ReGenX Coils and ReGenXtra switching

[BroMikey]

Also I will add when generators are powered by ICE or Internal Combustion Engines their fuel efficiency is 25% and diesel engines with 12 basketball size pistons are only a tiny bit better if they are leaned out to the brink. So go figure. 70-80% on the electrical side and 40% on the input makes for a god awful crime against humanity and ozone layer. What is that 35% max? Pathetic to say the least. 100 year old science is still saying it can't go over 99% and they are at 35%. What a joke.

[BroMikey]

Motors are as engineering data posted. 70-85% conversion efficiency read the stats and weep. Over the past 100 years efficiency has improved like fuel economy 20 mpg to 27 mpg in 40 years. Never more especially for low powered common household motors. If you're incapable of understanding conventional designs, it's no wonder I baffle your tiny noggin.

People like you get locked up everyday for stealing and from prison they are saying they didn't do it. They are lost souls like yourself, can't admit they are guilty. This is why we have jails. Care to try again?

[bistander]

..
As we have been taught for 100 years in science class is that basic rule of thumb that a motor that is electric connected to a generator to produce electrical always loses 20-25% thru mechanical loss. So the motor (according to science today) losses 25% mechanical thru the magnetic field and the generator 25%.

TOTAL B.S.

I don't know who you refer to "teaching" "us" for 100 years in science class, but it never happened, or was a joke, or most likely a figment of your imagination. Even the reference and chart in the rest of your paragraph contradict your so called "basic rule of thumb".

I think you slept through math class where percentage was covered.

... So the motor (according to science today) losses 25% mechanical thru the magnetic field and the generator 25%.

"(according to science today)" Please provide reference or source.

bi

[BroMikey]

Let me give everyone an example of efficiency calc's I have a 10 watt magnet rotor running with no load. This is called the operation costs and is counted as a "0" next a load is placed on the generator. Remember the best we can get is around 50% because the motor is 25% off and so is the genhead 25% less.

The load is 5 watts. The rotor begins to slow and before that happens more power enters the motor instantly. The motor now needs 10 extra watts to get 5 watts. As the load gets higher the same thing happens. If I connect a 20 watt load the drive motor needs 40 watts MORE.

The way our generators work or can work is that if a load of 10 watts is connected the drive power gets lower. If I connect a 20 watt load the drive watts stay the same (unchanged) or does not double. All we ever pay is the operator cost it takes to spin the rotor. A 40 watt load does not require an 80 watt increase it is unchanged.

[BroMikey]

............prove that your generator is operating at 100% efficiency, otherwise you are just altering the characteristics of your generator.

So a conventional motor joined to a small generator would have a conversion efficiency of 50%. In out case we can easily put in 50 watts and get better than 25 watts output. Easily we can put in 300 watts and get out 400watts even with all the conversions in the drive motor and genhead. In fact in one case 300watts in and 1000-2000 watts output. This means even with backyard engineering we can get way over 100% not 50% so double for openers. I one case 1000%. Does this answer your question? The laws state "EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION" our new laws state "EQUAL AND COMPLIMENTARY REACTION" that is how easy it is to explain. See "HEINS LAW"

[BroMikey]

For acceleration under load to have any meaning first you must prove that your generator is operating at 100% efficiency, otherwise you are just altering the characteristics of your generator.

Yes Dave is correct about generator's today in operation which are identical to electric motors. You can turn an electric motor rated at 1750 rpm's faster at 1800 rpm's and you will get back or be generating electric power of the same amount needed to power it as a motor. This is how the big wind turbines work. The wind turbine's motor starts the blades turning using a gearbox and if the wind blows over 7 miles per hour the motor will exceed it's rated rpm and extra energy in reverse is available.

As we have been taught for 100 years in science class is that basic rule of thumb that a motor that is electric connected to a generator to produce electrical always loses 20-25% thru mechanical loss. So the motor (according to science today) losses 25% mechanical thru the magnetic field and the generator 25%.

Motors operate a tiny bit higher if you have say a 1 hp motor and only run it on 1/3 hp then you might get 80% efficiency or even 85% but as you get closer to the 1 hp rating it drops. This is standard engineering fact. heat and friction are waste.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/e...ncy-d_655.html
Science teaches that if a person can get over or even 100% they have broken the laws.

[Turion]

Quantum,
Rubbishy. Show me ANY generator that operates at “100% efficiency.” There are losses in EVERY mechanical system simply through friction in the bearings of any moving parts.

For it to have any meaning it needs to allow the generator to output more than the motor turning it consumes.

[Quantum_well]

For acceleration under load to have any meaning first you must prove that your generator is operating at 100% efficiency, otherwise you are just altering the characteristics of your generator.

[BroMikey]

bi,
If speed up under load is possible.......................................... ........

You say it doesn't exist............... I have a Honda in my garage that gets nearly 30 miles to the gallon. By YOUR methodology the Honda in my garage doesn't exist because you haven't replicated it and I haven't proven to you it exists and that it gets the mileage I claim. It's not ABOUT you. It's about reality and facts. The facts are, this works.

He will say you have not proven it either which he is right, so after the conference it will be different, he will be down playing the amounts of output saying it is not worth the trouble and so forth. Paid disinformants don't always believe what they print but it pays real money? Could be, there are so many AI campaigns of one form or another and Free Energy machines threaten the entire structure of society.

We are blowing their little minds the size of a pearl.

[Turion]

Nah, the only thing I ignore is you.

And you are absolutely correct that neither magnetic neutralization NOR speed up under load have ANY effect on power output. I never said they did. What their proper use insures is that the work the motor does to turn the rotor is basically INDEPENDENT of:
1. The number of coils in place around the rotor or..
2. The load on those coils.

Those are the facts.
This means that for a fixed amount of energy expenditure...(what it costs you to turn your rotor...in my case 13 amps x 24 v volts = 312 watts) your output is limited only by the physical restrictions on how many coils can be placed near the rotating magnetic field. Just keep adding coils until your output is greater than your input. In my case the output is 130 volts at 1.5 amps per coil x 12 coils = 2,340 watts. But I said 1800-2000 when I made the claim.

[bistander]

bi,
If speed up under load is possible, which BOTH of them have proven to themselves on the bench...and if magnetic neutralization is possible, which both of them have proven to themselves on the bench... then the only thing that prevents you from getting more out than in is the number of coils you have on your machine. Just keep adding coils until you get it where you want it. Since additional coils cause neither magnetic drag nor Lenz at an inappropriate time, there is not really a limit to what you can achieve other than the PHYSICAL limitations of your ability to add more coils around a rotor and not interfere with coils already in place.

You say it doesn't exist. I say it exists on my bench. We have built it and have watched it run. To say it doesn't exist is hilarious. I have a Honda in my garage that gets nearly 30 miles to the gallon. By YOUR methodology the Honda in my garage doesn't exist because you haven't replicated it and I haven't proven to you it exists and that it gets the mileage I claim. It's not ABOUT you. It's about reality and facts. The facts are, this works.

And why would I want to prove anything to YOU anyway, bi? Since I haven't SEEN you, you obviously don't really exist.

Turion,

"Speed up under load" has never shown to make the output power greater than input power, measured simultaneously. All "Speed up under load" shows is a reduction in excessive no-load power.

Your "magnetic neutralization" reduces cogging. Cogging has negligible effect on power output.

On these two items, I have never said they don't exist. I say they are irrelevant to output power. You choose to ignore Lorentz force.

bi

[Turion]

bi,
If speed up under load is possible, which BOTH of them have proven to themselves on the bench...and if magnetic neutralization is possible, which both of them have proven to themselves on the bench... then the only thing that prevents you from getting more out than in is the number of coils you have on your machine. Just keep adding coils until you get it where you want it. Since additional coils cause neither magnetic drag nor Lenz at an inappropriate time, there is not really a limit to what you can achieve other than the PHYSICAL limitations of your ability to add more coils around a rotor and not interfere with coils already in place.

You say it doesn't exist. I say it exists on my bench. We have built it and have watched it run. To say it doesn't exist is hilarious. I have a Honda in my garage that gets nearly 30 miles to the gallon. By YOUR methodology the Honda in my garage doesn't exist because you haven't replicated it and I haven't proven to you it exists and that it gets the mileage I claim. It's not ABOUT you. It's about reality and facts. The facts are, this works.

And why would I want to prove anything to YOU anyway, bi? Since I haven't SEEN you, you obviously don't really exist.

[bistander]

bi,
Those numbers were for my original big machine. I replaced the rotor on that machine with a thicker rotor for a couple reasons. The first reason is ...

I simply wanted to set the record straight on your claim. I don't care about that this and that are different now. I don't care about a few watts here and there. But once you are allowed to change your claim, and not held accountable, you'll chip away until you actually believe you have proved something when it is all irrelevant to the initial claim.

bi, the only reason you have had to wait so long is because you haven't replicated. Easily solved! BroMikey and alexelectric are both seeing everything I have said is possible.

"are both seeing everything I have said is possible"
Really? Everything? Just like I said above. BS. You said (your claim) that more power output than power input is possible. Where have these two seen that? In their dreams. They certainly are not able to show anyone else.

"bi, the only reason you have had to wait so long is because you haven't replicated."
How can something that never existed be replicated?
Prove to me it exists and performs to, or near to, your claim, and I will replicate it.

Good day and stay well.

bi

[BroMikey]

Lexan cheapest hard plastic see thru

[BroMikey]

Okay I'll check it out. Just causing a little theater, check out the zoomed in shot by viewing image at the bottom this real life rotor by Thane Heins magnet set in steel as the shielding. I count 24.