The bistander thread

[BroMikey]

Take a look at conventional generating. It takes a full grown man to get 150-200 watts without overheating your man the first 5 minutes. Imagion the same bike peddling delivering 5000 watts with less effort. Of course more refinement will be needed but this is the idea. Less work input for more out.

[BroMikey]

[SIZE=18px]The truth is ALWAYS the TRUTH. Whether YOU believe it or not. Just because you don't accept it doesn't make it BS. it just shows how tight the box fits on your head.

Very good Dave Even tho I disagree with your demeanor over the years you are a man full of honesty and faith. here is a boring retake. You are the good force. As for this other force? Well let me say I am laughing in general at the lack of thought process. It is fun to have a good laugh. Especially over folk who claim preeminence?

All those playing catch up, look here.

Remember the delay is measured in degrees. Some many degrees past tdc when the fireworks take place. This is only pt 1 which is a refinement from previous

So in essence he is going over 2 coils used to motor the rotor around in a circle when still getting an assisting effect and the third coil generating. The point here is that whether you put power into these type of coils or take out power the delay does the same thing, the rotor action is assisted.

[bistander]

The truth is ALWAYS the TRUTH. Whether YOU believe it or not. Just because you don't accept it doesn't make it BS. it just shows how tight the box fits on your head.

To quote an electrical engineer for like the tenth time.

It is actually a fact in electrical engineering that any system that uses AC has impedance and the phases of the currents and voltages play a major role. Tesla's coils allow you to have much larger distributed capacitance than winding a normal coil. The advantage of that is that the capacitive reactance and inductive reactance of the coils cancel each other out at a specific frequency without needing to add discrete capacitors. When that situation occurs the magnetic fields of the system cancel each other out and the only losses in a system are ohmic losses. This is what Tesla means by 'no self induction' and this is electrical engineering 101, it is resonance, and the idea that this cannot happen in a motor or generator is not something impossible at all. Engineering the phase of the currents and voltages in a system is done all the time but it is just that the mainstream EE community doesn't investigate it because Lenz's Law is taken.... Well... as a law when in reality it is simply an effect that shows up and doesn't mean it cannot be overcome.

What I mean by 'lenz engineered out ' is the fact that it takes a finite time for lenz to show up. If you have an oscilloscope with high enough bandwidth (100MHz or more) you can see it. Because it takes a finite time to take effect you can use that to your advantage and get a lenz assist. Your not getting rid of the negative sign in the equation you are simply delaying it. It is absolutely about the phase of the currents as you said but im not sure you understand what significance that actually has in this system. Dave has said this repeatedly for years. He has basically given away all the details and specs for it and he didnt have to.

In my research I have determined that if you engineer for a Lenz assist, you get less production as a generator coil, so I have chosen NOT to do that. Apparently you missed all of this in the "years of research" you have done. LOL Ask ANY EE to take a serious look at the ENTIRE post by this EE and let me know what they say. Or YOU can just continue babbling away when you have no idea what you are talking about. But like I said, the TRUTH will ALWAYS be the TRUTH.

I am an EE and have seriously looked at his post, and what you say about it. I understand AC and reactance. I understand Faraday and Lenz. I don't accept that you can magically alter physics to produce more power out of the machine than its input power. What I am saying is nothing more than scientifically accepted fact, called truth by all who are skilled in the science. You claim otherwise. I ask for proof.

Regards,
bi

[Turion]

The truth is ALWAYS the TRUTH. Whether YOU believe it or not. Just because you don't accept it doesn't make it BS. it just shows how tight the box fits on your head.

To quote an electrical engineer for like the tenth time.

It is actually a fact in electrical engineering that any system that uses AC has impedance and the phases of the currents and voltages play a major role. Tesla's coils allow you to have much larger distributed capacitance than winding a normal coil. The advantage of that is that the capacitive reactance and inductive reactance of the coils cancel each other out at a specific frequency without needing to add discrete capacitors. When that situation occurs the magnetic fields of the system cancel each other out and the only losses in a system are ohmic losses. This is what Tesla means by 'no self induction' and this is electrical engineering 101, it is resonance, and the idea that this cannot happen in a motor or generator is not something impossible at all. Engineering the phase of the currents and voltages in a system is done all the time but it is just that the mainstream EE community doesn't investigate it because Lenz's Law is taken.... Well... as a law when in reality it is simply an effect that shows up and doesn't mean it cannot be overcome.

What I mean by 'lenz engineered out ' is the fact that it takes a finite time for lenz to show up. If you have an oscilloscope with high enough bandwidth (100MHz or more) you can see it. Because it takes a finite time to take effect you can use that to your advantage and get a lenz assist. Your not getting rid of the negative sign in the equation you are simply delaying it. It is absolutely about the phase of the currents as you said but im not sure you understand what significance that actually has in this system. Dave has said this repeatedly for years. He has basically given away all the details and specs for it and he didnt have to.

In my research I have determined that if you engineer for a Lenz assist, you get less production as a generator coil, so I have chosen NOT to do that. Apparently you missed all of this in the "years of research" you have done. LOL Ask ANY EE to take a serious look at the ENTIRE post by this EE and let me know what they say. Or YOU can just continue babbling away when you have no idea what you are talking about. But like I said, the TRUTH will ALWAYS be the TRUTH.

[bistander]

bi,
That YOU haven’t done the experiments to prove or disprove what I have claimed about Lenz (which the electrical engineer I quoted supported) while ATTACKING those who have is EXACTLY why I have no respect at all for you. YOU are not the arbiter of what is true or false. BUT, remaining ignorant is your right.

As for Thane. I saw what I believed to be (my opinion) errors in some of his early claims, so have not followed his stuff. As I recall, I was seeing the same thing he was, but his explanation didn’t jibe with my understanding or something Tesla said. I followed Tesla’s patent and his work. I neither support nor deny Thane’s work without testing it in the bench myself. Unlike YOU.

Turion,

But I have done the experiments. Many, many of them over the years of work which I have in the field of energy conversion. I choose not to simply use that as credential. Rather I use logic and established scientific knowledge/information reference in my argument. All my experience supports existing conventional wisdom, knowledge and truth. I feel no need to reprove what is already known to be truth again. I am confident.

It is you who claims fault with that "truth" and therefore burden of proof is on you if you desire to be taken seriously. Refusal to deliver such reduces your stated claims to mere BS.

bi

[Turion]

bi,
That YOU haven’t done the experiments to prove or disprove what I have claimed about Lenz (which the electrical engineer I quoted supported) while ATTACKING those who have is EXACTLY why I have no respect at all for you. YOU are not the arbiter of what is true or false. BUT, remaining ignorant is your right.

As for Thane. I saw what I believed to be (my opinion) errors in some of his early claims, so have not followed his stuff. As I recall, I was seeing the same thing he was, but his explanation didn’t jibe with my understanding or something Tesla said. I followed Tesla’s patent and his work. I neither support nor deny Thane’s work without testing it in the bench myself. Unlike YOU.

[bistander]

Aristotle
Ibn Sīnā
Archimedes (who actually BUILT things to prove some of the theories of Aristotle incorrect)
Gautama Buddha
Galileo Galilei
Isaac Newton
James Clerk Maxwell
Albert Einstein

ALL made contributions to physics along with many others. ALL had theories or beliefs. ALL had things they "KNEW" to be correct later proven incorrect. The more we learn, the more we find we do not really understand. A "Law" that has been proven today may be disproven tomorrow. To lock your mind into a box is to limit its ability to expand. Lens is one of those "Laws" that has been shown to be nothing more than a "reaction" that can be controlled, much as some chemical actions can be controlled to slow down or speed up. Believe it or don't. Is that box on your head too tight?

Turion,

I haven't studied all those listed in detail, but I think those individuals developed theories which later, through the work of the scientific community as a whole, became considered laws. Those theories were, or are, proven using the best evidence and logic available. When such evidence or discovery challenges, and proofs are verified and recognized legitimate by the scientific community, laws can/will be altered or shetcanned. But neither you nor Thane Heins has proven, or even demonstrated in a meaningful way, evidence that what you call "Lenz's Law" is invalid. And I find it especially disconcerting that Mr. Heins has the audacity to promote "Heins' Laws" contradicting established principles and that there are actually people who believe the idiot.

As far as you and your work on "Lenz", you, or anyone, are certainly welcome to develop and promote theories. All I ask is evidence of which I have seen nothing which comes close to being valid. And your arguments are extremely weak. You consistently run from scrutiny and avoid any suggestions for meaningful tests.

Regards,
bi

[dragon]

The laws were created when the theory was proven to be true. It's a wonderful thing to be able to dream and then to bring that dream to reality based on theories... proof on the other hand is where those pesky laws tend to get in the way. We can, however, create "band-aids" to offset certain rules but generally there is a cost. Granted, there is still some wiggle room for new discoveries, again they generally work within the rules of nature.

[Turion]

Aristotle
Ibn Sīnā
Archimedes (who actually BUILT things to prove some of the theories of Aristotle incorrect)
Gautama Buddha
Galileo Galilei
Isaac Newton
James Clerk Maxwell
Albert Einstein

ALL made contributions to physics along with many others. ALL had theories or beliefs. ALL had things they "KNEW" to be correct later proven incorrect. The more we learn, the more we find we do not really understand. A "Law" that has been proven today may be disproven tomorrow. To lock your mind into a box is to limit its ability to expand. Lens is one of those "Laws" that has been shown to be nothing more than a "reaction" that can be controlled, much as some chemical actions can be controlled to slow down or speed up. Believe it or don't. Is that box on your head too tight?

[BroMikey]

So Thane admitted he has been teaching you a falsehood since 2007

Not really, he is showing a more detailed review of the more basic ideas previously. You have to grew babies up slowly. See how he got you thinking that you got him of a barrel when really you are learning how it all works?
Gottcha again dupe

[bistander]

Engineers only, way over the heads even in advanced studies. You have to be crazy to get this

So Thane admitted he has been teaching you a falsehood since 2007 that the current changes direction at TDC, ref. time marker ~8:45 on this new video. In other words, he didn't know what he was talking about then (and still doesn't). I pointed this out last Feb. 11th on this thread. Copy of that post below.

This graphic was chosen by Thane ( likely drawn by him) to use as the premise of the argument which he presents in the video. The red curve represents load current versus rotor position for the conventional coil. As shown in the simple schematic below the graph, load current is same as coil current. His graph depicts maximum coil current at TDC, top dead center or when the rotor magnet is aligned with the center of the coil. This is wrong. When the guy begins with and uses a false premise, his argument falls apart. This is evidenced by his narrative, part of which I transcribed here.

2:56
When the rotor magnet moves past the coil
2:59
Past top dead center, past the current crest
3:06
Now the current flowing in the coil changes direction. The induced magnetic field from the coil turns into a South Pole.
3:19
And the coil resists the rotor magnet departure away from the coil
3:24


He says the current changes direction as it passes TDC. Clearly his graph contradicts this. In fact, his graphs shows nothing but positive current. If it is positive on both sides of TDC, it does not change direction through the coil thereby according to his premise visual aid, the coil does not change polarity.

The video is nonsensical. As are his other videos. In one of the last two posted by BM, Thane claims a battery electric vehicle using his coils will charge its batteries while driving and then discharge its batteries when parked delivering power to your home or workplace.
...

Regards,
bi

[BroMikey]

bro,
It’s designed to work that way. If you screw the “ring” to the hub you have used up the only available bolt holes and cannot attach the pulley. Plus I already have the two pulleys and three of the hubs I ordered (just not the right ones) so I have assembled it already on a different motor shaft. If I had a 3/4 hub for the generator shaft I would just use THAT motor.

Also, the bolt holes in the pulley AND the ring do not quite align with the bolt holes in the hub, so when you tighten the two together the hub is compressed. It has a slot in it and that slot becomes narrower as you tighten it down. Good luck with trying to drill holes through your rotor that are exactly the right angle so that the hub is flat against the rotor when it is fully compressed on the shaft. I wouldn’t want to try that with the tools I have!

I hear ya, I am still formulating. I my case I was thinking of using one as a huh, but whatever is used a person should chuck it all up and then run it in the lathe. I like the 1+" shafts and the hub can have a slit. Unless the rotor is machined to tight fit onto the pulley bushing.

[Turion]

bro,
It’s designed to work that way. If you screw the “ring” to the hub you have used up the only available bolt holes and cannot attach the pulley. Plus I already have the two pulleys and three of the hubs I ordered (just not the right ones) so I have assembled it already on a different motor shaft. If I had a 3/4 hub for the generator shaft I would just use THAT motor.

Also, the bolt holes in the pulley AND the ring do not quite align with the bolt holes in the hub, so when you tighten the two together the hub is compressed. It has a slot in it and that slot becomes narrower as you tighten it down. Good luck with trying to drill holes through your rotor that are exactly the right angle so that the hub is flat against the rotor when it is fully compressed on the shaft. I wouldn’t want to try that with the tools I have!

[BroMikey]

completely understand what's going on Mikey - its about to get real... I have found a way to run a 3 battery " like" system without discharging 2 of the 3 and only using a small amount of energy from the 3rd. When the smoke clears I may start posting more. I stopped sharing anything because of the "guest" counts and I know who is part of the guests.

C'mon man gimme a break, screw those turds makin a mess. I want the goods.

[BroMikey]

bro,
The pulley I am using takes the place of the "ring" you show, and serves the same purpose. As you tighten it to the hub with the bolts, it compresses the hub onto the shaft. That's why I showed the pulleys FIRST. I'm not missing any "pieces" in what I have shown.

Yes yes understood. In my case the rotor can also serve to replace the second ring since mine is ss. If it works (and I'll be the judge of that) use it Lookin over your shoulder is lonely here at the top but what are friends 4?