Motor Generators

[Rakarskiy]

Dear bistander, where have you seen a battery supplying a circuit with a voltage greater than its initial charge? A battery has only two modes - charge (load) and discharge (source), as you correctly point out. In fact, we see that the voltage in the circuit has increased when the device is running and the battery can no longer function as a source. Everything else is pulling a condom over a globe to pass off the globe as a balloon. Too bad the guys don't learn, they had a chance to make a worthwhile device. As it is, this is just an episode showing that the claims of physicists and sycophants are not true in the system of building electromagnetic generators.

As you can see, Holcombs is still alive and well and continues his activities in the USA. The orthodox physicists (including the sycophants of the system) cannot do anything about his activity.

[bistander]

Dear bistander, you are either misrepresenting yourself or trying to mislead. A battery is a DC source that both receives charge and gives it away. That is, when it receives a charge, it is as much a load in the circuit as a commutator motor and rotary solenoids. This means that when the battery receives a charge (increasing the voltage from the source value), it becomes a load. The source at that point is the alternator phases. This is the real moment of self-movement of the system in a closed loop.

Mr. Rakarskiy,
A battery in a circuit can be a source OR a load, but not both at the same time. It can either "receive" charge OR "give it away". But not simultaneously.

You say once started, the circuit delivers charge to the battery. This is impossible on a continuous basis. To prove it, simply disconnect the battery while it is running. If the source was the "alternator phases", as you say, then the charge once delivered to the battery will be "received" by the lamp and motor, and circuit continues to function.

But it is obvious to one skilled in the science, this will cause the circuit to cease. Thereby proving the battery is the source. Try it.

Or if you feel the need for a buffer in the circuit, use a capacitor.
bi

[Rakarskiy]

Dear bistander, you are either misrepresenting yourself or trying to mislead. A battery is a DC source that both receives charge and gives it away. That is, when it receives a charge, it is as much a load in the circuit as a commutator motor and rotary solenoids. This means that when the battery receives a charge (increasing the voltage from the source value), it becomes a load. The source at that point is the alternator phases. This is the real moment of self-movement of the system in a closed loop.

[bistander]

bistander , there's no stopping you from visiting Holcomb Energy Systems headquarters, you're in America. There's an old saying ‘it's better to see once than to hear a hundred times’. By the way, the best way to be sure of the reality of a device or its ‘...’. These guys' games with the system of power do not interest me. I can say for sure that mass-dimensions of mechanical generator and Holcomb generator for the same output power will be different (Holcomb should be bigger). This is all just in line with electrodynamics and magnetism of electric machines.

One garage craftsman once got a proper construction, very flimsy but working just on the same effect as Holcomb generator.

Electromagnetic generator, without rotation of the magnetic rotor in self-propelled mode. | Patreon

The only difference is that Holcomb has programme control through semiconductor valves instead of collector-switching control.

Yes, the experience with a dead battery is not very good in case of non-professional measurement system. But even in this variant it is absolutely clear for a specialist that there is a source in the system which is able to switch the commutator motor, to excite the solid-state rotor electromagnets and to have the ability to keep the voltage in the network higher than the initial voltage of the dead battery.

Hi Rakarskiy,
Below is copied from links in your post. When running with the three switches closed (conducting), simply remove the battery. It ceases to run. It is not autonomous. Neither is Holcomb's contraption. I'm disappointed you believe them.
bi


Screenshot_20240828-092144.png

[Rakarskiy]

bistander , there's no stopping you from visiting Holcomb Energy Systems headquarters, you're in America. There's an old saying ‘it's better to see once than to hear a hundred times’. By the way, the best way to be sure of the reality of a device or its ‘...’. These guys' games with the system of power do not interest me. I can say for sure that mass-dimensions of mechanical generator and Holcomb generator for the same output power will be different (Holcomb should be bigger). This is all just in line with electrodynamics and magnetism of electric machines.

One garage craftsman once got a proper construction, very flimsy but working just on the same effect as Holcomb generator.

Electromagnetic generator, without rotation of the magnetic rotor in self-propelled mode. | Patreon

The only difference is that Holcomb has programme control through semiconductor valves instead of collector-switching control.

Yes, the experience with a dead battery is not very good in case of non-professional measurement system. But even in this variant it is absolutely clear for a specialist that there is a source in the system which is able to switch the commutator motor, to excite the solid-state rotor electromagnets and to have the ability to keep the voltage in the network higher than the initial voltage of the dead battery.

[bistander]

What more proof do you need? If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to believe it. My research in this area has come up against the stark contradictions of academic physics and structural engineering. Moreover in practice. and Ampere force in a traditional frame generator, which is formed taking into account the EMF drop and calculation of the phase of a traditional synchronous generator with the laying of the wire in the closed slot of the stator. At the same time, talking with a real designer learnt that all engineers who are recruited to them are retrained. (For me it was a revelation).

My work is available for anyone to study: Invention of the electromagnetic generator

OVER UNITY ELECTRODYNAMICS - DC MOTOR and GENERANOR (fliphtml5.com)

What more proof do you need?

Proof that the Holcomb device works as claimed.

Hi Rakarskiy,
I do admire your dedication and persistence but you are simply wrong with interpretation of basic proven concept. We discussed this years ago when you first presented it to me (public disclosure in another forum)*. I'm not going to repeat that. Proof of Holcomb's claims will suffice. I anxiously await.
High regards,
bi

edit
* https://overunityarchives.com/index....19375.155.html
see post #158

[Rakarskiy]

What more proof do you need? If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to believe it. My research in this area has come up against the stark contradictions of academic physics and structural engineering. Moreover in practice. and Ampere force in a traditional frame generator, which is formed taking into account the EMF drop and calculation of the phase of a traditional synchronous generator with the laying of the wire in the closed slot of the stator. At the same time, talking with a real designer learnt that all engineers who are recruited to them are retrained. (For me it was a revelation).

My work is available for anyone to study: Invention of the electromagnetic generator

OVER UNITY ELECTRODYNAMICS - DC MOTOR and GENERANOR (fliphtml5.com)

[JenkoRun]

bistander

"I've seen misnomers mentioned numerous times by the likes of Holcomb (mentioned by Rakarskiy) that in his device torque is non-existent due to the absence of a rotatable member. I think torque or perhaps better said 'the stress which would manifest as torque' is present in the machine."

I'm not really familiar with the Holcomb device other than the most surface level info on it, from the little I do know the basic premise is utilizing the induced coherent magnetic field of the iron atoms, they're completely wrong about the Electron explanation (I follow the models of Steinmetz, Tesla, Dollard, etc) but the surface idea is completely correct.

I don't think it's very efficient though, primarily because the excitation method appears to be a continuous wave and that's the wrong sort of waveform to make proper use of this kind of effect for Power production, and even more so if the current and voltage are in-phase which makes using electrical steel wasteful when more pure iron type metals could be used instead.

I can't comment much on using a system like that in a motor style method, I'm more interested in free oscillating high frequency AC motors where rectification methods are unneeded, perhaps there's a way to apply it to a motor type system? I'll need to think about it.

" In other words, in the motor, current produces stress (stall torque), can stress produce current? In piezoelectricity, stress produces voltage, and voltage produces stress. Does an analogy exist with magnetism stress/current?"

"Could this stress be, or enable, a pathway for energy conversion, primary to secondary windings (stator to fixed rotor) in these crackpot devices?"

thaelin

"Ok Bi, you just had to do that didn't you? I will have to ponder this a while. There has to be movement on one side of the equation but the other? Hmmmmm?"


This is getting into a more direct area that I want to keep off my public posts for now, if either of you want information on this please send me a PM.

[thaelin]

<In piezoelectricity, stress produces voltage, and voltage produces stress. Does an analogy exist with magnetism stress/current?>

Ok Bi, you just had to do that didn't you? I will have to ponder this a while. There has to be movement on one side of the equation but the other? Hmmmmm?

[bistander]

"The point I doubt is that stress alone in a ferromagnetic material causes a change in a magnetic field."

You may have misunderstood what my point was, I did not say it changes a magnetic field, I said it causes a changing magnetic field. I never said nor implied that my point was on an already existing magnetic field present external to the core prior to kinetic stress being applied to it.

"Resonance or thumping (impact) is no way to insure stress alone occurs without displacement or deformation."

Get any solid material (such as wood), put your hand on one side and strike the other side, you will feel a vibration reach your hand from the other side of the material. The process of the vibration travelling through the material momentarily induces stress on the structure as the disturbance propagates through it.

Strike that material hard and fast enough and it will oscillate for a brief moment until it returns to equilibrium, this can be more clearly seen in examples such as a vibrating string: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X72on6CSL0

"Also can you explain the relevance of stress to Rakarskiy's theory or post? "

In his writings Rakarskiy claims that the magnetic field of the transformer core cannot induce the secondary windings:

"Another point is that if an air gap is applied in the core, but the magnetic induction parameter in the core will decrease sharply, the current parameter in the primary winding will increase and, accordingly, the current in the secondary winding will also increase. This is a direct proof that the magnetic flux of the core cannot form an emf in the secondary winding."

https://1-ua--hho-do-am.translate.go..._x_tr_pto=wapp

when I asked him to explain what I saw and my own experiences with my contact that do not comply with this claim he did not provide an explanation for the observed phenomena of the experiments, and just listed of reasons and math on why it is as he claims, I do not consider that as a valid explanation and even less so to dismiss what I have observed and am still waiting for an explanation that does not depend on math.

Math is a descriptive tool and descriptions are not explanations, as it stand now I do not believe Rakarskiy is correct on this matter.

"I'm just disappointed you have no real substance other some fool's video and hearsay from your friend."

hearsay

noun

1. information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.
   "according to hearsay, Bez had managed to break his arm"

I think you and I have different ideas on what constitutes as hearsay, I do not consider a live video call with on screen experiments to be hearsay and I question what is going through your mind if you are so skeptical that if you were in the same position you would still question what you heard and saw.

Nor am I inclined to follow hearsay of believing others to be fools because someone else said so, that only invites a close minded perspective to ignore experimental data, ones reputation will never change basic experimental phenomena that can be recreated and tested personally, especially one of such simplicity.

Get a soft iron core, wrap a few dozen turns or more of insulated copper wire around it, connect an oscilloscope to the wires, take a metal object like a bar or something and strike the core, monitor the scope readings. Consider putting some padding between the core and bar to reduce impact damage.

"So I asked chatGPT."

ChatGPT should only be used as a light aid tool, I would never rely on it for accurate information.

JR,
After one last comment I'm through discussing people. I admit even a fool, or crackpot, can stumble across something interesting, or useful. Not that I see it here, but is a reason I read/participate in these boards.

Now back to the topic, I think. Yes, stress in a ferromagnetic material can affect a magnetic field. In the context of Mr. Rakarskiy's post, how is that pertinent? It is relevant to induction, not the cause of induction. But nevermind, that's not why I requested more information about your stress/induction statement. I'll expand.

My background includes much to do with electric motors. There is an operational condition called stall torque, or sometimes called locked rotor torque. As implied, it is where the motor is electrically excited and produces torque without rotation or any motion at all. When this occurs, efficiency is zero as output power (torque × speed) is zero even though there is input power (V × I). All input is converted to heat. Nevertheless, this stall torque can be useful, say for holding the position of an EV on an incline, although no work is done.

Now, I have often contemplated if the 'stall torque process' is reversible. In other words, in the motor, current produces stress (stall torque), can stress produce current?

In piezoelectricity, stress produces voltage, and voltage produces stress. Does an analogy exist with magnetism stress/current?

I've seen misnomers mentioned numerous times by the likes of Holcomb (mentioned by Rakarskiy) that in his device torque is non-existent due to the absence of a rotatable member. I think torque or perhaps better said 'the stress which would manifest as torque' is present in the machine.

Could this stress be, or enable, a pathway for energy conversion, primary to secondary windings (stator to fixed rotor) in these crackpot devices?

So I simply inquired of you for references to stress induction. Sorry to get sidetracked.
bi

BTW, I see chatGPT as a quick means of Internet search. And with all from the Internet, discretion advised.

[JenkoRun]

"The point I doubt is that stress alone in a ferromagnetic material causes a change in a magnetic field."

You may have misunderstood what my point was, I did not say it changes a magnetic field, I said it causes a changing magnetic field. I never said nor implied that my point was on an already existing magnetic field present external to the core prior to kinetic stress being applied to it.

"Resonance or thumping (impact) is no way to insure stress alone occurs without displacement or deformation."

Get any solid material (such as wood), put your hand on one side and strike the other side, you will feel a vibration reach your hand from the other side of the material. The process of the vibration travelling through the material momentarily induces stress on the structure as the disturbance propagates through it.

Strike that material hard and fast enough and it will oscillate for a brief moment until it returns to equilibrium, this can be more clearly seen in examples such as a vibrating string: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X72on6CSL0

"Also can you explain the relevance of stress to Rakarskiy's theory or post? "

In his writings Rakarskiy claims that the magnetic field of the transformer core cannot induce the secondary windings:

"Another point is that if an air gap is applied in the core, but the magnetic induction parameter in the core will decrease sharply, the current parameter in the primary winding will increase and, accordingly, the current in the secondary winding will also increase. This is a direct proof that the magnetic flux of the core cannot form an emf in the secondary winding."

https://1-ua--hho-do-am.translate.go..._x_tr_pto=wapp

when I asked him to explain what I saw and my own experiences with my contact that do not comply with this claim he did not provide an explanation for the observed phenomena of the experiments, and just listed of reasons and math on why it is as he claims, I do not consider that as a valid explanation and even less so to dismiss what I have observed and am still waiting for an explanation that does not depend on math.

Math is a descriptive tool and descriptions are not explanations, as it stand now I do not believe Rakarskiy is correct on this matter.

"I'm just disappointed you have no real substance other some fool's video and hearsay from your friend."

hearsay

noun

1. information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.
   "according to hearsay, Bez had managed to break his arm"

I think you and I have different ideas on what constitutes as hearsay, I do not consider a live video call with on screen experiments to be hearsay and I question what is going through your mind if you are so skeptical that if you were in the same position you would still question what you heard and saw.

Nor am I inclined to follow hearsay of believing others to be fools because someone else said so, that only invites a close minded perspective to ignore experimental data, ones reputation will never change basic experimental phenomena that can be recreated and tested personally, especially one of such simplicity.

Get a soft iron core, wrap a few dozen turns or more of insulated copper wire around it, connect an oscilloscope to the wires, take a metal object like a bar or something and strike the core, monitor the scope readings. Consider putting some padding between the core and bar to reduce impact damage.

"So I asked chatGPT."

ChatGPT should only be used as a light aid tool, I would never rely on it for accurate information.

[bistander]

I really don't care what the general opinions are around a figure, experimental testing has no relevance to that, which you can see in said video. If you have the means you can re-create the test for yourself, which again has no bearing on ones reputation or intelligence.

And as I stated, I had a contact verify the effect with MOT and the results were verified, changing magnetic fields induce a voltage in coil windings which can be seen on oscilloscopes, this was verified on video call between myself and my contact, hence I do not need further verification of the effect observed in Morin's video, what I need is an explanation for the claim that the magnetic field of core cannot induce the secondary windings when the experiments do not support that statement.

The effect has been proven in Morin's video and replicated outside of it to my satisfaction, and disregarding experimental testing due to ones reputation is hardly an attitude to be taken seriously. As such, your statement "I don't see any proofs or any evidence of stress induction." is one likely born of preconceived notions to ignore the behavior of a standard TriField meter, which can be purchased online, and I do not consider it to taken with any serious weight, especially with your added statement of "I refuse to watch any more of it." shows you are not looking at data with an objective perspective.

There is more than enough evidence in the video to show mechanical stress induced into a soft iron core produces a momentary magnetic field, I suggest acquiring the tools and running the experiments for yourself.

-R

I'm not arguing "changing magnetic fields induce a voltage in coil windings", basic Faraday Law. The point I doubt is that stress alone in a ferromagnetic material causes a change in a magnetic field. Resonance or thumping (impact) is no way to insure stress alone occurs without displacement or deformation.

As far as my opinion of the experimenter, I put a great deal of trust in it. Just like I never respected any data from this thread's OP. One must consider the source.

Also can you explain the relevance of stress to Rakarskiy's theory or post? I disagree with Mr. Rakarskiy, but respect him and consider seriously what he presents.

I suppose that stress could affect magnetic domains and reflect in the permeability ultimately changing a magnetic field, but in over 50 years of relevant experience, I've not heard of such. I was genuinely interested in what you said. I'm just disappointed you have no real substance other some fool's video and hearsay from your friend. Perhaps another reader can chime in with a reference.
Thanks anyway.
bi

Edit:
So I asked chatGPT.

ChatGPT 4o mini

Log inYou said:

Can a change in mechanical stress alone in a ferromagnetic material alter a magnetic field?ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Yes, a change in mechanical stress alone can alter the magnetic field in a ferromagnetic material. This phenomenon is related to the magnetoelastic effect. In ferromagnetic materials, mechanical stress can influence the alignment of magnetic domains, which in turn can affect the material's magnetic properties and the external magnetic field.

When stress is applied to a ferromagnetic material, it can change the magnetic domain structure or the material's magnetization, thereby altering the magnetic field. This effect is utilized in various applications, such as in stress sensors and magnetic field sensors, where changes in mechanical stress can be detected through variations in the magnetic field

[JenkoRun]

Hi JR,
I don't see any proofs or any evidence of stress induction. Gerard Moron is an idiot. Bromikey used to post a lot of his garbage. Totally stupid. I refuse to watch any more of it. Until I see proof from a reputable source or a reproducible demonstration using the scientific method, I don't accept your statement "it has been proven that applying mechanical stress to ferromagnetic materials creates a changing magnetic field, which induces the windings around the core".
bi

I really don't care what the general opinions are around a figure, experimental testing has no relevance to that, which you can see in said video. If you have the means you can re-create the test for yourself, which again has no bearing on ones reputation or intelligence.

And as I stated, I had a contact verify the effect with MOT and the results were verified, changing magnetic fields induce a voltage in coil windings which can be seen on oscilloscopes, this was verified on video call between myself and my contact, hence I do not need further verification of the effect observed in Morin's video, what I need is an explanation for the claim that the magnetic field of core cannot induce the secondary windings when the experiments do not support that statement.

The effect has been proven in Morin's video and replicated outside of it to my satisfaction, and disregarding experimental testing due to ones reputation is hardly an attitude to be taken seriously. As such, your statement "I don't see any proofs or any evidence of stress induction." is one likely born of preconceived notions to ignore the behavior of a standard TriField meter, which can be purchased online, and I do not consider it to taken with any serious weight, especially with your added statement of "I refuse to watch any more of it." shows you are not looking at data with an objective perspective.

There is more than enough evidence in the video to show mechanical stress induced into a soft iron core produces a momentary magnetic field, I suggest acquiring the tools and running the experiments for yourself.

-R

[bistander]

My first exposure to the concept was this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9YsuEeCTqs&t=1381s

Afterwards I asked a contact of mine to run a similar experiment with a MOT to see if the results were reproducible, the oscilloscope was attached to one of the windings and the core was physically struck with a metal rod, each strike to the core produced a measurable Voltage EMF on the scope, ferrite cores showed to be less responsive though that core had vastly different windings and was not suitable as a controlled comparison.

It's highly unlikely the scope or insulated windings around the core were responding to merely the physical vibrations, combined with the TriField Meter only responding in Magnetic mode specifically heavily indicates the measure recorded on the scope was a result of a changing magnetic field.

Hi JR,
I don't see any proofs or any evidence of stress induction. Gerard Moron is an idiot. Bromikey used to post a lot of his garbage. Totally stupid. I refuse to watch any more of it. Until I see proof from a reputable source or a reproducible demonstration using the scientific method, I don't accept your statement "it has been proven that applying mechanical stress to ferromagnetic materials creates a changing magnetic field, which induces the windings around the core".
bi

[JenkoRun]

Hi,
You say


Please provide link to this proof.
Thanks.
bi

My first exposure to the concept was this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9YsuEeCTqs&t=1381s

Afterwards I asked a contact of mine to run a similar experiment with a MOT to see if the results were reproducible, the oscilloscope was attached to one of the windings and the core was physically struck with a metal rod, each strike to the core produced a measurable Voltage EMF on the scope, ferrite cores showed to be less responsive though that core had vastly different windings and was not suitable as a controlled comparison.

It's highly unlikely the scope or insulated windings around the core were responding to merely the physical vibrations, combined with the TriField Meter only responding in Magnetic mode specifically heavily indicates the measure recorded on the scope was a result of a changing magnetic field.