came into play here and were responsible for the increased amp draw. And that Newtons law was not applicable to the REAL WORLD. But you weren't having any of that at the time. But NOW it's your excuse for being wrong? Talk about TWO FACED. Wait, if you're the JOKER and TWO FACE, that must mean I'm Batman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHOVwy4b6kI

... For the LAST time, increased weight of the rotor is an increase in resistance to turning or increased LOAD on the motor. ...

From the start of this you infer (IMO) that increased mass is responsible for increased current (increased power in the prime mover). And I, and Newton, clearly state application to mass only for the law. You repeatedly claimed this. It is unbelievable that you can deny the meaning in the post I quote above.

Newton states it in his law and I clarify it in my first reply quoted below in the third paragraph. Unbalanced forces are considered. Newton goes on to cover those in his second and third laws.

Hi Turion,
You've said this before and I have pointed out that it is wrong. The power, and therefore the motor current, required to turn the rotor at a constant speed is independent of the rotor mass. This is stated in Newton's first law of motion, paraphrased here.

An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and direction unless acted upon by an external force.

External forces would include friction, aerodynamic drag and magnetics. Or since it is not actually the same motor, the difference in current may be due to a difference in the motor compared to the one used earlier.

Regards,
bi

[Turion]

And they prove you were WRONG

bi is WRONG

https://youtu.be/LFlnhVQLWPk

https://youtu.be/RvB3arCUPNg

The kicker is, that your statement: "Pretty much all they show are a lot of unbalanced forces." Which is referring to the videos is exactly why I am right and YOU are wrong. I never said there were NO unbalanced forces. I said the amp draw of the larger, heavier rotor was greater. YOU are the one who insisted that Newton's law proves I'm wrong, and now you are attempting to use that same law to justify being incorrect? You are an absolute JOKE! As if somehow the unbalanced forces are responsible for the increased amp draw? Well of COURSE they are!!! That was the whole point I attempted to make from the beginning of this argument when I said friction in the bearings and other things YOU WEREN'T taking into consideration came into play here and were responsible for the increased amp draw. And that Newtons law was not applicable to the REAL WORLD. But you weren't having any of that at the time. But NOW it's your excuse for being wrong? Talk about TWO FACED. Wait, if you're the JOKER and TWO FACE, that must mean I'm Batman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHOVwy4b6kI

[Turion]

oops123456

[bistander]

Never said he was wrong. ...

... For the LAST time, increased weight of the rotor is an increase in resistance to turning or increased LOAD on the motor. ...

Are you kidding me?

As far as those two videos are concerned, I thought I did comment. Pretty much all they show are a lot of unbalanced forces.

bi

[BroMikey]

Lapping it up like good little doggies, monkeying around with your tiny minds

Freud is another dozy.

1.png

[BroMikey]

Just isn't possible to take out all heat, light, sound, gravity and maybe even a ghost or two.

These show who the front men really are. Have another yo yo.

einsteinemc2.jpg

Einstein-Frame-1036x583.jpg

84986_feature_brooke_fig1_630.jpg

EAPmZRkXkAA80Bu.jpg

[Turion]

Never said he was wrong. In fact I agree with him. Which I have already stated. I just don’t agree with YOU because you don’t know crap and have NO idea how to apply what Newton said. AND You’re still avoiding the videos.

So, I made a statement or “claim” if you will. You challenged it and I proved you wrong with my videos. You’ve had plenty of chances to comment on the videos yet you avoid them like the plague because they show you for what you are. This is why you will NEVER be given proof that my generator works. Proof? You can’t handle the proof. You’ve just proved THAT to everyone here.

bi is WRONG

https://youtu.be/LFlnhVQLWPk

https://youtu.be/RvB3arCUPNg

[bistander]

“We” are right? You put yourself on the same level as Newton? How humble of you. First of all, I never said Newton is wrong. I just showed, with two videos that the weight of the rotor CAN cause an increased amp draw in the motor just like I said it could. That doesn’t violate what Newton said because his law is a theoretical explanation of what would happen if it were possible for a rotor to spin with no outside forces, including friction, present. That isn’t possible in the real world but that doesn’t mean his theory is incorrect. YOU, on the other hand, believe that you know MORE than Newton because you believe his theory applies to my rotor. LOL. You don’t address the videos because they show you don’t even understand HOW to apply Newton’s laws.

see them here:

bi is WRONG

https://youtu.be/LFlnhVQLWPk

https://youtu.be/RvB3arCUPNg

...First of all, I never said Newton is wrong. ...

Sure seems like it with your statement which I quote below.

... For the LAST time, increased weight of the rotor is an increase in resistance to turning or increased LOAD on the motor. ...

[Turion]

“We” are right? You put yourself on the same level as Newton? How humble of you. First of all, I never said Newton is wrong. I just showed, with two videos that the weight of the rotor CAN cause an increased amp draw in the motor just like I said it could. That doesn’t violate what Newton said because his law is a theoretical explanation of what would happen if it were possible for a rotor to spin with no outside forces, including friction, present. That isn’t possible in the real world but that doesn’t mean his theory is incorrect. YOU, on the other hand, believe that you know MORE than Newton because you believe his theory applies to my rotor. LOL. You don’t address the videos because they show you don’t even understand HOW to apply Newton’s laws.

see them here:

bi is WRONG

https://youtu.be/LFlnhVQLWPk

https://youtu.be/RvB3arCUPNg

[bistander]

WRONG AGAIN bi.
This whole discussion began with THIS quote:

... I know you’ve gone through life being given everything you want, ...

Practically everything that you "know" and post here is erroneous or a falsehood. Just like your statement quoted above. Or a while back when you told me that you knew more about the physics of motion than Issac Newton.

bi

This is where you LIED and said I "TOLD YOU" I know more about physics than Isaac Newton. When I denied ever having said that, you attempted to bring up my original statement about a heavier rotor drawing more amps, which in your convoluted way of thinking was some kind of justification for LYING about what I said. You claim a heavier rotor does NOT use more amps. I have SEEN that it does. To back up my statement that a heavier rotor DOEAS INDEED draw more amps, I posted the following two videos:

Proving bi is WRONG

https://youtu.be/LFlnhVQLWPk

https://youtu.be/RvB3arCUPNg

They show once again that it is YOU who does not know what he is talking about.
Videos to which you have FAILED TO RESPOND. And you continue to attempt to AVOID the videos and change the subject. But every time you post here I am going to bring them up until you address the fact that you were WRONG. As I said. You better get used to being wrong. LOL

You're again telling the world that you know better than Issac Newton about the physics of motion with your little rotor experience. I don't care if you call me a liar. I know I haven't lied. And I know that I agree with Newton and we are right.

You're so worked up about it, did you consider consulting an impartial physics expert, like a professor?

bi

Bi the way, I inserted your quote of the post I was replying to with the quote you used. What I said was no more a lie than what you said.

[BroMikey]

It looks like the newer heavier rotor takes 30% more than the old rotor naked without cores. If the old one was 14amp then the newer heavier rotor might be 20 amps or if the first light duty one cost 12 amps with cores (10-12) the heavy one may take 18 amps. It looks like a 30% increase approx.

What are we going to do Albert says it is getting bigger and Newton says it stays the same? Humm..... better to do the test.

[Turion]

WRONG AGAIN bi.
This whole discussion began with THIS quote:

Practically everything that you "know" and post here is erroneous or a falsehood. Just like your statement quoted above. Or a while back when you told me that you knew more about the physics of motion than Issac Newton.

bi

This is where you LIED and said I "TOLD YOU" I know more about physics than Isaac Newton. When I denied ever having said that, you attempted to bring up my original statement about a heavier rotor drawing more amps, which in your convoluted way of thinking was some kind of justification for LYING about what I said. You claim a heavier rotor does NOT use more amps. I have SEEN that it does. To back up my statement that a heavier rotor DOEAS INDEED draw more amps, I posted the following two videos:

Proving bi is WRONG

https://youtu.be/LFlnhVQLWPk

https://youtu.be/RvB3arCUPNg

They show once again that it is YOU who does not know what he is talking about.
Videos to which you have FAILED TO RESPOND. And you continue to attempt to AVOID the videos and change the subject. But every time you post here I am going to bring them up until you address the fact that you were WRONG. As I said. You better get used to being wrong. Oh, and to being called a liar. LOL

[BroMikey]

You guys argue over the stupidest things.... bistander is right, both heavy and light flywheels would require little to no energy to maintain once they were up to speed - with magnetic bearings in a vacuum.............................proving any claims but it's fun to read in the evening...sometimes it's therapeutic to laugh at least once a day...

This is the reason Newton and other are there to cause confusion. A house divided. Order out of confusion is their metaphysical law. meanwhile in the real world. So those who do and those who talk are pitted one against the other. Newton's greatest success story.

A dust particle has friction on it. Gravity and other forces are excused? Earth's magnetic fields? Nope, silence. Coming back now to the experiment the theorist sort out their dilemma. While the years of conflict roll on by, planned. Suckers. Dave went by all of you and he doesn't know half of the programmed rubbish.

[bistander]

There you go taking things out of context again. The statement I made where the term "heavier" was used was NOT my original statement and you know it. Once more you use whatever you can to try and twist words. ...

My machinist has yet to call me with the results of trying to get the amp draw down to the 12 amps of my original build, but having thought about it for a couple weeks now, I am not sure how close he is going to be able to get. The rotor he is currently using is heavier than my original rotor so it may require more amps to turn it. It’s weight is almost double. That increased weight is because the magnets are twice as thick, but they SHOULD also put out more power than I have claimed because of it. So if he can get it down to anywhere between 12 and 14 amps, I am going to call that good enough and get on with the testing. It’s really the output that matters and I will live with a couple hundred watts more input than I claimed, since 80% of THAT can be recovered anyway. I know nobody believes THAT either, but I know what I know. If I haven’t heard from him by this evening I’ll call for an update. As for what I am putting back together, I’ll be working on it later today. Need to spend the morning on my house remodel project. Fun times.

If this isn't your post that started this, please show us what is.

Here, below, is my reply to you back then.

Hi Turion,
You've said this before and I have pointed out that it is wrong. The power, and therefore the motor current, required to turn the rotor at a constant speed is independent of the rotor mass. This is stated in Newton's first law of motion, paraphrased here.

An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and direction unless acted upon by an external force.

External forces would include friction, aerodynamic drag and magnetics. Or since it is not actually the same motor, the difference in current may be due to a difference in the motor compared to the one used earlier.

Regards,
bi

I thought it was a polite post intended to help you understand a basic principle. Oh well.

bi

[Turion]

There you go taking things out of context again. The statement I made where the term "heavier" was used was NOT my original statement and you know it. Once more you use whatever you can to try and twist words. Well twist THIS:

bi said a heavier rotor does not draw more amps. He's wrong.

https://youtu.be/LFlnhVQLWPk

https://youtu.be/RvB3arCUPNg

I can post these two videos from now on every time you make a post Won't that be fun?