Motor Generators

[BroMikey]

Improved generator design lowers cogging to near zero by using the
geometry of staggering rotor magnets and gen coils. think about it.

No while claims.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHwrs4jwNfM[/VIDEO]

[BroMikey]

Modified BEDINI from the wizard of FE.

John Bedini's dream was that people would build it like he showed,
then make the changes to other practical applications. Lenz buster
circuit, flywheel and much more.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG6Brdzq9B4[/VIDEO]

[BroMikey]

Standard equations for calculating OVER UNITY that any Engineer
is using. Motor generator efficiency can be determined through the
measurements of mass rotation this weight.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M6EInBlv8A[/VIDEO]

[bistander]

The guy in the video is an idiot

Standard equations for calculating OVER UNITY that any Engineer
is using. Motor generator efficiency can be determined through the
measurements of mass rotation this weight.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M6EInBlv8A[/VIDEO]

Even a freshman engineering student realizes the need to use the pertinent and appropriate equations. It is meaningless to just pull out any old equations from a textbook and punch numbers into a calculator as this fellow in your video has done. A minimum level of understanding physics is needed.

He knows the mass of his rotor. The equation to find force from Mass. F = M * a. Acceleration? Just use the gravitational 9.81 m/s^2. (Which actually just yields the rotor weight). Now he has a force. He multiplies times the radius of the rotor. Bingo. He has a torque number, so he thinks. Find the next equation, power = torque * rotational velocity. Plug in a conversion of RPM to radians/second and he has 1799 watts. That's 2.4 hp. He uses that as output power from his motor to calculate efficiency. Nevermind that nothing is connected to the motor shaft, so motor output power is necessarily zero. Therefore efficiency is zero.

But apparently all it takes to convince you of OU is a video of something rotating and some flashing LEDs.

bi

[Rakarskiy]

You absolutely correctly noticed that there is no load, no torque response. The mechanics of torque can be compared to electric amperes in a conductor. The calculation is made by a guy for potential energy.
This is a massive flywheel, a product and a system of magnets on the rotor flywheel and gear shift levers. In fact, no matter what he pushes, an electromagnet or a lever with a magnet. The main thing is that the magnets melt in a circle, and not closer to the device shaft. So the guy from the video is absolutely right, and he has an understanding.

https://youtu.be/UbWkIKgehLI

https://youtu.be/1bA2OMRcxKo

[bistander]

absolutely NOT right

You absolutely correctly noticed that there is no load, no torque response. The mechanics of torque can be compared to electric amperes in a conductor. The calculation is made by a guy for potential energy.
This is a massive flywheel, a product and a system of magnets on the rotor flywheel and gear shift levers. In fact, no matter what he pushes, an electromagnet or a lever with a magnet. The main thing is that the magnets melt in a circle, and not closer to the device shaft. So the guy from the video is absolutely right, and he has an understanding.

https://youtu.be/UbWkIKgehLI

https://youtu.be/1bA2OMRcxKo

How can you say that guy in that video is right? He uses T = M * g * r for the torque developed by the rotor. Tell me how that is even remotely connected to that equation.

It's possible there is confusion due to similarly of units of torque and energy. This should help.

"The units for torque, as you stated, are Newton-meters. Although this is algebraically the same units as Joules, Joules are generally not appropriate units for torque.

Why not? The simple answer is because

W=F⃗ ⋅d⃗
where W is the work done, F⃗ is the force, d⃗ is the displacement, and ⋅ indicates the dot product. However, torque on the other hand, is defined as the cross product of r⃗ and F⃗ where r⃗ is the radius and F⃗ is the force. Essentially, dot products return scalars and cross products return vectors.

If you think torque is measured in Joules, you might get confused and think it is energy, but it is not energy. It is a rotational analogy of a force.

Per the knowledge of my teachers and past professors, professionals working with this prefer the units for torque to remain N m (Newton meters) to note the distinction between torque and energy.

Fun fact: alternative units for torque are Joules/radian, though not heavily used."

https://physics.stackexchange.com/

And what do the two videos you linked have to do with the bad math guy?

bi

[BroMikey]

How can you say that guy in that video is right?

And what do the two videos you linked have to do with the bad math guy?

bi

You can choose and pick equations tell it is all endless math with no bench
time (You). Your problem? You assume that this man is a stupid fool
because his flywheel numbers don't fit your ideas. I have watched Engineers
disagree on the smallest of conventionally established devices cite
separate math formulas. Each Engineer thinks he is right of course.

This is nothing new. (Boring) What you need to know is that first the man
in the video is not stupid. His way of explaining it may differ from the next
guy is all.

Whenever 2 or 3 people disagree on something that is working due to
speculative conjecture, all of them should agree with the bench results.

Figure out the math for it then.

[BroMikey]

So the guy from the video is absolutely right, and he has an understanding.

Great video showing how flywheel energy multiplication is being pursed.


[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bA2OMRcxKo&feature=youtu.be[/VIDEO]

[Rakarskiy]

The mistake of “bad math” is that he took potential energy as real. In general, the guy is a virtuoso, shows mathematical tricks. In one, he is right that torque is power, not energy. And for a flywheel or a rotor in the form of a flywheel an important component is the radius and the point of application of force. It is this device, American engineers, takes full advantage of what “bad mathematician” means. I calculated the flywheel torque by the parameters of centrifugal force, in one field of values with the classical method, I got a non-linear torque curve, which is more true. You will not be denied that the flywheel has a moment of momentum? So under what conditions will it become positive?

[bistander]

Forces

The mistake of “bad math” is that he took potential energy as real. In general, the guy is a virtuoso, shows mathematical tricks. In one, he is right that torque is power, not energy. And for a flywheel or a rotor in the form of a flywheel an important component is the radius and the point of application of force. It is this device, American engineers, takes full advantage of what “bad mathematician” means. I calculated the flywheel torque by the parameters of centrifugal force, in one field of values with the classical method, I got a non-linear torque curve, which is more true. You will not be denied that the flywheel has a moment of momentum? So under what conditions will it become positive?

Hi Rakarskiy,

Torque is not power. Torque is not energy. Power is not energy.

Torque has nothing to do with centrifugal force, only tangential force.

When it rotates, the flywheel or rotor has angular momentum or moment of momentum as you call it. If the angular velocity is constant, which is the case here, then momentum has nothing to do with output torque or power or efficiency.

Angular momentum (or moment of momentum) is a vector quantity so has direction. Positive? That's for you to decide.

Regards,

bi

[Rakarskiy]

The term Energy is essentially a force in motion.

Energy (ancient Greek -νέργεια - action, activity, strength, power) is a scalar physical quantity that is a single measure of various forms of movement and interaction of matter, a measure of the transition of movement of matter from one form to another. The introduction of the concept of energy is convenient in that if the physical system is closed, then its energy is conserved in this system for a period of time during which the system is closed. This statement is called the law of conservation of energy.
From a fundamental point of view, energy is one of the three (energy, momentum, moment of momentum) of additive integrals of motion (that is, quantities that remain in motion), which, according to Noether’s theorem, is related to time homogeneity.
In physics, mechanical energy describes the sum of the potential and kinetic energies present in the components of a mechanical system. Mechanical energy is the energy associated with the movement of an object or its position, the ability to perform mechanical work; it is the energy of motion and its accompanying interaction.

For example, the formula for kinetic energy.
T = mV^2 / 2 = Iw^2 / 2
Here (m) is the mass of the body, (V) is the velocity of the center of mass, (w) is the angular velocity of the body and (I) is its moment of inertia about the instantaneous axis passing through the center of mass.
Possible designations of kinetic energy: T, Ekin, K and others. In the SI system, it is measured in joules (J).

When the rotational motion requires torque to create the angular acceleration of the object. The amount of torque needed to create angular acceleration depends on the mass distribution of the object. The moment of inertia is the value that describes the distribution. It can be found by integrating over the mass of all parts of the object and their distance to the center of rotation, but you can also search for the moments of inertia for common shapes. Torque on the axis is the product of the moment of inertia and angular acceleration. The unit of torque is Newton - meters (Nm).
[Torque] = [Moment of inertia] x [Angular acceleration]
T = Iw, where T is the torque around a specific axis (N ∙ m); I is the moment of inertia (kg ∙ m 2); w - angular acceleration (radian / s ^2)
Another formula
Torque [T] is the product of force [F] (in Newtons) on the shoulder of force [R] (in meters). In the SI system, it is measured in Newtons per meter (Nm).
T = Fl, where (T) = torque around a certain axis (Nm); (F) = Pressure Force (N); (l) = Arm Length (Meters)

From these components you can find the force that causes the rotation of the object.
Termin energy is nothing more than a commercial concept for describing the action of a Force in motion on a path cut for a certain period of time.

Let's apply this to the concept of the amount of DC electrical energy.
Electrical energy (W) is the product of voltage (Volt) and electric current in the circuit (Apery) over a period of time (hours). If we apply the same formula without a time derivative, we obtain the power parameter (P), where one of the derivatives is the POWER OF CURRENT.
Energy is a derivative with an element of force, you can measure even the designation of lame parrots, but the essence of the concept of energy will not change.

[bistander]

Mechanics

The term Energy is essentially a force in motion.



For example, the formula for kinetic energy.
T = mV^2 / 2 = Iw^2 / 2
Here (m) is the mass of the body, (V) is the velocity of the center of mass, (w) is the angular velocity of the body and (I) is its moment of inertia about the instantaneous axis passing through the center of mass.
Possible designations of kinetic energy: T, Ekin, K and others. In the SI system, it is measured in joules (J).

When the rotational motion requires torque to create the angular acceleration of the object. The amount of torque needed to create angular acceleration depends on the mass distribution of the object. The moment of inertia is the value that describes the distribution. It can be found by integrating over the mass of all parts of the object and their distance to the center of rotation, but you can also search for the moments of inertia for common shapes. Torque on the axis is the product of the moment of inertia and angular acceleration. The unit of torque is Newton - meters (Nm).
[Torque] = [Moment of inertia] x [Angular acceleration]
T = Iw, where T is the torque around a specific axis (N ∙ m); I is the moment of inertia (kg ∙ m 2); w - angular acceleration (radian / s ^2)
Another formula
Torque [T] is the product of force [F] (in Newtons) on the shoulder of force [R] (in meters). In the SI system, it is measured in Newtons per meter (Nm).
T = Fl, where (T) = torque around a certain axis (Nm); (F) = Pressure Force (N); (l) = Arm Length (Meters)

From these components you can find the force that causes the rotation of the object.
Termin energy is nothing more than a commercial concept for describing the action of a Force in motion on a path cut for a certain period of time.

Let's apply this to the concept of the amount of DC electrical energy.
Electrical energy (kW) is the product of voltage (Volt) and electric current in the circuit (Apery) over a period of time (hours). If we apply the same formula without a time derivative, we obtain the power parameter (P), where one of the derivatives is the POWER OF CURRENT.
Energy is a derivative with an element of force, you can measure even the designation of lame parrots, but the essence of the concept of energy will not change.

Much of what you say is true but some is not.

Big thing: torque is not power.

And torque is time derivative of angular momentum, however angular momentum is not necessarily time integral of torque. Case in point: torque can exist without rotation for period of time. Angular momentum is zero at standstill.

You have a mistake where you say "Newtons per meter". Unit for torque is Newton meter (Nm). And do not forget that torque is a vector as is force, so it is necessary to include the angle of force related to radius thru point of rotation. Hence centrifugal force produces zero torque on axis of rotation.

Also, you say "Electrical energy (kW)". Should be kWh.

It appears you have confusion about energy and power. Power is defined as the rate at which work is done or the rate that energy is moved, transferred or converted. So power is the time derivative of energy.

Regards,

bi

[Rakarskiy]

In the summer of 2012, the Russian Superconductor Corporation completed the preparation of experimental documentation and the manufacture of an experimental sample of a high-power and energy-intensive kinetic energy storage (NKE). Upon completion of the fabrication and acceptance tests, full-fledged bench tests of the drive were performed with testing the performance of all its nodes, as well as some basic operating modes. This article describes the achieved results of the tests performed for the cyclic operation of a high-power and energy-intensive kinetic energy storage device created.

Taking into account the conversion losses from electrical to mechanical, and back from mechanical to electrical, the efficiency indicator should be within 0.67 (67%)
If everything is measured in kW, for clarity, we take the value of 1 kW of electrical energy. We accelerate the flywheel and accumulate 0.8 kW of mechanical energy. Next, generate electricity by absorbing mechanical energy, we get 0.67 kW of electrical energy. according to the rules of classical physics. In experience, a different indicator of 0.97 for the production of 0.97 kW of electrical energy, we need to spend 1.16 kW of mechanical. 1.16 -0.8 = 0.36 kW of mechanical energy is unknown from where it appeared, is not it.

http://n-t.ru/tp/ts/ci5a.gif

[bistander]

Relevance?

Hi Rakarskiy,

Please comment on my previous post and how you feel it relates to the subject video which started our exchange. Namely:

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M6EInBlv8A[/VIDEO]

Then explain the relevance of your last post, on the Russian flywheel experiment, to the subject video.

Thanks,

bi

[Rakarskiy]

The fact that I counted, in the video, our "cunning mathematician" did not impress me. I disagree with his calculations. The fact that it takes into account the radius of the flywheel in the calculation is true. Judging because it introduces the force for acceleration of the flywheel, not through the axis, but closer to the circumference line, it is also true (similarly impose the force of the jolt and your American engineers). You argued that the calculation is not true, and there is not any additives. The calculation is really slippery, but the flywheel at certain speeds has a quadratic increase in the energy index. For this, I gave an example conducted under the guidance of Professor Guli (inventor of the super flywheel). My answer satisfied you.