The bistander thread

[bistander]

Hi Turion,
Thanks for sharing the report. Just a few quick comments and questions.

Did you verify the frequency / RPM ratio?

I don't care 24V or 36V input to the motor. What is needed is the exact measured voltage and current at the motor input for each data point. With the DC motor, that will give the exact input power in watts.

I don't care about light bulbs. What is needed is the measured total output real power in watts. Since the generator output is AC, the real power in watts requires measurement of RMS voltage, RMS current and PF (Power Factor or phase angle of current to voltage). If you're anywhere near 60Hz sinewave, a killawatt meter gives all this info for about $25 instrument. It should be verified with a scope. Option would be to rectify the output to DC and measure average volts and amps at the load. You only drop about 2V for a FWBR. Of course input and output must be measured simultaneously.

That's all that is needed. Input power and output real power in watts.

Nameplate ratings, like "300W" bulb, mean nothing. 12V battery means nothing. Proof needs actual measurements.

Regards,

bi

[Turion]

Screen Shot 2020-01-09 at 10.17.17 AM.png
Orion,

You have to think of the opposing magnets on the rotor and stator in combination with the GENERATOR rotor magnets and the coils. All opposing magnets on the rotor are north face out, and the opposition magnets on the stator are north face out.
The GENERATOR magnets on the rotor are N/S/N/S. As the rotor GENERATOR magnet is attracted to the coil core on the way toward TDC, the opposition magnet on the rotor is in opposition to a magnet on the stator that cancels this attraction out. Neutral
As the GENERATOR magnet wants to pull back toward the core after TDC, the opposition magnet wants to push away from the same pole opposition magnet on the stator. Once again, Neutral.
It DOESN'T give you gains, it just gives you a freewheeling rotor. It only works BECAUSE you have outrun Lenz, and there is still that attraction of the rotor magnets to the core as it approaches the core, and then a pull back toward the core as it moves past.

If I try to run my generator with 12 coils on it and 12 magnets on the rotor WITHOUT the opposition magnets in place, the motor will burn up EVERY TIME. The magnetic drag EVEN AT SPEED costs a whole lot of amp draw. On Monday, the motor was drawing 29 amps because my machinist had disengaged half of my adjustable opposition magnets doing what he thought was a better job. It wasn't. Now bi says there is no cogging at speed so this is worthless, but there IS cogging at speed. It is just so FAST that it is not visible. It happens so fast that the operation of the motor seems SMOOTH so everyone ignores it. Not a problem. But they are turning their generators with diesel motors or wind or falling water and they can handle a little extra energy required to turn the generator. I CAN'T! I'm trying to turn this big generator with a small electric motor and I need every advantage I can get. I call it magnetic drag. The attraction of the rotor GENERATOR magnet to the core on approach = (cancels out) the attraction of the rotor GENERATOR magnet to the core as it is trying to move away. It speeds up on the way in and slows down as it leaves. But there is a split second in time when the two are perfectly aligned when the rotor magnet is neither approaching nor leaving, and it is THIS moment that causes "cogging" and THIS moment is when the opposition magnets are perfectly aligned with each other and cancel out "cogging" or magnetic drag. If the speed up on the way in was equal to the slow down as the rotor magnet leaves, there would be NO cogging. or at least it wouldn't be as DRAMATIC as it is at low RPM. It is a FACT which I can easily demonstrate when I take videos of the machine running. Despite what anyone says, this saves a TREMENDOUS amount of amps and keeps my motors from burning up. It is a CRITICAL factor in the success of this build. Probably why Werjefelt patented the idea YEARS ago, and it is now in the public domain.

[jettis]

Page six: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/archive...N/N199503s.PDF

[Turion]

bi,
Accurate measurement is why we wanted to run this off a power supply for testing. It gives us constant voltage and if we pull over about 15 amps, the power supply will shut down, which also lets us know something is wonky. I included the fact that it lit up six 300 watt bulbs NOT to indicate output which I stated I did not measure, but to show that under load it seemed to draw NO MORE AMPS through the motor, nor did the RPM of the motor go up or down. Granted, this was a visual and and auditory estimate ONLY, not a measurement. But the fact that the motor SEEMED to be unaffected is a fairly good sign that the amp draw will not go up WHEN I TEST IT. At least it didn't go above 15 amps, or the power supply would have shut down. I'll get there

[altrez]

bi,
Accurate measurement is why we wanted to run this off a power supply for testing. It gives us constant voltage and if we pull over about 15 amps, the power supply will shut down, which also lets us know something is wonky. I included the fact that it lit up six 300 watt bulbs NOT to indicate output which I stated I did not measure, but to show that under load it seemed to draw NO MORE AMPS through the motor, nor did the RPM of the motor go up or down. Granted, this was a visual and and auditory estimate ONLY, not a measurement. But the fact that the motor SEEMED to be unaffected is a fairly good sign that the amp draw will not go up WHEN I TEST IT. At least it didn't go above 15 amps, or the power supply would have shut down. I'll get there

Dave,

Awesome work so far! Thank you for posting all the detailed explanations you have shared. Using a detected power supply is a great way to see if you are staying under 15 amps. Might I suggest you run a load tester on the power supply to see the true cut off point? Then you will be 100 percent certain that it is really shutting off at 15 amps and not 17.2 or something. Also putting a digital logging amp meter on the rail coming from the power supply to your device is a good thing to do. Another great thing to add is a Killawatt meter where you plug the power supply into the wall power. So at that point you have these 3 data points that provides some very good information to have when calculating total power output.

-Altrez

[OrionLightShip]

Screen Shot 2020-01-09 at 10.17.17 AM.png
Probably why Werjefelt patented the idea YEARS ago, and it is now in the public domain.

Thanks for the reply.... I downloaded his patent and I'll give it a hard look tonight.
Orion

[Turion]

Hi Turion,



So his credentials don't matter, but you're so hung up on mine?



Looks like he and I agree on this point. How does the phase difference of the current affect the power? Be sure to measure that.




You're kidding? Delay the negative sign. Now that is a trick.

Notice your vs you're? We all goof sometimes.

But enough already. Good luck with the test.

bi

You are implying, by including the statements after the formula in a post responding to me, that I made that statement. I don't believe I did. It my have been Bro Mikey or someone else, but it was not me. So you're right, we all goof sometimes.

[bistander]

You are implying, by including the statements after the formula in a post responding to me, that I made that statement. I don't believe I did. It my have been Bro Mikey or someone else, but it was not me. So you're right, we all goof sometimes.

What? You're the one who quoted NROC. And how often do you refer to delayed Lenz? In fact, NROC writes a few sentences later "Dave has said this repeatedly for years." I wasn't implying that you said (wrote) that. In fact, I quoted NROC. He claims you've said that repeatedly for years. You're both wrong.

Regards,

bi

[bistander]

Thanks for the reply.... I downloaded his patent and I'll give it a hard look tonight.
Orion

Hi Orion,
I'm interested in your take on what this guy writes. Like high temperature superconductivity and negative absolute temperature along with atomic physics and magnetic Carnot cycle. Throw in a mix of confusing or erroneous numbers and symbols in poor attempts to explain those drawings, it's a real chore to read. Wonder why it has never been commercialized or even replicated in 25 years?

Regards,
bi

[Turion]

I did quote NROC. But show me where I stated "Delay the negative sign." Never said it. Isn't that the way you work? In fact you accuse ME in that statement of misspelling a word. Don't you? Yeah, I thought so. I may have made a statement about Lenz, but I never said "Delay the negative sign now did I? As for us both being wrong, we'll see, won't we? And I agree, Lenz is NOT delayed. It happens just exactly as it should according to the formula. The thing is, if you speed up the rotor to ten times the speed it is running at, does that make the core of the coil absorb the flux faster than it is capable of? No, it does not. The rate at which different core materials can absorb the magnetic flux is FIXED. Simply by speeding up the rotor you can "outrun" the resulting reaction that takes place as the rotor magnet approaches the coil. Why is THAT so hard for you to understand? It's just physics. You've heard of that, haven't you?

[OrionLightShip]

Hi Orion,
I'm interested in your take on what this guy writes. Like high temperature superconductivity and negative absolute temperature along with atomic physics and magnetic Carnot cycle. Throw in a mix of confusing or erroneous numbers and symbols in poor attempts to explain those drawings, it's a real chore to read. Wonder why it has never been commercialized or even replicated in 25 years?

Regards,
bi

Which guy bi? NROC? Don't know who that is or where I can find his writings, lol.... I haven't been here for years so trying to catch up..... point the way or writings and I will call BS where I see it and I'm sure there is plenty enough of that to go around where there are claims with no proof.

[bistander]

I did quote NROC. But show me where I stated "Delay the negative sign." Never said it. Isn't that the way you work? In fact you accuse ME in that statement of misspelling a word. Don't you? Yeah, I thought so. I may have made a statement about Lenz, but I never said "Delay the negative sign now did I? As for us both being wrong, we'll see, won't we? And I agree, Lenz is NOT delayed. It happens just exactly as it should according to the formula. The thing is, if you speed up the rotor to ten times the speed it is running at, does that make the core of the coil absorb the flux faster than it is capable of? No, it does not. The rate at which different core materials can absorb the magnetic flux is FIXED. Simply by speeding up the rotor you can "outrun" the resulting reaction that takes place as the rotor magnet approaches the coil. Why is THAT so hard for you to understand? It's just physics. You've heard of that, haven't you?

Turion,
You included NROC's quote. He's the one who claimed you said it, not me. And I never said you goofed using your instead of you're, NROC made that goof. I said we all goof sometimes referring to grammar, typos, etc. I've noticed many times where you've done it. But why did you point out my goof last week? Waist vs waste. Thanks, I'll try to be more careful using the word.

It would appear this Lenz delay issue is between you and NROC.

The rate at which different core materials can absorb the magnetic flux is FIXED. Simply by speeding up the rotor you can "outrun" the resulting reaction that takes place as the rotor magnet approaches the coil. Why is THAT so hard for you to understand?

It is not hard to understand. It is simply wrong.

But why argue now? Just continue work on proving your claim.

Regards,
bi

[OrionLightShip]

Hi Orion,
I'm interested in your take on what this guy writes. Like high temperature superconductivity and negative absolute temperature along with atomic physics and magnetic Carnot cycle. Throw in a mix of confusing or erroneous numbers and symbols in poor attempts to explain those drawings, it's a real chore to read. Wonder why it has never been commercialized or even replicated in 25 years?

Regards,
bi

Oh, I see now....started digging into the patent.... looks like gobbledy goop to me but there's a lot of it..... this will take me a while.

[bistander]

Which guy bi? NROC? Don't know who that is or where I can find his writings, lol.... I haven't been here for years so trying to catch up..... point the way or writings and I will call BS where I see it and I'm sure there is plenty enough of that to go around where there are claims with no proof.

Sorry. The guy(s) in the link posted.

Jeanne Manning
and
BERTIL WERJEFELT

The article you said you'd take a good look at tonight.

Regards,
bi

[bistander]

Oh, I see now....started digging into the patent.... looks like gobbledy goop to me but there's a lot of it..... this will take me a while.

There ya go. I've been through it 3 or 4 times. What a waste.

bi