The bistander thread

[Turion]

Wrong again bi. As usual. I have have built 16 versions of my generator, each one better than the one before. Currently I have three different versions. One is at my machinists, but the other two are in my shop and I am putting them back together. And my ORIGINAL machine was a 2 coil machine based on the two coil machine Matt built FIRST. Which I have stated many times.

bi, in your examples of “load” you are discussing what happens when a machine is ALREADY moving at speed. When you are attempting to start it from a standing position are you saying NO additional amps are required? No, because we both know that would be a lie. And when the load is larger, even MORE amps are required to get it up to speed. You always choose a little part of something where you believe you can win the argument rather than looking at the whole picture where the facts and plain simple logic do you in.

If you ever actually BUILT anything you would know exactly what I am talking about Addis’s every builder out there.

[bistander]

Wrong again bi. As usual. I have have built 16 versions of my generator, each one better than the one before. Currently I have three different versions. One is at my machinists, but the other two are in my shop and I am putting them back together. And my ORIGINAL machine was a 2 coil machine based on the two coil machine Matt built FIRST. Which I have stated many times.

bi, in your examples of “load” you are discussing what happens when a machine is ALREADY moving at speed. When you are attempting to start it from a standing position are you saying NO additional amps are required? No, because we both know that would be a lie. And when the load is larger, even MORE amps are required to get it up to speed. You always choose a little part of something where you believe you can win the argument rather than looking at the whole picture where the facts and plain simple logic do you in.

If you ever actually BUILT anything you would know exactly what I am talking about Addis’s every builder out there.

Turion,
I've built plenty of electrical machines and systems. And for as long as I've been following your work, about 5 years, not you or Matt, or anybody else has shown and given results of the device you claim did 300 in / 2000 out. You show a lot of parts and talk about it, but have never shown a working model or replication.

And I've always qualified, as Newton does, that the body (mass) is at a constant speed. Isn't that where generators do their job? Sure, you have to accelerate it once and that does depend on mass, F=Ma, but for a free energy machine like yours, why would you ever turn it off? Maybe once a year for maintenance. So why talk about anything but running at operational speed?

I hope you do replicate it. I really want you to face reality. And here's a thought. Ask that motor company to help you test it.

Regards,
bi

[Turion]

So if you have to accelerate it, and that depends on mass, it DOES cost you more amps, just as I have said. So once again you are wrong.

And if you change to a bigger rotor, which is exactly what I was talking about, and you have to accelerate it, it costs you more amps than the smaller rotor. THAT was what I was talking about.

The REAL question here is that when two rotors of different size and therefore different weight have accelerated to speed, are turned by identical motors, and are not acted upon by outside forces, is there a greater cost to maintain the rotation of the larger rotor. I maintain that there is. You claim there is not. You quote Newton to back your claim. There is a greater RESISTANCE from the larger rotor so it WILL draw more amps. Just as I said. You are just a waste of my time.

[bistander]

So if you have to accelerate it, and that depends on mass, it DOES cost you more amps, just as I have said. So once again you are wrong.

Show me where I claimed it didn't take more to accelerate the heavier rotor? I never did.

And if you change to a bigger rotor, which is exactly what I was talking about, and you have to accelerate it, it costs you more amps than the smaller rotor. THAT was what I was talking about.

But that is not what you said.

The REAL question here is that when two rotors of different size and therefore different weight have accelerated to speed, are turned by identical motors, and are not acted upon by outside forces, is there a greater cost to maintain the rotation of the larger rotor. I maintain that there is. You claim there is not. You quote Newton to back your claim. There is a greater RESISTANCE from the larger rotor so it WILL draw more amps. Just as I said. You are just a waste of my time.

You said heavier, not larger.

[bistander]

Turion,
This issue about acceleration is irrelevant to operation of the generator in the expected application that is a constant source of power for a household or such. It is much like your magnetic neutralization and speed-up with load which are also irrelevant to operation. That's why I try not to argue about those because they don't matter. I was just trying to correct a false statement you made hoping you'd learn something from me, or Sir Newton.

Regards,
bi

[Turion]

Acceleration isn’t irrelevant. You don’t get to pick and choose which part of the operation of the generator you want to pay for. To run a generator you must pay for its operation from the moment you turn it on when it is at a dead stop. I said the heavier rotor draws more amps. It does. That is a fact. It costs more amps to get it up to speed. Now you can babble all day long and you can quote whoever you want, but you cannot change the facts. And I really can’t learn anything from someone who doesn’t know what he is talking about. And the constant amp draw of maintaining a heavier rotor at constant speed is greater than the constant amp draw of maintaining a lighter rotor at constant speed. The more load you put on a motor the more work needs to be done, the more you need to increase the Power to do that work. Since P=IxE (or power equals current times voltage) you need to increase something on the other side of the equation to make it true. If P goes up then either I (current) or E (Voltage) needs to increase as well. Usually you can't increase the voltage so the only thing that fluctuates will be the current. Motors are only rated for a certain horsepower, which really means a certain voltage/current combination. The hp of a motor is not a rating of how much mechanical power it can produce, it is a measure of how much heat it can shed. A 1 hp motor can turn a 3 hp load for a limited amount of time. A motor is very similar to a fuse. A 100 amp fuse will allow 100 amps through, but it will also allow 150 amps through for a certain amount of time before it will overheat and burn the element in half. A 100 hp motor will handle a 150 hp load for a certain amount of time before it overheats. For the LAST time, increased weight of the rotor is an increase in resistance to turning or increased LOAD on the motor. Come back when you have done your research and know what you’re talking about.

[bistander]

Acceleration isn’t irrelevant. You don’t get to pick and choose which part of the operation of the generator you want to pay for. To run a generator you must pay for its operation from the moment you turn it on when it is at a dead stop. I said the heavier rotor draws more amps. It does. That is a fact. It costs more amps to get it up to speed. Now you can babble all day long and you can quote whoever you want, but you cannot change the facts. And I really can’t learn anything from someone who doesn’t know what he is talking about. And the constant amp draw of maintaining a heavier rotor at constant speed is greater than the constant amp draw of maintaining a lighter rotor at constant speed. The more load you put on a motor the more work needs to be done, the more you need to increase the Power to do that work. Since P=IxE (or power equals current times voltage) you need to increase something on the other side of the equation to make it true. If P goes up then either I (current) or E (Voltage) needs to increase as well. Usually you can't increase the voltage so the only thing that fluctuates will be the current. Motors are only rated for a certain horsepower, which really means a certain voltage/current combination. The hp of a motor is not a rating of how much mechanical power it can produce, it is a measure of how much heat it can shed. A 1 hp motor can turn a 3 hp load for a limited amount of time. A motor is very similar to a fuse. A 100 amp fuse will allow 100 amps through, but it will also allow 150 amps through for a certain amount of time before it will overheat and burn the element in half. A 100 hp motor will handle a 150 hp load for a certain amount of time before it overheats. For the LAST time, increased weight of the rotor is an increase in resistance to turning or increased LOAD on the motor. Come back when you have done your research and know what you’re talking about.

Hi Turion,
you still think you're smarter than Newton. Pity. You should respect our heros of science and learn from them.

It's been a month now since you were spending a day to test your device. Good luck on your next attempt.

BTW, I do realize the difference between weight and mass. However these quantities are pretty much universally considered equivalent on the surface of the Earth though a simple conversion factor of 2.2 pounds per kilogram.

Regards,
bi

[Turion]

In other words, you’re wrong. I’ve proved it. And as usual, you are incapable of admitting it. So you try to change the topic. As usual.

[bistander]

In other words, you’re wrong. I’ve proved it. And as usual, you are incapable of admitting it. So you try to change the topic. As usual.

What? What was I wrong about? What do you think you proved?

[bistander]

Here look at what Thane has been saying for over 10 years. This is the way we build a
Gen, build a gen, build a Gen, this is the way we build a Gen so early.............
You'll all catch up after about another ten.

Screenshot_20200209-214337.png
Doesn't the zero crossing align with TDC? Not the way Thane shows.

bi

[Turion]

And the answer is: Yes and No. Simple huh? What Thane shows is probably for a specific Setup he is using or demonstrating.

if you have paid any attention to what I’ve said about this hundreds of times, which you obviously haven’t or you would know the answer, ... Lenz is a reaction that takes place, not some arbitrary “Law”. WHEN it occurs is dependent on core material, capacitance of the coil, mass of the core, and frequency (rotor speed plus number of magnets) so WHEN it happens can be adjusted. You can use it to create a small motoring action or a LARGE motoring action, but you sacrifice coil output as a generator coil to get either and sacrifice MORE for the LARGE motoring action. So the “reaction” that is Lenz May happen BEFORE TDC, AT TDC or AFTER TDC depending on the adjustments YOU make.

you can use it (Lenz+coil) as a BRAKE, a GENERATOR or a MOTOR, but you must choose which and design accordingly. By the way, imagine a motor composed of coils whose capacitance was controlled by switches and microprocessors. Imagine what could be accomplished by instantly being able to switch between those three.

[bistander]

I'm talking about the red curve; the one for the conventional coil.

bi

[BroMikey]

Screenshot_20200209-214337.png
Doesn't the zero crossing align with TDC? Not the way Thane shows.

bi

Don't get it? That's because Thane is way ahead of the curve, see you in ten.

[bistander]

...

Screenshot_20200209-214337.png

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.

Now I see where Turion claims that effect seen by using multifilar wound coils, namely delayed Lenz, I presume, can be obtained using conventional coils with capacitor(s) across it. That should be easy to demonstrate. Anybody with a magnet rotor, coil and capacitor care to give it a try?

Speaking of Turion, any progress on your generator test?

Regards,
bi

[BroMikey]

Now this is how we know you don't qualify to judge any of these processes. You must be able to read the map for the wave forms like any 9th grader. Sorry BYE your inabilities are showing up again.