The bistander thread

[bistander]

“With cores in place and anticogging magnets adjusted, test and record input power to motor at a given speed, say 5000RPM. Next, repeat test with anticogging magnets adjusted all the way out from the rotor, so they have minimal effect. Record input power to the motor for the same speed.”

That is what you requested. The only difference in what I did was to do it with NO neutralization magnets FIRST, and then WITH them second instead of the other way around. With NO magnets in place it took almost 1,000 watts of power to run the motor. With them in place it took about 360 watts. Once again you see what you want to see. HALF of total production of the generator would be eaten up overcoming magnetic drag. The rest would be sacrificed to the god of Lenz. My machine feeds NEITHER, which is why it works.

There you go. Not the same. Big difference in the construction of the two versions involving those anticogging magnets. It just throws too many variables into the mix. To have a valid A vs B comparison test all other variable must be the same. That's the appeal of the new design. You can be tuned to best anticogging, running at speed, no load, and simply back the magnets away from the rotor and see the difference it makes straight away on the input ammeter. What could be easier?

If you run the test which I outlined, according to you, backing the anticogging magnets away from the rotor, making them ineffective, will make the input power to the motor increase, right? I say it won't, in fact I thick it may actually decrease a bit.

Find out if you care about truth.
bi

[Turion]

“With cores in place and anticogging magnets adjusted, test and record input power to motor at a given speed, say 5000RPM. Next, repeat test with anticogging magnets adjusted all the way out from the rotor, so they have minimal effect. Record input power to the motor for the same speed.”

That is what you requested. The only difference in what I did was to do it with NO neutralization magnets FIRST, and then WITH them second instead of the other way around. With NO magnets in place it took almost 1,000 watts of power to run the motor. With them in place it took about 360 watts. Once again you see what you want to see. HALF of total production of the generator would be eaten up overcoming magnetic drag. The rest would be sacrificed to the god of Lenz. My machine feeds NEITHER, which is why it works.

[bistander]

I already DID that test and posted the video, except I did it in REVERSE. I posted a video of the machine with NO coils in place running on 36 volts at 7 amps. Then added coils and showed the amp draw went up. Added more coils and the amp draw went up again. Added more coils and the amp draw exceeded what the power supply could provide which was 13 amps, so we had to run it off batteries. Then put in ALL the coils and the amp draw was in the high 20’s. Adjusted the offsetting magnets and brought the amp draw down to around 12 amps and was able to use the power supply again. All that was on video that was posted. Then Greyland adjusted it even more after I left and was not there to FILM it and brought the amp draw down to between nine and ten.

Those are the facts. I have seen it dozens of times. That you choose not to believe them and continue to argue against them is like listening g to someone give us all the reasons why man will never fly and all the “laws” that prove it will NEVER happen. Good luck with that.

I've said before. It wasn't the same test as I described, by a long shot. Are you afraid to take a few minutes and run a valid A vs B comparison? It sounds like it.

Actually the best method would be to run the test as I described without coils, just the cores. But I assume from what I can tell, you have no easy way to mount cores without coils. So testing with coils and cores will be very telling as long as coils are unloaded in both cases, with and without anticogging.

bi

[Turion]

I already DID that test and posted the video, except I did it in REVERSE. I posted a video of the machine with NO coils in place running on 36 volts at 7 amps. Then added coils and showed the amp draw went up. Added more coils and the amp draw went up again. Added more coils and the amp draw exceeded what the power supply could provide which was 13 amps, so we had to run it off batteries. Then put in ALL the coils and the amp draw was in the high 20’s. Adjusted the offsetting magnets and brought the amp draw down to around 12 amps and was able to use the power supply again. All that was on video that was posted. Then Greyland adjusted it even more after I left and was not there to FILM it and brought the amp draw down to between nine and ten.

Those are the facts. I have seen it dozens of times. That you choose not to believe them and continue to argue against them is like listening g to someone give us all the reasons why man will never fly and all the “laws” that prove it will NEVER happen. Good luck with that.

[bistander]

bi,
You are incorrect in your assessment of how the magnetic forces work in the example you have given. It's THAT simple. But as I said, the truth WILL come out.

Turion,

This one would be easy for you to prove me wrong without showing the main claim test which you've said only goes to Aaron. Once you have your black machine up and running, do the test I suggested without any load. Here's a copy for convenience.

Turion,

You recently posted a video of black beauty's twin running at ~5100 RPM. Very nice and smooth. Meters showed ~100V and ~ 4A, IIRC. I assume these are figures for the input to the drive motor. About 400 watts. I did not see any evidence of electric output from the generator.

Were coils and cores installed? Were the anticogging magnets installed?

Your friend has done an excellent assembly. A relatively easy and simple test can shed light on cogging/core loss if he's up to it.

With cores in place and anticogging magnets adjusted, test and record input power to motor at a given speed, say 5000RPM. Next, repeat test with anticogging magnets adjusted all the way out from the rotor, so they have minimal effect. Record input power to the motor for the same speed.

How about it?

bi

The RPM can be lower, whatever you intend as normal operation, as long as nearly equal for both conditions. This should also provide data for you in your efforts to improve core material..

Regards,
bi

[Turion]

bi,
You are incorrect in your assessment of how the magnetic forces work in the example you have given. It's THAT simple. But as I said, the truth WILL come out.

[BroMikey]

And I didn't use wikipedia but l hope you do. Let me know if you find a reference which contradicts my take.

Regards,
bi

4 Byslammer
https://www.thecomicstrips.com/prope...427f2961d3.jpg

[bistander]

The amount of attraction the rotor magnet has as it approaches the core ABSOLUTELY IS offset by the attraction it has as it is leaving. I agree. I have said so a HUNDRED times. BUT, there is a moment in time when the rotor magnet is perfectly aligned with the core. When it is neither approaching nor leaving. The moment of greatest “magnetic lock.” There is nothing that offsets THIS moment in time. It is physics. Get used to being wrong.

If there were no drag from the cores you could put as many coils (with cores) around a rotor as you want as long as they are not connected to a load and it should not slow the motor down at all or increase it’s amp draw. But it does. Magnetic drag.

The individual who visited Greyland’s shop has no desire to speak with someone he hasn’t vetted. So that is a no go. He did, however, give me an idea for some possible core material. We will see how THAT works out.

You just can’t let it go can you? You have to have the last word.

Thanks for trying

The force between the magnet and core when it is directly opposed is offset by the structure. Just like the brick on the table. The force of gravity pulling the brick downward is offset by the table exerting an equal and opposite force upwards. Newton's law. No power or work involved. So the axial direction force between the magnet and core causes no drag.

The drag comes from the changing magnetic field in the core due to the magnet sweeping across it changing polarity, and or magnitude or direction of the flux. It takes energy to flip the magnetic domains and induce eddy currents. That energy is lost as heat and comes from torque (with rotation) on the shaft... or drag. There is drag on the cores from the moving magnets, I've always told you this and used magnetic brakes/clutches as examples. But as you say, " moment in time" of perfect alignment is a zero time event. Study calculus about infinitesimals. No duration. No movement. No work. No power. No drag. It has to move from that perfect alignment for the drag to start, then it's leaving that position and work done is equal and opposite to the infinitesimal work done on approach.

And I didn't use wikipedia but l hope you do. Let me know if you find a reference which contradicts my take.

Regards,
bi

[Turion]

The amount of attraction the rotor magnet has as it approaches the core ABSOLUTELY IS offset by the attraction it has as it is leaving. I agree. I have said so a HUNDRED times. BUT, there is a moment in time when the rotor magnet is perfectly aligned with the core. When it is neither approaching nor leaving. The moment of greatest “magnetic lock.” There is nothing that offsets THIS moment in time. It is physics. Get used to being wrong.

If there were no drag from the cores you could put as many coils (with cores) around a rotor as you want as long as they are not connected to a load and it should not slow the motor down at all or increase it’s amp draw. But it does. Magnetic drag.

The individual who visited Greyland’s shop has no desire to speak with someone he hasn’t vetted. So that is a no go. He did, however, give me an idea for some possible core material. We will see how THAT works out.

You just can’t let it go can you? You have to have the last word.

[bistander]

Your little diatribe was all addressed by the EE in his post, which you ignored and have never responded to OR refuted. Nice try though. Got any more Wikipedia articles you want to post or passages from books that don’t take into consideration anything he said? We can hardly wait for you to once again put on display your total lack of understanding of basic physics.

As stated, I HAVE done the load test several times. So you lose that one too.



The truth will come out. But you can’t let it go. You have to have the last word. But you go ahead. I will let my work speak for me from now on. Look forward to talking after the conference. I WILL email the individual who went to Greyland's shop. I din't think he is active on the forum, just comes here to see what's up

Edit: eMail sent
.

Thanks for the possible contact.

Even when I compose my own original response you accuse me of plagiarizing wikipedia. But I always give credit where credit is due. This time I couldn't type those equations and diagrams and I admit that I am rusty on them. The point is that added capacitive reactance from the bifilar coil alters the armature reaction reactance and that affects the torque as illustrated in the phasor diagrams. You can find other articles and texts which have the equations. One can see from those, even if the capacitive reactance equals the coil's inductive reactance, the torque never goes to zero under load. Maybe you missed that.

And:

...

2. I have defined magnetic drag many times, including in the post above. It is the interaction between the core material and the rotor magnet. The PHYSICAL (mechanical) jerking that goes away at speed is defined by the textbook as "cogging" but the attraction of the magnet to the core NEVER goes away, as I have stated, and increases with each coil added. Hence "magnetic drag". I have said this many times. You know it. You avoid it because it proves you WRONG. ...

..:

The "attraction of the magnet to the core" is cogging, or what causes cogging. That attraction never goes away. I've said that. The force is still there pulling the magnet towards the steel. Your magnetic neutralization doesn't change that. It only adds an opposing force to hide or counterbalance the attractive force. But the attractive force acting in the axial direction is countered by mechanical stiffness of the structure. The attractive force components in the radial direction should be nil if the magnets and cores are aligned on the same radius. The tangential attractive forces offset each other on approach and departure over the rotation cycle. This adds up to zero torque, or no drag. Cogging is not a loss mechanism. Magnetic drag is. If you had a ring magnet and a ring core, same dimensions, separated by a small gap, rotating relative to each other, there would be force pulling them together offset by a structure, no cogging (smooth rotation) but there would be magnetic drag (torque opposing rotation), mechanical power required input to shaft and losses (heat) in the steel core.*

Regards,
bi
edit*
Such devices are used as brakes and clutches.

[Turion]

Your little diatribe was all addressed by the EE in his post, which you ignored and have never responded to OR refuted. Nice try though. Got any more Wikipedia articles you want to post or passages from books that don’t take into consideration anything he said? We can hardly wait for you to once again put on display your total lack of understanding of basic physics.

As stated, I HAVE done the load test several times. So you lose that one too.



The truth will come out. But you can’t let it go. You have to have the last word. But you go ahead. I will let my work speak for me from now on. Look forward to talking after the conference. I WILL email the individual who went to Greyland's shop. I din't think he is active on the forum, just comes here to see what's up

Edit: eMail sent
.

[bistander]

1. What have you refuted? That Lenz can be engineered around? ...

Back to this. I first replied, way back when, to your Lenz scheme that you didn't really understand Lenz therefore it'd be difficult to discuss. In engineering, Lenz isn't even mentioned in the analysis because it deals with vectors and phasor equations. Sorry, but I don't know how to explain it to you. But if you can understand this article, you might get a feel for it.

Armature Reaction Reactance - Synchronous Generators

Armature reaction refers to the influence of the armature flux on the field flux in the air gap when the stator windings are connected across a load.

If F_f is the field mmf in the generator under no load, then the generated voltage E_g must lag F_f by 90^o. Per phase armature current I_a produces armature mmf F_a which is in phase with I_a . The effective mmf is F_r.

{continues with diagrams, see:
http://www.brainkart.com/article/Arm...erators_12194/ }

Also note the use of the term 'armature reaction' is quite different from Thane's definition.

And the irrelevance of cogging, magnetic neutralization, speed-up-under-load will become clear once you've completed the load output/input test.

Regards,
bi

[bistander]

If you actually believe all it takes to be a man is proving something to you, you really don’t set the bar very high. I certainly have no desire to be that kind of “man” so I will pass, thank you.

You say Magnetic neutralization, anticogging and speedup under load are all irrelevant related to power production. That’s so stupid it isn’t worth my time responding to. But then, neither are you, and I have things to do today.

The truth will come out. That’s all that matters. I will contact the individual who came to Greyland’s shop and see if he is willing to talk to you. Arguing with you is just a waste of time. You will never get it.

Thanks. Ask him to send me a PM. I'll keep it all confidential between him and myself.

bi

[Turion]

If you actually believe all it takes to be a man is proving something to you, you really don’t set the bar very high. I certainly have no desire to be that kind of “man” so I will pass, thank you.

You say Magnetic neutralization, anticogging and speedup under load are all irrelevant related to power production. That’s so stupid it isn’t worth my time responding to. But then, neither are you, and I have things to do today.

The truth will come out. That’s all that matters. I will contact the individual who came to Greyland’s shop and see if he is willing to talk to you. Arguing with you is just a waste of time. You will never get it.

[bistander]

"You're Wrong" is the only response you have? NO proof? No SCIENCE? No PHYSICS? Just your opinion? Every time you are shown to be incorrect you ignore it and move on to something else. PATHETIC. What's wrong? Aren't they paying you enough to spend the time to try to discredit me with actual FACTS rather than just your opinion?



By the way, I have already done EXACTLY as you ask a NUMBER of times. Where do you think I got the numbers I have claimed in the first place? Off a cereal box?
They came from the testing of the very FIRST version of the machine that used magnetic neutralization, which was even BEFORE the one that Greyland has now. Just because YOU haven't seen the testing doesn't mean it wasn't done. And it was also tested at an independent lab. However, as I have said, they measured the input and the output to several coils, and while ALL the lights were lit up, they did not have enough meters to test AC voltage and amperage on six different sets of coils AT THE SAME TIME. So, even though each coil was measured separately, not all coils were measured at the exact same time. So they would not verify total production of the machine. Otherwise I would happily give you THOSE results and suggest where you can store them. Later versions of the machine have more than six magnets on the rotor and better magnetic neutralization, so the results may be better. And the NEW machine has 22 magnets on the rotor instead of six, but only 10 coils instead of 12, so I will have to see what happens with it. Once Greyland has everything working, the folks from the lab are going to come to his shop and test the machine again. Why? Because they are INTERESTED. He doesn't even have to take it to the lab this time. He does work for them all the time, so has a really good relationship with them.

Anyone who wants to stop by Greyland's shop and actually see the machine run and take their own measurements, I can give you the address. It is in Santa Clara, CA. ONE person from the forum has already DONE that. He saw magnetic neutralization working first hand and is incorporating it into the machine HE has built. I believe I posted a picture of that machine which required a motor on BOTH ENDS just to overcome magnetic drag. He already HAD coils that were neutral, but needed TWO motors to overcome something bi says doesn't even exist. Want to ask HIM if it exists bi? Want to ask HIM if it works? You say NO ONE has replicated my machine. It isn't the machine that is important, it is the principles, and people HAVE applied them to their builds. I know, because I hear from them all the time. And THAT is why you won't win. You cannot hide the truth once it is out there, and that bird has flown.

I like to quote your posts as it protects them from deletion as you tend to do at times.

I've never seen a post from you showing the generator driven from both ends. Please provide the link.

I don't know where you got the claimed 2kw output / 300 w input figure except as you've said using the 6x multiplyer which is invalid. That's why I've been asking for proof of that claim.

Magnetic neutralization, anticogging and speedup under load are all irrelevant related to power production. I've given my reasons and arguments many times about that. Really all that's left is for you to man-up and prove your extraordinary claim of 2kw out/300w in. Please do have it witnessed and documented.

Want to ask HIM if it exists bi? Want to ask HIM if it works?

Yes, thank you, I'd like to talk with him.

I notice you continue to misquote me or state I've said/claimed things which I never have.

but needed TWO motors to overcome something bi says doesn't even exist.

Show me where I said "something" doesn't exist.

You just make stuff up and throw it out here. You see things which are not real. Reasons why proof is needed to take your claims and statements seriously.

Regards,
bi