Originally posted by erfinder
View Post
Absolutely it is an invitation to this Thread, and thanks but it is my pleasure to point out attributes to your work that anyone else can see is there.
Since you have decided to open your own thread, and honestly exposed all your work, your development to all of Us...I have changed radically my opinion about you, you have entered a new space together with all of Us who expose here freely our development and research for others to observe, replicate and test...there was a big difference before friend.
Yes, coexistence is the way to go, harmony my goal.
Harmony is an 'additive' required to fulfill coexistence to the full throttle.
I am not qualified to say with any certainty what if any relation that my work has with the present accepted doctrines and dogma governing "Electrodynamic Technology". With that I try to avoid labels and focus on the effects that I'm interested in manifesting in my devices.
Yes there are commutated and brushless motors in what can be considered as unlimited quantities being applied in various applications. As you pointed out one type is good for one thing while the other type is good for another. The differences are not a concern for me though. What I am interested in is that single thing that unites them. Regardless of if the motor is a brushless type or a brushed type, both behave as if they were generators. From this perspective, that of the generator action, how the device is commutated is immaterial.
As I pointed out before, it's not about right or wrong. It's not about what's better, none of that matters to me, better or worse can only be judged by one who has accomplished the desired result, and has developed the ability to see, that which was perceived as a weakness as strength. It is not my intention to come across as if to disregard a machine or methodology, it is to identify kinks in the armor, and flaws in design. The brushed DC motor should have been designed differently.
Yes there are commutated and brushless motors in what can be considered as unlimited quantities being applied in various applications. As you pointed out one type is good for one thing while the other type is good for another. The differences are not a concern for me though. What I am interested in is that single thing that unites them. Regardless of if the motor is a brushless type or a brushed type, both behave as if they were generators. From this perspective, that of the generator action, how the device is commutated is immaterial.
As I pointed out before, it's not about right or wrong. It's not about what's better, none of that matters to me, better or worse can only be judged by one who has accomplished the desired result, and has developed the ability to see, that which was perceived as a weakness as strength. It is not my intention to come across as if to disregard a machine or methodology, it is to identify kinks in the armor, and flaws in design. The brushed DC motor should have been designed differently.
I am of the opinion that CEMF is the system fulcrum. It is the mechanism that keeps all in check, it is from this position where we should be viewing the system, from the golden center. From the perspective of the CEMF the applied EMF is foreign!
Your compliment is greatly appreciated.
This is the effect. One sees the voltage rise on a capacitor in the videos, but it must be understood that to charge the capacitor current is required. I am suggesting that the current charging this capacitor to a higher potential than the source is the exact same current which charges the parasitic capacitance of an unloaded generator coil, please give yourself time for that to sink in.
In my machine the design was specifically chosen so that the location of maximum induced potential is at JTDC, and the point of zero induced potential is at the zero crossing TDC proper. From the video it can be seen that the effect takes place at JTDC. The device is started at JTDC, it will not start at TDC. From here the machine draws maximum current till the RPM enables the CEMF to limit the current, at this point the timing is changed from JTDC to TDC, here there is no CEMF limiting the current and the motor accelerates to its new plateau. The timing is returned to JTDC, and the supply is charged, no drag is experienced during charging because no current is flowing from the source to oppose the charging current.
I can and do appreciate your suggestions, early in the research these thoughts crossed my mind, and as you probably have guessed I followed those thoughts to their end. At the end of what appeared to be countless tests, it was determined that the effect manifests without extra switching, and introducing extra switching so as to move between JTDC and TDC proved to be counterproductive. The introduction of extra switching also demonstrated that I didn't really comprehend what I was working with. What I wanted, what the device was showing me was I needed to trigger at JTDC, the point of the anomaly, and draw current at a rate which is equal to that being drawn at TDC, use the CEMF to do this, use the CEMF as a lever which would switch the circuit between the two conditions experienced when moving between JTDC and TDC.
By changing our perspective which as it stands is that of the applied EMF looking into a system where an induced EMF is manifesting and increasing in magnitude with increasing RPM, we should consider the perspective of the CEMF and the circuit parameters which govern its manifestation and maintenance.
The interaction or more accurately the exchange taking place between the induced and applied EMF illustrate a one word mechanism, opposition. Opposition is a funny thing when we look at it deeper for the word itself leads one to mentally experience the force between two magnets with like poles facing one another, while at the same time accepting the "idea" that opposites attract.
Now the more "educated" among us would immediately see this as being a perfect example of double think, and were it not for my experiences would be inclined to agree with them. I am grateful that there have been great minds, giants who came before us and paved the way for deeper understanding, for what some ignorantly call double think, those wise call a magnetic gate.
Your compliment is greatly appreciated.
This is the effect. One sees the voltage rise on a capacitor in the videos, but it must be understood that to charge the capacitor current is required. I am suggesting that the current charging this capacitor to a higher potential than the source is the exact same current which charges the parasitic capacitance of an unloaded generator coil, please give yourself time for that to sink in.
In my machine the design was specifically chosen so that the location of maximum induced potential is at JTDC, and the point of zero induced potential is at the zero crossing TDC proper. From the video it can be seen that the effect takes place at JTDC. The device is started at JTDC, it will not start at TDC. From here the machine draws maximum current till the RPM enables the CEMF to limit the current, at this point the timing is changed from JTDC to TDC, here there is no CEMF limiting the current and the motor accelerates to its new plateau. The timing is returned to JTDC, and the supply is charged, no drag is experienced during charging because no current is flowing from the source to oppose the charging current.
I can and do appreciate your suggestions, early in the research these thoughts crossed my mind, and as you probably have guessed I followed those thoughts to their end. At the end of what appeared to be countless tests, it was determined that the effect manifests without extra switching, and introducing extra switching so as to move between JTDC and TDC proved to be counterproductive. The introduction of extra switching also demonstrated that I didn't really comprehend what I was working with. What I wanted, what the device was showing me was I needed to trigger at JTDC, the point of the anomaly, and draw current at a rate which is equal to that being drawn at TDC, use the CEMF to do this, use the CEMF as a lever which would switch the circuit between the two conditions experienced when moving between JTDC and TDC.
By changing our perspective which as it stands is that of the applied EMF looking into a system where an induced EMF is manifesting and increasing in magnitude with increasing RPM, we should consider the perspective of the CEMF and the circuit parameters which govern its manifestation and maintenance.
The interaction or more accurately the exchange taking place between the induced and applied EMF illustrate a one word mechanism, opposition. Opposition is a funny thing when we look at it deeper for the word itself leads one to mentally experience the force between two magnets with like poles facing one another, while at the same time accepting the "idea" that opposites attract.
Now the more "educated" among us would immediately see this as being a perfect example of double think, and were it not for my experiences would be inclined to agree with them. I am grateful that there have been great minds, giants who came before us and paved the way for deeper understanding, for what some ignorantly call double think, those wise call a magnetic gate.
See Erfinder, now that you have displayed your machines and the methods that you use to control them...it is easy for me to discuss with you about the 'CEMF'...
Like I said before, I have gone over all your settings, videos, circuits, etc...your means to control based on a Hall Sensor and an N-Chanel FET leaves very clear to me you are pulsing your motors on a "On-Off" timing...You even responded when somebody else asked you if you were reversing polarity at power input, very clear you responded...that you were not...but simply turning on and off the coils...and it is obvious if you are using an N-Chanel FET to achieve this operation, and not a half or a full "H" bridge.
So, Erfinder, we are exactly on the "same Chanel"!
So, now you may understand better what I have been criticizing on the Symmetric technology in all my videos and in all my posts here.
I am against forcing reversal to the coils to achieve rotation...as I see you are also in the same position.
When you plan in your design, that every revolution, your rotors will suffer a drastic reversal of polarity input to coils...that causes "a false CEMF"...a "fabricated" one...and it is not necessary to do this, when we can get a very "Natural CEMF" like you have shown in all your work.
I have nothing against the natural CEMF...at all, but am against, completely, to the false one made by a result of the Symmetric designs.
When you turn off coils they 'normally' create a natural CEMF...as when you short coils through other components.
This are the advantages to work in Open Forums, Open Sources, where we get to see all work done without any 'hiding sides'.
I look forward to exchanging with you and your group UFO. Keep an open mind, mine is open, were it not I would not be on your thread sharing, not teaching, sharing. It is my hope that you can appreciate what I am suggesting, and that you have the vision to see how it applies to your work and what a combined effort could mean for the future. As it stands, a meshing of ideas isn't realizable owing to certain design complications, I have brought them to your attention in the past, and don't wish to repeat history, with that, I hope you see where I'm coming from and come to the same or similar conclusion that I have, when you do, a melding of material will not only be possible, it will be inevitable.
Regards
Regards
I want to say something else, before I finish this post...and this goes to everybody here.
I am not perfect, I am only human...we all make mistakes when it comes to judgement calls based on 'presumptions'...and am talking about judging individuals as am talking about judgement of technologies, discoveries and science...and we should not do that...on my end I try to correct it every day...
...because, it is not the correct social, nor scientific approach to disregard something based on a 'presumption'...an 'assumption'...Right now, am working on the very roots of Induction...am researching articles and literature in general, as far as Internet, Google and written books available allows me to 'travel back in time'...from the Faraday discoveries back in the 1830's...to date...and it is extremely interesting to observe how this such important discovery for the benefit of humanity became a big "CIRCUS", where bright scientists were so stubborn and attached to either one of the two phenomena presented by Faraday...the "Moving Field" and the "Static Field" Theories...as this ended up in "disregarding" one to let the other prevail...allowing the two piece induction machines to become 'the one and only' we had to choose and study from there on...and that was a completely huge mistake for our civilization, a very wrong approach...adding all the 'vested' interests that protected one side and seized the other...
At the end of this race to find the truth...we must look back afterwards...and learn, once and for ever...that this mistakes could never repeat again in our history.
Regards
Ufopolitics
I won't trespass again.
Leave a comment: