Motor Generators

[Quantum_well]

Turion, my only criticism is the inability to measure input power, that's it.

[BroMikey]

COP is loosely thrown around......

A COP of 10 billion isn't unity let alone overunity.

But corect me if I am wrong.

Okay then I am glad I heard you say that. So 400w input and 1500w output could be a COP of less than 1? Is that what you are saying? COP 1000 = underunity? Okay great, put your name on it Dragon, good luck with that.

Hey Dragon 12v X 50 amps could be 10,000 watts right? Good luck with that. From here you do not look normal. Plz correct me if I am wrong so I may apologize for me math error's.

[BroMikey]

Mikey, your calculating COP They don't mix... a 100 watt input and a 642 BTU output...... a 1 volt battery in series with a solar panel... not from the battery...

.

This is not a solar panel and there are no trick battery/power sources hiding under the bench.

[Quantum_well]

This is the problem. Screenshot_20210303-192006_Chrome~2.jpg

[Quantum_well]

Make sense of graph. Screenshot_20210303-192634_Chrome~2.jpg

[BroMikey]

Make sense of graph. Screenshot_20210303-192634_Chrome~2.jpg

[QUOTE=Quantum_well;n503719]This is the problem. Screenshot_20210303-192006_Chrome~2.jpg[/QUOTE

This is not a solar collector either, makes no sense to complicate unless evasion is target. Try this crap with your tax return math.

[dragon]

Dragon,
That is the entire point. When additional coils are added, they do NOT change the required input as would happen in a standard setup. And they do not change the input when put under load. Add one more coil, or add 20 more coils, the input is essentially the same.

I don’t know which video you saw where they were scrambling to shut the machine down before they burnt the motor up, but I know I have posted two or three where that happened. There is a window where a particular coil will neither speed up the motor nor slow it down when placed under load. This is true of every coil. If the RPM is too low, the motor will drag down. If the ROM is too high, the prime mover will speed up. If it is just right there is no effect at all on the prime mover and the coil puts out its maximum as a generator coil. O

Turion, I understand what your attempting as well as the methods and logic your using to accomplish it. The claimed outcome is the only thing that is questionable. You can manipulate energy through a circuit... ie raise voltage lower current, lower voltage raise current but the energy circulating thought the system remains the same ( minus losses). The fact remains energy in the system cannot increase without the introduction of an external source. There is no example in nature where this is possible. If there is an instance I'm not aware of please enlighten me so I can research the phenomenon.

[alexelectric]

It is clear that the energy is not obtained from nowhere, but you can review the obstacles that make you lose the generation of energy, already discussed a lot in this forum, you can also review, study and experiment how to reduce these generation obstacles of energy, the latter is where it is practically being experienced, with its advances and setbacks.
I can demand results from other tests, and what? In any case, they refuse the results, the best thing I do is keep experimenting and evaluating the results, the theoretical concepts serve and guide us, but if I don't jump from that circle to see something different, I will not advance in something new.

I read all the positions in favor and find to achieve greater efficiency in the generation of energy, remove, reduce the obstacles, and you will obtain better performance in the generation, as far as you will achieve it, it is interesting to discover it.

try something different, dare to go beyond the rigid postulates (I do not discredit them) but many inventions and advances occurred when investigators did not know that what they wanted was not possible according to what was believed at that time
regards

[BroMikey]

....energy in the system cannot increase without the introduction of an external source. There is no example in nature ......

science does not count the reoccurring magnetic, does not know where it comes from or where it goes. science only measures the resistance loss of the wire. you explain this first

[BroMikey]

https://www.quora.com/Where-do-magne...elds-come-from

Let's ask where all fields come from?

According to classical conception of force, answer is no, because the concept Force belong to Newton era. But relativity and quantum mechanics changed our understanding of force, which is considerable in modern physics.

If we generalize the concept of force (exchange bosons), then answer would be yes and we can define a principle that obeys of the least action principle.

To reach consequent we need to consider that there is two considerable problem in physics that should be solve:

1- Physics has encountered numerous problems and unanswered questions. Physicists are trying to solve the physics problems in the context of modern physics or to think the beyond of the modern physics, while they have not cared classical physics. Some physicists believe that by combining general relativity and quantum mechanics, these problems may be resolved and the unanswered questions will be answered.

In all of these efforts, the classical physic has been ignored, while nature is unique and all physical phenomena, from the microscopic or the macroscopic ones are obeying the same law. Therefore to solve the contemporary physics problems, the basic concepts and relations of physics should be the foundation of classical mechanics which have to be reviewed and analyzed. Then, we have to combine these three theories of classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and relativity in order to reach to a unique physics. Eventually, by answering the unanswered questions, the physics problems will be solved.

2- In quantum electrodynamics (QED) a charged particle emits exchange force particles (discrete amounts of energy

) continuously. This process has no effect on the properties of a charged particle such as its mass and charge. How it is explainable? If a charged particle as a generator has an output known as a virtual photon, then what will be its input?

With a new approach to a pair production and decay (electron – positron), we can get interesting results. Before a pair production, we have a photon and after, we have two fermions (electron and positron) in which each of them have their own electric fields. It means that electron and positron produce discrete amounts of energy by exchanging bosons – virtual photons - that can absorb each other. After a pair decay, electric fields are disappeared along with an electron and a positron. Therefore, it must be generalized the method of production and physical properties of the field from fermions to the structure of photon and vice versa. Also with such an approach, we can recognize the mechanism of electromagnetic interactions, then we can use it to describe strong and weak interactions, and describe the relationship between all fundamental forces.

We have started this article with reconsidering the pair production and decay electron - positron, and define the discrete amounts of energy by exchanging bosons between charged particles such as electron and positron. Other particles also have been observed to experience annihilation with their antimatter counterparts. Some of these processes are more complicated but all of them release radiation and the basic principles involved are the same

.

Then following questions are answered that quantum field theory is unable to answer them, because quantum field theory (QFT) is the mathematical and conceptual framework for contemporary elementary particle physics, regardless to how fermions produce bosons and what the mechanism of exchanging bosons (or transferring the discrete amount of energy

) is.

1- How does a charged particle produce its electric field?

2- What is the amount of energy that is transferring by photons (electromagnetic interaction or exchanging photons)?

3- What is the mechanism of exchanging photons between charged particles?

4- If photon is made of electric and magnetic fields, what are those electric and magnetic fields made of?

Standard model is unable to answer these questions, “Because “It's only a model!” Interpretation of forces between particles as result of exchange of other particles is just a way of mathematically describing it, a successful way, because it lets us calculate the probabilities of various processes and compare the result with experiments, but it is still a model. No one has ever seen such exchanged particle, and it can't be seen by the definition, because it is virtual”. If we replace the force by transferring energy - momentum, all physical interactions are justifiable. Moreover, without using force, we can describe all physical processes and interactions.

It is notable that all photons have common physical properties except the value of energy and in addition to energy are carrying the momentum. To answer the above questions we need to review the relativistic Newton's second law.

The honest approach to three quantities of mass, energy and bosons (carriers of the fundamental forces) and the relation E=mc^2 lead us to conclude that everything is made up of energy. Therefore, understanding the physical nature of energy (photons), is a fundamental requirement in physics. On the other hand, the relationship between energy and frequency of photon shows (in addition the oscillation frequency), the frequency of photon depends on structure of photon.

So to generalize the relation between bosons and energy, we should start with gravity which is the weakest fundamental forces.

The smallest discrete amount of energy

Definition of the smallest discrete amount of energy is very vague and its detection is impossible. This ambiguity is due to reasonable restrictions based on experience, this is not just about physical limitations, even in mathematics we are dealing with some restrictions

. With all limits, behavior of photon in the gravitational field, helps we be able to define the smallest discrete amounts of energy. Consider a photon with energy E=hf is escaping from a strong gravitational field. By reducing the frequency of photon (photon energy reduction), intensity of electric and magnetic field are reduced too and finally, intensity of both the fields reaches to zero and the photon loses all its energy. Final limit for energy of photon before that reaches or tends to zero and still has spin, is equal to the smallest discrete amounts of energy that is given by:

[Turion]

dragon,
This is not rocket science. It is simple and the patents to do this have existed for over 100 years.

I know you understand that you can turn a rotor with magnets on it with a DC motor, and to do that will require a certain amount of watts over time.
Now under current systems, what would it COST you in Watts to put 12 coils around that rotor and run it, with each coil producing 130-140 volts at 1.5-1.7 amps under load? You would, of course, have to have wound the coil correctly to do this, but are you telling me it cannot be done? Of COURSE it can be done. The problem is that the COST of doing it, or the input required to do it is greater than the output. And if you TRIED it with almost any DC motor out there, it would probably burn up from the drag of the magnets going past the cores of the coils and from attempting to overcome Lenz.

So the power output is NOT in question. It is absolutely possible. It did not come by magic. It came from turning that rotor by those coils AT A SPECIFIC RPM. There are means to do that and PROVE that the output is possible. Wind, rushing water over a dam. If you are able to achieve that RPM DESPITE Lenz and DESPITE the drag of the iron cores, the output WOULD be achieved, would it not? It isn't magic. It is sound scientific principles. All I have done is OUTRUN LENZ, and Produce a magnetic field of force that is equal in repulsion to the attraction of the rotor magnets to the cores, thus "neutralizing" them. No input of power is required to do EITHER of these things, unless you consider the magnetic field to be "power," which some do and some do not. Winding a coil that has NO SELF INDUCTION, and thus produces NO LENZ is Tesla's patent. Yes, it is conditional. You must operate at the right frequency for the coil. But again, not rocket science. Magnetic neutralization requires you understand what to do with the magnets and how.

I do not INCREASE the output of the coils by some magic. I only eliminate the impediments to a system putting out the MAXIMUM output for the input. That's it. No "external power" is needed. No magic. Just simple physics.

[Turion]

Oh, and this may be premature. I haven't tested this myself, and I like to SEE things on my bench before I get TOO excited, but my friend who built Black Beauty for me and has the one he built for himself running has been testing core material. He tried those ferrite cores and, as I reported, they were a dismal failure. He tried a steel core, and after 15 minutes he got a blister on his finger just touching it because of the heat. He tried a new core material yesterday and immediately called me. This is ENTIRELY HIS DISCOVERY. He was able to run for 30 minutes and the core was still stone cold. Not only that but he was outputting 200 volts from a SINGLE COIL, not a coil PAIR. He was only running the one coil. He is going to be doing some more work to verify this, and I will be trying it too. Once we feel like it's the real deal, we will share it. He didn't measure the amps, but hopefully that has as much to do with the wire as it does the core material and we will still get 1.4-1.7 amps or higher from a coil pair. Anyway, that's my good news for the day. It was a very UNEXPECTED core material, and CHEAP. Way cheaper than the ferrite we bought or the Permalloy I ordered to test that hasn't arrived yet.

[dragon]

Like I said, I understand what your attempting to accomplish and the means by which you keep repeating over and over again. The fact remains there has been no proof shown to support your theory. As well, the 100 year old patent you refer to has born no proof of such a machine. Thus the skepticism.

[Turion]

When you believe it to be true, it is a theory. When you have built it and watched it run it ceases to be a theory. You are entitled to believe whatever you want. Everyone should be a skeptic and when I see something new and interesting, I do my best to prove or disprove it on the bench.

[Quantum_well]

What we're dealing with are virtual photons. They are not detectable and are contained within a Feynman diagram. It's basically just mathematics and you can't conjure up anything from just numbers.