Motor Generators

[Rakarskiy]

Oh, I don't like to believe blindly, and I check a lot. For example, generation by breaking the magnetic flux (braking) has a greater electromagnetic moment than generation by closing the magnetic flux (acceleration) in the rotor/stator pole pair. The designer theoretically got more (about 200%, and not 1200% declared in the patent application).

For example, a generator without the reaction of engineer Tewari in India, had an efficiency of 238%* recorded on the test bench.

* India Won't Suppress Tewari's Free Energy Generator | Covert Geopolitics .

Robert Holcomb (USA) has a mechanical generator with a motor and claims an efficiency of 400%. (Here, no one is stopping you from checking it yourself, the truth or falsity of these statements).

It is possible to solve the problem of the efficiency of a motor-generator converter only if you have a super-efficient motor or by reducing the electromagnetic moment of the generator itself, without reducing the generated power. That is, if there is a generator with a reduced electromagnetic torque, it can only be solved by compensating for the acceleration and braking of the rotor/stator pole pairs.

There is also pulse energy, which is related to parametric systems.
My screen reading of current, pulse parametric system, flyback principle.
(Battery 12V; yellow color excitation current; blue color reverse generation current; frequency of master oscillator 100 Hz).

Wise Eye OverUnity: Generator of energy on nonlinear inductance (rakatskiy.blogspot.com)
Parametric generation * Generator of energy on nonlinear inductance | Patreon

http://www.energeticforum.com/fileda...ledataid=25985


I don't intend to convince anyone, persuasion is simply a waste of time.

[Rakarskiy]

How is the force of current in a closed circuit formed? A small analysis on the example of solving the problem. I'm sure many people didn't know this. Without precise knowledge of this point you cannot design even an ordinary generator. You will simply make a lot of mistakes and your result will be imperfect.



https://www.patreon.com/posts/112414335?pr=true

[bistander]

How is the force of current in a closed circuit formed? A small analysis on the example of solving the problem. I'm sure many people didn't know this. Without precise knowledge of this point you cannot design even an ordinary generator. You will simply make a lot of mistakes and your result will be imperfect.



https://www.patreon.com/posts/112414335?pr=true

Hi Rakarskiy,

"How is the force of current in a closed circuit formed?"
Obviously the potential difference.


I took time and read your article thoroughly.

In your Wise Eye article EMF, Current, Voltage, Resistance, you say "Ohm's law doesn't say anything about voltage drop, only about voltage or applied voltage." This statement of yours is false. Ohm's Law always applies, including the potential difference across a circuit element, such as "voltage drop."
There are also some other issues with your article on which I'll elaborate.

With your circuit example you say "Provided that the bulbs have a resistance of 15 ohms and the first voltmeter will show 4.5V, which corresponds to the battery voltage, the other two voltmeters will show 2.25V. The current will have a value of 0.15A." That would be 15 ohms for each of the 2 bulbs. So each bulb has a 2.25V drop and 0.15A per Ohm's Law. And now the load resistance for the source (4.5V) is 2R or 30 ohms, so Ohm's Law yields 0.15A, same as the calculation for voltage drop.

You seem to imply an issue here. What is it? Then you abruptly jump to a 220VAC supply and then attempt to insert 0.02 ohm 'r' for a generator resistance. Such a low r value is a correct order of magnitude for a low voltage (4.5 or so) battery but not for a 220V generator, as you run into.

Then you proceed to confuse the (R+r) terminology. This leads to several problems like your "current according to the calculation was 0.425 A, which is (4.545A / 0.425=) 10.6 times less than the required value for the operation of our load (TEN 1 kW)." And "the EMF of the generator phase is equal to 462.7 Volts". Both are erroneous.

Also you miss the fact that the DC voltage resulting from rectified filtered AC is not the same value as the RMS. It is the peak, or 0.707 factor.

Another issue is that you add resistance from two circuits (220VAC vs. ~325VDC) for some calculations, (R + r).

bi

[Rakarskiy]

Hi Rakarskiy,

"How is the force of current in a closed circuit formed?"
Obviously the potential difference.


I took time and read your article thoroughly.

In your Wise Eye article EMF, Current, Voltage, Resistance, you say "Ohm's law doesn't say anything about voltage drop, only about voltage or applied voltage." This statement of yours is false. Ohm's Law always applies, including the potential difference across a circuit element, such as "voltage drop."
There are also some other issues with your article on which I'll elaborate.

*****************

Hi!

You are not the first to try to convince me that I am wrong!
That's why I have supplemented the post with very vivid examples of practical measurements. There are times when a postulate from a physics textbook is perfect, but in real generators it does not work. Such is the paradox of your orthodox physics.
One ‘convincing me’ is confused about what he knows and what he sees, because, all his life he trusted postulates.

Respectfully.

Wise Eye OverUnity | Serge Rakarskiy Independent researcher on overunity systems | Patreon

[bistander]

Hi!

You are not the first to try to convince me that I am wrong!
That's why I have supplemented the post with very vivid examples of practical measurements. There are times when a postulate from a physics textbook is perfect, but in real generators it does not work. Such is the paradox of your orthodox physics.
One ‘convincing me’ is confused about what he knows and what he sees, because, all his life he trusted postulates.

Respectfully.

Wise Eye OverUnity | Serge Rakarskiy Independent researcher on overunity systems | Patreon

Dear Rakarskiy,

You should put your ego aside. Replace your Wise Eye with a Smart Ear. What I tell you results from life and career experience after "orthodox physics" textbook education. Study my criticisms carefully and you'll find reality, no paradox.
bi

[Rakarskiy]

Greetings!

If you can prove to me with an example on a physical generator, then I will accept your argument. But anyway, leave your wishes to yourself.
And then I was already told "that they agree with me, but they cannot declare it, because they will lose their teaching accreditation." It is good that designers and garage masters accept everything that helps them.

Bi.

[bistander]

Greetings!

If you can prove to me with an example on a physical generator, then I will accept your argument. But anyway, leave your wishes to yourself.
And then I was already told "that they agree with me, but they cannot declare it, because they will lose their teaching accreditation." It is good that designers and garage masters accept everything that helps them.

Bi.

Every motor and generator (they're the same) behaves per orthodox physics and none produce Overunity or Free Energy. That is proof.
bi

[Rakarskiy]

Every motor and generator (they're the same) behaves per orthodox physics and none produce Overunity or Free Energy. That is proof.
bi

motore di flynn 12 poli (youtube.com)

[Rakarskiy]

My explanation of what current strength in a closed circuit is, because the orthodox still have electrons and particles running along wires. They also teach this "stuff", defend their doctrines, etc.

Wise Eye OverUnity: CURRENT IN A CLOSED CIRCUIT (rakatskiy-blogspot-com.translate.goog)

166841343.jpg

[bistander]

Rakarskiy,
You write "During the passage of current, there is a continuous loss of charges, more precisely, the neutralization of positive and negative electricity. "
You do believe some strange things. I think you have not learned fundamentals and have serious misconceptions. Then you criticize our science which has proven to be correct and then develop your erroneous theories. And believe in frauds like Holcomb.
I've tried to help you but you continue to ignore truth, logic and fact. I come to an end with you. Please have peer review prior to publishing.
Respectfully,
bi

[Rakarskiy]

This is a quote from a physics textbook for universities published in the Soviet Union in 1977. I have studied this point in different editions. So this is exactly the most academic physics. Who can I get a review from? I'm an independent researcher, which means I don't ask anyone for permission on what to research or how to publish my research. Can you counter anything about the results of my research? I haven't seen any of your scientific or engineering publications. So. "Whose mouth is mooing and whose mouth is silent."

[bistander]

This is a quote from a physics textbook for universities published in the Soviet Union in 1977. I have studied this point in different editions. So this is exactly the most academic physics. Who can I get a review from? I'm an independent researcher, which means I don't ask anyone for permission on what to research or how to publish my research. Can you counter anything about the results of my research? I haven't seen any of your scientific or engineering publications. So. "Whose mouth is mooing and whose mouth is silent."

Rakarskiy,
I offer up helpful criticism, take it or leave it. I usually state "don't believe me; look it up". Which I suggest you do. Re. The Law of Conservation of Charge.
bi

[bistander]

Here's another opinion:

ChatGPT

You said:
"During the passage of current, there is a continuous loss of charges, more precisely, the neutralization of positive and negative electricity." Do you agree with this statement?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The statement is somewhat unclear and can be misleading if taken at face value. Let me break it down:

Continuous loss of charges: This part seems incorrect if referring to electric current in a conductor. In a typical circuit, there isn't a continuous loss of charges (i.e., electrons). Electrons move through the conductor, but they are not "used up" or lost in the process. Current is essentially the flow of electrons (or charge carriers) that move in a closed loop, driven by a potential difference (voltage).

Neutralization of positive and negative electricity: If this is referring to the interaction between positive and negative charges, such as recombination of ions in certain contexts (like in electrolytes or semiconductors), then "neutralization" can happen in that sense. However, in conductors where electrons flow freely, we don’t usually talk about "neutralization" in this manner. The charges in a conductor don't cancel out but instead move under the influence of an electric field.

In typical electrical circuits, charges (electrons) do not disappear or neutralize; they flow in response to the electric field and return to the source, completing the circuit.

So, I would not agree with the statement as written. It might be trying to refer to specific cases like recombination of ions or semiconductors, but not to a general description of electric current in conductors.

[Rakarskiy]

Well, electronic nonsense of modern science. Forum members are trying to sell you this as the truth.
A very fresh video from a master who makes generators and wind turbines in his garage. In the video, the master converted a regular asynchronous motor (1.1 kW) into a synchronous generator with a rotor on permanent magnets. He carried out control measurements of the no-load voltage and under load of 9 - 9.5 Ohms.
Dear defender of electrons, explain where the part of the EMF that was measured at no-load went, and under load it is no longer there.

If you cannot do this in the form of a calculation (at the same time we will check how you can calculate the resistance of an asynchronous motor with a power of 1.1 kW), then I will call you a liar. It was fair.
When I assert something, I cite facts. What is written in textbooks is not a fact, these are different interpretations, as well as the interpretation of the extraneous forces for Ohm's law of a complete circuit.

9B: Electric Current, EMF, and Ohm's Law - Physics LibreTexts

If everything is ok for you, then it is not ok for me, there is no analysis of the electromagnetic generator in the circuit with the load.

I found the most logical interpretation, but still not straightforward. Physicists are afraid of "losing face" in front of other physicists and the shadow government. By the way, it doesn't matter in America, Ukraine or Europe. But I assert my conception on practical examples and logic.

It will be more interesting further on, in fact, this is a prelude.

Генератор с асинхронника 1,1 кВт, почти под ключ. - YouTube

145188291.jpg

Once again, a link to the material, in case someone is interested in the essence of the confrontation.

EMF, CURRENT, VOLTAGE, RESISTANCE. | Patreon

[Rakarskiy]

Що стосується Холкомба, то у нього дуже цікавий дизайн. Я ще не розібрався, як це працює, але це дуже цікаво.

http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/...313#post515313