The bistander thread

[bistander]

Torque and Attraction are two different things. Ever heard of Wikipedia? Look it up. So if I’m wrong, how about that bet? I notice you sidestepped that completely. Typical. And neutralizing magnetic drag has NO EFFECT on the "B field" You have no idea what you are talking about. It's obvious you haven't spent the time to even LOOK at the videos of how my generator works or you would KNOW that. You pretend you are an expert on how my generator works when you have NO IDEA how it is even put together. Moroinic.

You say "neutralizing magnetic drag has NO EFFECT on the "B field""

The method that you use does not affect induction. I never said it did. You apparently didn't notice that I wasn't speaking of your method. I said
"Adding a magnetic neutralization trick to reduce this drag"
Meaning a different method.

Most designers look at core material to reduce drag caused by core loss anyway.

bi

[BroMikey]

I have an idea, maybe someone can put together a step by step model for BYE so he can snap it together at home in 15 minutes. Then he will have better answers. Similar to paint by number.

The question is would BYE believe his own eyes or proceed to explain away based on "TEACHER TOED ME" parroting adventures straight out of a Mr Rogers neighborhood floor plan. We must stay within the building blocks or circuits begin to fail upstairs.

[Turion]

Torque and Attraction are two different things. Ever heard of Wikipedia? Look it up. So if I’m wrong, how about that bet? I notice you sidestepped that completely. Typical. And neutralizing magnetic drag has NO EFFECT on the "B field" You have no idea what you are talking about. It's obvious you haven't spent the time to even LOOK at the videos of how my generator works or you would KNOW that. You pretend you are an expert on how my generator works when you have NO IDEA how it is even put together. Moroinic.

[bistander]

To make it CLEAR again. and again, and again and again. We are not talking about cogging. Cogging defined: "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 machine." (Your buddy Wikipedia.) Or in the case of my generator, the TORQUE necessary to break the alignment of the magnet with the iron core of the generator coil. Cogging (or required TORQUE) ABSOLUTELY goes away with increased RPM's and isn't evident AT ALL at high speeds. Because the faster you go the less of a ripple effect you get.

But DRAG does NOT go away. It is the magnetic ATTRACTION of the magnets to the iron they are passing. Just because less torque is required (because of speed and inertia (you know, that Newton thing) does not mean the magnetic attraction suddenly disappears. Or are you able to change the laws of physics? It increases with every coil added around the rotor because the MASS of iron is increasing. It affects the RPM and/or the amp draw of the MOTOR to maintain the constant RPM. The more coils you add, the higher the amp draw of the motor. So testing "Under load. With and without magnetic neutralization. Same power output. Same speed." as you requested is an absolute waste of time. What you need to do is compare is the RPM and amp draw of the motor with ZERO coils in place and the amp draw and RPM of the rotor with TWELVE coils in place at the rated speed and input the motor is designed for. With ZERO coils in place the motor of my machine pulls just over 7 amps JUST TO TURN THE ROTOR. This is running at 36 volts in an unloaded condition. When 12 coils are put in position around the motor, that amp draw jumps up to over 36 amps and the rpm of the motor goes DOWN. Those are facts. I just gave you the data that proves it, but you totally ignore it. Because that is what you do. You ignore everything that gets in the way of your tunnel vision. When magnetic neutralization is implemented that amp draw drops back down to just 12 amps, and the RPM of the motor increases. That is ALSO a fact. I have shown the data HERE that supports what I have just said. I have videos I have shown to several people that support what I just said. Would you care to make a very large wager that the amp draw and/or rpm of the motor is not affected by the addition of coils around the rotor? I didn't think so. Put your money where your mouth is, or are you just all talk?

Cogging defined ... the TORQUE necessary to break the alignment of the magnet with the iron core

vs

DRAG ... is the magnetic ATTRACTION of the magnets to the iron

It's the same thing!

Perhaps you're misusing terminology. I mentioned this to you a few years ago, when you called me Mr. potatohead. Remember that?

Adding a magnetic neutralization trick to reduce this drag will only reduce the B field, which is counterproductive for a generator.
_______

[BroMikey]

Well then, why don;t you trust us. Trust our words? Is it because you can't be trusted that you can not trust us? Is that the reason..Humm...?? Is it? When you have already been shown the principles yet you still insist more is needed? What is it you would like to see?

[Turion]

To make it CLEAR again. and again, and again and again. We are not talking about cogging. Cogging defined: "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 machine." (Your buddy Wikipedia.) Or in the case of my generator, the TORQUE necessary to break the alignment of the magnet with the iron core of the generator coil. Cogging (or required TORQUE) ABSOLUTELY goes away with increased RPM's and isn't evident AT ALL at high speeds. Because the faster you go the less of a ripple effect you get.

But DRAG does NOT go away. It is the magnetic ATTRACTION of the magnets to the iron they are passing. Just because less torque is required (because of speed and inertia (you know, that Newton thing) does not mean the magnetic attraction suddenly disappears. Or are you able to change the laws of physics? It increases with every coil added around the rotor because the MASS of iron is increasing. It affects the RPM and/or the amp draw of the MOTOR to maintain the constant RPM. The more coils you add, the higher the amp draw of the motor. So testing "Under load. With and without magnetic neutralization. Same power output. Same speed." as you requested is an absolute waste of time. What you need to do is compare is the RPM and amp draw of the motor with ZERO coils in place and the amp draw and RPM of the rotor with TWELVE coils in place at the rated speed and input the motor is designed for. With ZERO coils in place the motor of my machine pulls just over 7 amps JUST TO TURN THE ROTOR. This is running at 36 volts in an unloaded condition. When 12 coils are put in position around the motor, that amp draw jumps up to over 36 amps and the rpm of the motor goes DOWN. Those are facts. I just gave you the data that proves it, but you totally ignore it. Because that is what you do. You ignore everything that gets in the way of your tunnel vision. When magnetic neutralization is implemented that amp draw drops back down to just 12 amps, and the RPM of the motor increases. That is ALSO a fact. I have shown the data HERE that supports what I have just said. I have videos I have shown to several people that support what I just said. Would you care to make a very large wager that the amp draw and/or rpm of the motor is not affected by the addition of coils around the rotor? I didn't think so. Put your money where your mouth is, or are you just all talk?

[bistander]

... You took one video of a guy adding ONE little coil to a system and because he saw no increased amp draw you drew the conclusion that adding 12 coils would make no difference.
...

I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect no one else does either. Please provide a link to where I "drew the conclusion" or at least to the video.

...You just spout what you have read or found on Wikipedia. ...

Occasionally I'll quote Wikipedia, but most often I relate the established science, truth and facts as I know and then provide references or support of what I have written and for the convenience of the reader who may wish further information. It's called backing up what you say. Try it sometime.

Regards,
bi

[BroMikey]

Now BYE is mad cause the reality is he only cares about making a mess of his posts, anyway he can change the subject. Problem is he is out gunned. Like I said, not much left I am afraid, other than bitter spewing. Right Bye. You don't care about the project, you don't care about Mr Dave
you don't even care about seeing a breakthrough because you just don't care, period, zero empathy, right BYE. And proud of it like a few others around here which can be evidenced by their speech. It is okay, a norm in the time we live in, use to it. Just took your picture.

Losing makes people mad. Oh well, yawn. The fact is this tech has been spread all over the web in a relatively compressed time frame because of BYE provoking a response. Thanks for the demands BYE and al your name calling.

Keep it alive, great job.

[bistander]

No, it does not prove my claim. It proves you were absolutely WRONG when you said that magnetic neutralization was irrelevant to the performance of the generator. Dead wrong. But as usual, you will never admit it. This time the data speaks for itself. This was one of the tests YOU wanted done a while back when you claimed that the addition of a coil made NO impact on the amp draw of the rotor or its rpm. I show the data from the test that proves you are wrong, so of course you discount it as irrelevant. Although if the data had supported you it would be proof that I am a fraud. You said it is irrelevant and you were wrong. In other words, you LIED. You took one video of a guy adding ONE little coil to a system and because he saw no increased amp draw you drew the conclusion that adding 12 coils would make no difference. You don't do the work yourself. You don't do the testing yourself. You just spout what you have read or found on Wikipedia. You build nothing, contribute nothing, design nothing and make no useful contributions to this forum. But thanks for playing!

By the way, I know what proof is. I have provided proof to the people who matter.

You're straw manning again. But WTF? You want proof magnetic neutralization does nothing at normal generator power at load at constant speed? Test it. Under load. With and without magnetic neutralization. Same power output. Same speed. Only thing different is w & w/o magnetic neutralization. What do you see? You make assumptions that are completely off the wall. Your magnetic neutralization reduces cogging. It is well known and accepted that cogging can be detrimental at low speed but seldom more than a nuisance (noise or minor torque ripple) at speed and load. There is equal cw & ccw torque from the ripple so average power contribution is near zero. In most cases, the rotor moment of inertia filters it and it is irrelevant. So your effort to reduce or eliminate it is irrelevant at power output. Of course you believe that about inertia, you know, mass and motion, Newton and all that.
bi

[BroMikey]

Well it should be common sense that if the drive motor is anywhere from 300-400 watts and every coil produces 1.5 amps X 130v = 195watts real power with no added cost to drive input amps because the rotor does not drag down. Maybe 1 coil takes a drive input lower than 300 watts? But the point is how much does is cost to run the rotor with all 12 coils in place and we have already been told the answer. 12 coils X 195w = 2340w with no more drag than if one coil was putting out 195w or 4 coils putting out 195w each X 4 = 780w or 12 coils. No change to drive input because of the design.

Magnetic opposition does help dramatically to raise COP. I have seen that. Start up amps drop and running amps do also as long and you get best results with a non magnetic rotor of course. Common sense thinking with real data arrived upon thru experimentation is priceless.

WE keep batting the ball back with more and more and more people are seeing this made clear everyday that build. This is good. One man can not be expected to place himself on the chopping block, so let's build together making it impossible for a single target to quench the innovation.

I remember how scientist came from the Pentagon came to help Bob Boyce built his boxes for HHO and when Bob could not be bought off with a measly 1 million dollars they left. On top of that they wanted to rights to his invention so they could bury it. Remember Bob B. worked on the inside of gov labs on reverse engineered crafts that fly negating gravity and once inside, always inside so they already knew Bob. Next they put something in his drink while working on the project, he fell asleep and later found a chip in his body that was creating a cancerous sore.

This is not a game.

Recently (This week) high level Pentagon officials were forced to resign for their many crimes. Being careful is important. Stick your head up and you will find out.

[Turion]

No, it does not prove my claim. It proves you were absolutely WRONG when you said that magnetic neutralization was irrelevant to the performance of the generator. Dead wrong. But as usual, you will never admit it. This time the data speaks for itself. This was one of the tests YOU wanted done a while back when you claimed that the addition of a coil made NO impact on the amp draw of the rotor or its rpm. I show the data from the test that proves you are wrong, so of course you discount it as irrelevant. Although if the data had supported you it would be proof that I am a fraud. You said it is irrelevant and you were wrong. In other words, you LIED. You took one video of a guy adding ONE little coil to a system and because he saw no increased amp draw you drew the conclusion that adding 12 coils would make no difference. You don't do the work yourself. You don't do the testing yourself. You just spout what you have read or found on Wikipedia. You build nothing, contribute nothing, design nothing and make no useful contributions to this forum. But thanks for playing!

By the way, I know what proof is. I have provided proof to the people who matter.

[bistander]

...
But just for fun bi, here's some data for your. Still no inputs and outputs, but data that magnetic drag exerts a tremendous COST on the efficiency of generators that I have eliminated in my design through the use of magnetic neutralization.


Constant voltage of as close to 36 volts as I could get running off a power supply.

Turning just the motor. 4200 RPM at a cost of 1.3 amps

Turning just the rotor 3800 RPM at 7.7 amps

With 4 coils in place 3533 RPM at 12.53 amps

So with four coils in place I lose almost 300 rpm which reduces the output of ALL the coils as generator coils. That's a 7% LOSS in production with just FOUR coils in place.
With four coils in place, the amp draw goes up almost 5 amps and increases the COST of running the machine 61%. And that's with just FOUR out of the twelve coils in place. Still think eliminating the drag is just a "little trick" that doesn't affect the output of the machine? You know less than NOTHING about what is possible.

I have given you the data that PROVES what I say is true. Is that the proof you want? NO. Of course not. You will never be satisfied, nor will you ever admit you are just WRONG.

Hi Turion,
You did an edit after I replied. Just saw it. Edit/addition is quoted above. Highlighted by me. "Still no inputs and outputs"
Then you say "data that PROVES what I say is true".
No output/input power data? It proves nothing about your claim.
Proof is proper instruments simultaneously showing real power output of 1800 watts and less than 300 watts input for a reasonable period as to rule out transients.
bi

[BroMikey]

As usual. you know nothing. You just think you do. As for burden of proof. I feel no burden. I have provided information. Those who choose to use it will benefit. Those who choose not to will not. Simple. I can live with that.

Thane proved it, why doesn't BYE go watch Thane? But then again Bye don't like Thane either.
Maybe BYE like's that other shallow boy debunkify? That's it he likes the other fella.He only likes debunking guys, right, BYE? That is all he can wrap his head around. The experiment is beyond the pale.

[Turion]

As usual. you know nothing. You just think you do. As for burden of proof. I feel no burden. I have provided information. Those who choose to use it will benefit. Those who choose not to will not. Simple. I can live with that.

[bistander]

Not impossible. Therefore not a falsehood. Just your opinion. No proof that it is false at all. I have showed exactly WHY it is possible, yet you claim these "Facts" are nothing but tricks. Again, your opinion. I provide evidence, data, in support of these facts, and you disregard it. The data is not "Beside the point" The data IS the point. It hasn't been done before because people didn't understand the principles that make it possible. Just like people said flight was "impossible" until they understood the principles that made it possible. If you were in charge we would never have learned to fly. If you continue to adhere to the old ways it will NEVER be possible for you. And since that is the "science" and the 'truth" you support, good luck.

You are wrong about something else. There is no burden of proof on me just because I made a claim. I am allowed to present information, which is what I have done. What you choose to do with that information is up to YOU. Don't blame your failure on me.

The thing about your posts is that they are as incorrect today as they ever were, and you have learned nothing. Or at least you PRETEND to have learned nothing.

Turion,
Your tricks and data and theories about methods are irrelevant to the claimed performance. You may believe they are important, but they are not. Most are wrong anyway as I have pointed out repeatedly. But all that doesn't matter. The burden of proof is on the claimer. You. Not me. If you cannot or will not provide proof of your claim, then nobody is going to take it seriously.
Ever wonder why nobody can replicate your OU generator and demonstrate (prove) more out that in? Even you can't. You never did it and never will. I haven't failed. You have.
bi