The bistander thread

[bistander]

...
Isn't it interesting that even the "Thane Heinz debunker" proved the statement (in RED above) of bistander incorrect, yet bi continues to spout his nonsense? The debunker demonstrated, as have MANY, MANY, MANY others that coils CAN be built that do NOT increase the load on the prime mover when placed under load.
...

image_23165.png
The load caused a 12 watt increase for the monofilar coil. Test with same load on the bifilar coil caused a 157 watt decrease in power into the motor. The massive open circuit loss of the bifilar coil obscures power input associated with the load test. I've said this was the case many times. It still requires power input (280 watts) to produce output power (10 watts), part of which is to overcome torque from interaction of the coil current with the field flux. Just because the associated power is hidden in the peculiar behavior of the bifilar coil does not make Lorentz, Lenz and me wrong.
bi

[BroMikey]

Turion,



......cogging has some affect, otherwise it would be undetectable.

...... cogging is irrelevant at speed at load. So that if you counteract or minimize, or eliminate cogging, it practically makes no difference in a machine running at a reasonable speed powering a load.

yup that is what you always say. this is an honest quote of yourself and you don't ever understand how that don't make sense in the conversation

[bistander]

I never said that cogging neutralization affected the induction of the coils. Never.

Isn't it interesting that even the "Thane Heinz debunker" proved the statement (in RED above) of bistander incorrect, yet bi continues to spout his nonsense? The debunker demonstrated, as have MANY, MANY, MANY others that coils CAN be built that do NOT increase the load on the prime mover when placed under load.

So bistander WAS wrong, IS wrong, and ALWAYS WILL BE wrong.

Even single stranded coils like the debunker used as the "standard" coil in his comparison can be connected to a load WITHOUT increasing the load on the prime mover if the rotor is turning at the CORRECT frequency for THAT PARTICULAR COIL. Why wasn't THAT shown? I have always said that ANY coil can achieve the neutral operating status at the correct frequency. Tesla style coils just allow it to happen at a LOWER frequency is all.

Now if you choose to USE Tesla wound coils, and run them at the WRONG frequency, they will COST you more (load on the prime mover) to run in an UNLOADED situation than a standard (single strand) coil with the same amount of wire to run at that frequency. But run the Tesla style coil at the CORRECT frequency and compare the load on the prime mover to the load on the prime mover of the standard (single strand coil). SURPRISE!

But I really don't care about that. Want to know why? My coils will ALWAYS be connected to a load as long as the generator is running, and will ALWAYS be run at the correct frequency once the machine is up to speed. So the "extra cost" incurred getting up to speed is well worth the results.

It is also interesting that bistander admitted here that "you can offset cogging" when he has denied that cogging has ANY effect on the prime mover. If there was NO EFFECT on the prime mover, there would be NO cogging. Do you think you can spin the rotor fast enough to outrun the attraction of magnets to cores? Have you read any good physics books lately that show you where that is possible? (At the speeds we are talking about for these kinds of generators) At speed, the physical jerking (known as cogging) smooths out, but the attraction of each and every magnet to each and every core of each and every coil has to be paid for in the increased amp draw of the prime mover. This is a fact. Anyone who has built a larger machine with more than three or four good sized coils can affirm the truth of that statement.

So bistander WAS wrong AGAIN, IS wrong AGAIN, and ALWAYS WILL BE wrong. AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN



By the way, it's "move PAST the coil", not "move pass the coil." (The part in BLUE in what I quoted from you above.)
Since you so enjoy picking out all the little errors in others statements, I thought you would appreciate the assistance with yours.

The generator is supposed to be picked up by tomorrow night from the machinist and I will make arrangements to go get it from my buddy in the next couple days. Tomorrow is not good for me, but Wednesday or Thursday works. I have a piece of equipment that is supposed to be available at a warehouse in the next couple days and I am trying to kill two birds with one trip to the city. Just waiting for phone calls to let me know both items are ready for pickup. Let the fun begin!

Turion,

Please show quote (real source) where I said this.
"he has denied that cogging has ANY effect on the prime mover."

I am fully aware that cogging has some affect, otherwise it would be undetectable. What I've said repeatedly is that cogging is irrelevant at speed at load. So that if you counteract or minimize, or eliminate cogging, it practically makes no difference in a machine running at a reasonable speed powering a load. So what don't you understand about me saying that offsetting cogging which occurs and is most detrimental at lower speed and is practically undetectable at the normal rated generator speed when under load has essentially no effect on the prime mover at rated speed? So you waste your effort and mitigate cogging and it will have effect (mostly at lower speed) but it is my contention that it really doesn't matter when the machine is operating as intended, ie. running at speed supplying power to a load. All you had to do was to run your machine at speed with anticogging scheme adjusted to your desired position, and observe motor current while backing out the anticogging magnet. You would have seen that current does not increase, as you claim, demonstrating cogging is irrelevant at speed. But you refused to run that simple "7th grade experiment.."

But why argue about it now? Show us proof of your claim.

Yes, you caught me. I made a typographic error or spell-check did and I missed it the proof read. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll correct it.

I'll further study your contention that somehow the debunker "proved" me wrong. More on that later.

You said "I never said that cogging neutralization affected the induction of the coils. Never."
I do not recall having said you did. Please refer me to the specific instance where you think I did so.

As far as physics and cogging, it is the torque caused by the attraction of the magnet to the core which is offset over the cycle, approach vs departure from TDC. The attraction between the core and magnet in the axial direction is offset by the rotor structure, otherwise the gap would close to zero and they would touch each other. So attraction at precisely TDC, magnet to core, doesn't affect the torque and needs no "neutralization". The motor loading that you attribute to this axial force attraction at TDC is actually due to core loss. As such, motor load increases with the addition of more cores.

You say "But run the Tesla style coil at the CORRECT frequency and compare the load on the prime mover to the load on the prime mover of the standard (single strand coil). SURPRISE!"

What "SURPRISE"? Show us the test and surprise us.
bi
edit:

Past is the start of a prepositional phrase used as an adverb defining the verb, move. Past is the preposition, and it has an object, topic.

It is easy to confuse the preposition, past, with the past tense of the verb, to pass, which is “passed” because they are homophones. However, to pass indicates the action of going past or around: “We passed the car to get past/around it.”

from Quora

[Turion]

Cogging again

The attraction of the rotor magnet to the iron is cogging. Yes, you can offset cogging. But you, yourself, claiming assistance from Tesla's works, state "which in NO WAY affects the induction caused by the passing magnetic field of the magnet". RIGHT. At last. It (the cogging neutralization) does not affect the induction caused by the passing magnetic field of the magnet. Meaning the passing magnet still induces a voltage on the coil as it moves pass the coil (and core). That is the generated voltage. If a load is connected to the coil, then a current will flow powering the load. This current reacts with the magnetic flux and causes a force or torque in this case which opposes rotation. This opposing torque increases the load on the prime mover.

To Turion and all,

Don't take my word for it, study how generators work from an accredited source, like a textbook, University based website, even Wikipedia.

And I'm not making any incredible claims. Only stating fact from hundreds of years of science.

Regards,

bi

I never said that cogging neutralization affected the induction of the coils. Never.

Isn't it interesting that even the "Thane Heinz debunker" proved the statement (in RED above) of bistander incorrect, yet bi continues to spout his nonsense? The debunker demonstrated, as have MANY, MANY, MANY others that coils CAN be built that do NOT increase the load on the prime mover when placed under load.

So bistander WAS wrong, IS wrong, and ALWAYS WILL BE wrong.

Even single stranded coils like the debunker used as the "standard" coil in his comparison can be connected to a load WITHOUT increasing the load on the prime mover if the rotor is turning at the CORRECT frequency for THAT PARTICULAR COIL. Why wasn't THAT shown? I have always said that ANY coil can achieve the neutral operating status at the correct frequency. Tesla style coils just allow it to happen at a LOWER frequency is all.

Now if you choose to USE Tesla wound coils, and run them at the WRONG frequency, they will COST you more (load on the prime mover) to run in an UNLOADED situation than a standard (single strand) coil with the same amount of wire to run at that frequency. But run the Tesla style coil at the CORRECT frequency and compare the load on the prime mover to the load on the prime mover of the standard (single strand coil). SURPRISE!

But I really don't care about that. Want to know why? My coils will ALWAYS be connected to a load as long as the generator is running, and will ALWAYS be run at the correct frequency once the machine is up to speed. So the "extra cost" incurred getting up to speed is well worth the results.

It is also interesting that bistander admitted here that "you can offset cogging" when he has denied that cogging has ANY effect on the prime mover. If there was NO EFFECT on the prime mover, there would be NO cogging. Do you think you can spin the rotor fast enough to outrun the attraction of magnets to cores? Have you read any good physics books lately that show you where that is possible? (At the speeds we are talking about for these kinds of generators) At speed, the physical jerking (known as cogging) smooths out, but the attraction of each and every magnet to each and every core of each and every coil has to be paid for in the increased amp draw of the prime mover. This is a fact. Anyone who has built a larger machine with more than three or four good sized coils can affirm the truth of that statement.

So bistander WAS wrong AGAIN, IS wrong AGAIN, and ALWAYS WILL BE wrong. AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN



By the way, it's "move PAST the coil", not "move pass the coil." (The part in BLUE in what I quoted from you above.)
Since you so enjoy picking out all the little errors in others statements, I thought you would appreciate the assistance with yours.

The generator is supposed to be picked up by tomorrow night from the machinist and I will make arrangements to go get it from my buddy in the next couple days. Tomorrow is not good for me, but Wednesday or Thursday works. I have a piece of equipment that is supposed to be available at a warehouse in the next couple days and I am trying to kill two birds with one trip to the city. Just waiting for phone calls to let me know both items are ready for pickup. Let the fun begin!

[Tom Booth]

Turion,
If you know the truth, why do you link to four videos of lies?
bi

Maybe it works like an air amplifier.

[BroMikey]

Heard from the machinist. The guy at his shop who was working on the generator has been off for Christmas. He will be back on Monday and should wrap it up in a day or so and then I can go get it. I would think that by the end of next week I can have it together, and then take it in for testing the week after next.

IF all goes according to plan, which never happens.

sounds good and while we wait as seems to a game of waiting you can learn something about the new energy

Bill Alek can help but may go against what you were taught in schools

http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/...105#post508542

[Turion]

Heard from the machinist. The guy at his shop who was working on the generator has been off for Christmas. He will be back on Monday and should wrap it up in a day or so and then I can go get it. I would think that by the end of next week I can have it together, and then take it in for testing the week after next.

IF all goes according to plan, which never happens.

[BroMikey]

“We” will never see the data from my generator. The independent lab will, and I will. YOU can either take their word for the results or build it yourself.

[Turion]

“We” will never see the data from my generator. The independent lab will, and I will. YOU can either take their word for the results or build it yourself. My goal is, and always has been, to make it a self runner. Then data is irrelevant. And the new machine will NOT match the output of the old machine unless I put the old coils in it with iron cores. I have NO intention of doing that just to prove a point to YOU. I have stated that several times now. The new machine will not overheat the coils like the old one did, so that was a sacrifice I was willing to make. What do I care? It is a proof of concept machine only. The previous version did what I claimed it would do and the new one will produce far more output than is input.

[BroMikey]

If you have looked at as many different things as I have, you come to understand that many, many things have SOME truth in them, despite the mistakes and errors. I would not call anyone a liar who put in the time and effort that individual put in, unless he was selling something, which he is not. I would look for the truth in what he shows. What does HE believe and why? There is some truth there, as well as mistakes and incorrect conclusions. Free energy is a puzzle made up of many different parts.

My mistake here is the meter that measures 600 amps of AC. I have one also so it is a true video Dave. Just saying, had to think about it. Here it is, just a common meter. you can get these at homedepot.

So the guys is honest after all

https://www.kleintools.com/catalog/c...nging-600-amps

[bistander]

If you have looked at as many different things as I have, you come to understand that many, many things have SOME truth in them, despite the mistakes and errors. I would not call anyone a liar who put in the time and effort that individual put in, unless he was selling something, which he is not. I would look for the truth in what he shows. What does HE believe and why? There is some truth there, as well as mistakes and incorrect conclusions. Free energy is a puzzle made up of many different parts.

End result. True or untrue. What he says is untrue. It is a lie.

There is no logic for you to believe that you have looked at more things than I have.

Something is true or false. What you believe to be true is irrelevant to the fact that it is true or not. Truth stands on its own regardless of whether you look at it or not, and regardless of what you think.

He says there is several hundreds of amperes. That is a lie. It is false, untrue.

You say you have a generator which outputs 2000 watts of real power using less than 300 watts of input. That is a lie. It is false, untrue.

You say "I would look for the truth in what he shows."
Truth is he is ignorant about the subject and makes untrue claims and statements. He tells lies. I would look for truth elsewhere.

So, who was that guy in the videos? A friend of yours? You might tell him to read the user's manual for his meter, and while he's at it, check the rated maximum voltage. Cheap meters can be a source for high voltage injury.

Please, let's look for truth in data from your generator.
bi

[Turion]

If you have looked at as many different things as I have, you come to understand that many, many things have SOME truth in them, despite the mistakes and errors. I would not call anyone a liar who put in the time and effort that individual put in, unless he was selling something, which he is not. I would look for the truth in what he shows. What does HE believe and why? There is some truth there, as well as mistakes and incorrect conclusions. Free energy is a puzzle made up of many different parts.

[bistander]

... But I know the truth, ...
https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...P7FQSS6OZZzOBg

Turion,
If you know the truth, why do you link to four videos of lies?
bi

[BroMikey]

Well let's put this another way. I know some guys do that so just because the guy Dave posted is a joke doesn't mean it is not possible. I know one guy who tried injecting his golf cart with aetheric energy using torsion fields and had some stuff going and the excess burned out his 400 amp controller (melted like butter) and he was only injecting a few watts. Same as we see with the KAPA/DON SMITH advancements.

Most advanced experimenters will never come forward. The way he put it was that the energy does not come thru the tiny injector circuit but travels on the exterior of the fat wires then shows up at the load where it is needed. This is no hoax.

[BroMikey]

That was a common mistake that everyone overlooked and perpetuated - don smith started the overunity deception stating this was the actual output of the neon transformers. They are actually rated Open voltage and short circuit amperage. This doesn't mean it will produce V*I output. I have several of them I've used in various projects and it actually states this fact on all but a couple of them. There is no overunity there... but you can believe what you want and spend another 10 years parroting the same lie and chasing ghosts ...

cold fusion mumbo jumbo