The bistander thread

[BroMikey]

bro,
There is a difference of about 1/8" between how deep my empty bobbin goes in and a full bobbin goes in, but that could be due to bobbin expansion. If the new, longer coils output more power, I am probably going to take the whole thing apart one last time,

I see now, you measured a full bobbin vs an empty bobbin and the full bobbin is 125 thou longer? Plus the tapered core ends look like a cork fitting into a bottle?

Take it apart plz

I hope you don't mind if I chuckle I know you worked so hard.

[bistander]

bi,
... If you continue to say that increasing the number of unloaded coils relative to the rotor has NO EFFECT on the prime mover, ...

OK, here you go:

No, it does NOT look like a straight line. If rpm is constant, voltage or amp draw or both must increase with the addition of more coils. Without the increase of voltage or amp draw, the rpm of the motor will decrease as coils are added until you BURN THE MOTOR UP. I have several in that condition. And eventually, if you continue to add voltage and there is more amp draw, the motor will reach its operational limits and burn up.

You're right. I was working with motor amps which increased linearly. But to hold constant,RPM as current increases motor voltage needs to rise slightly to compensate for voltage drop in motor resistance which means prime mover power increase is a bit more than linear.
bi
edit:
Got to admit, you are right that the power into the prime mover does increase faster than linear with respect to additional number of cores added. But realize this is only due to the inefficiency of the prime mover itself and not a function of exponential power increase required by the cores. Each core added requires the same additional power at the generator input (shaft power) which I was considering, but not appropriately expressing.

[Turion]

bi,
I have to disagree. A magnet is attracted to a coil core. So when I say coil, it is INCLUSIVE of the core, which is the only thing here that has any real affect. The longer it takes to move that magnet out of "range" of the core, the LONGER the motor has to compensate, using energy, as each additional core minutely affects the TIME each previous core was within range of a magnet. The attraction of the magnet to the iron core is like a resistance the motor has to overcome. The longer the magnet is within range, the longer the motor has to deal with that resistance. As each coil is added, its bit of resistance costs a fractional amount of TIME in resistance, which allows ALL the other cores to offer resistance for LONGER.

Coil 1 has X effect on the prime mover (Whether it is even measurable with only one coil is immaterial. It STILL has an effect) ANY DECREASE IN RPM MEANS THE MACHINE SLOWED AND MAGNETS WERE IN ATTRACTION TO CORES LONGER causing additional amp draw by the motor.
Coil 2 has (the exact same) X effect on the prime mover, but because it affected the prime mover slightly, the effect of coil 1 is increased (LONGER TIME), which also allows the effect of coil 2 to increase (LONGER TIME)
Coil 3 has X effect on the prime mover, but because coil 3 affects the prime mover, coil 1 has an additional effect on the prime mover, as does coil two. Which also allows coil 3 to have an additional effect on the prime mover. And on we go.
Exponential effect. Each coil not only has X effect, but allows ALL PREVIOUS COILS to have a GREATER effect, because ANY decrease in rpm means ALL cores are within the "range" of an attracting magnet for a LONGER period of time. That time may be less than a heartbeat, but it STILL has an effect. I have seen what happens when you add 12 coils to a machine one at a time. The amp draw goes through the roof. Over 36 amps to just run the old machine with 12 coils in place. 7 amps with NO coils in place. These are FACTS. Dispute them if you want. I could care less.
Have YOU ever added 12 coils to a machine like this, one at a time, without increasing the volts and amps to the prime mover and seen what happens? Have YOU ever added 12 coils to a machine like this one at a time and increased the voltage to maintain the RPM to see what would happen?

I have a whole drawer full of MY1016 motors I burnt up doing EXACTLY that. I also have a few MY1020 motors I burnt up before I got the magnetic neutralization completely figured out by trying to run the thing with 12 coils (and their cores) in place. I'm not making this crap up. I'm saying it because I have SEEN it happen.

[bistander]

bi,
I have to disagree. A magnet is attracted to a coil core. So when I say coil, it is INCLUSIVE of the core, which is the only thing here that has any real affect. The longer it takes to move that magnet out of "range" of the core, the LONGER the motor has to compensate, using energy, as each additional core minutely affects the TIME each previous core was within range of a magnet. The attraction of the magnet to the iron core is like a resistance the motor has to overcome. The longer the magnet is within range, the longer the motor has to deal with that resistance. As each coil is added, its bit of resistance costs a fractional amount of TIME in resistance, which allows ALL the other cores to offer resistance for LONGER.

Coil 1 has X effect on the prime mover (Whether it is even measurable with only one coil is immaterial. It STILL has an effect) ANY DECREASE IN RPM MEANS THE MACHINE SLOWED AND MAGNETS WERE IN ATTRACTION TO CORES LONGER causing additional amp draw by the motor.
Coil 2 has (the exact same) X effect on the prime mover, but because it affected the prime mover slightly, the effect of coil 1 is increased (LONGER TIME), which also allows the effect of coil 2 to increase (LONGER TIME)
Coil 3 has X effect on the prime mover, but because coil 3 affects the prime mover, coil 1 has an additional effect on the prime mover, as does coil two. Which also allows coil 3 to have an additional effect on the prime mover. And on we go.
Exponential effect. Each coil not only has X effect, but allows ALL PREVIOUS COILS to have a GREATER effect, because ANY decrease in rpm means ALL cores are within the "range" of an attracting magnet for a LONGER period of time. That time may be less than a heartbeat, but it STILL has an effect. I have seen what happens when you add 12 coils to a machine one at a time. The amp draw goes through the roof. Over 36 amps to just run the old machine with 12 coils in place. 7 amps with NO coils in place. These are FACTS. Dispute them if you want. I could care less.
Have YOU ever added 12 coils to a machine like this, one at a time, without increasing the volts and amps to the prime mover and seen what happens? Have YOU ever added 12 coils to a machine like this one at a time and increased the voltage to maintain the RPM to see what would happen?

I have a whole drawer full of MY1016 motors I burnt up doing EXACTLY that. I also have a few MY1020 motors I burnt up before I got the magnetic neutralization completely figured out by trying to run the thing with 12 coils (and their cores) in place. I'm not making this crap up. I'm saying it because I have SEEN it happen.

Turion,
Now you're back to being dead wrong again and talking about cogging.

You say "The attraction of the magnet to the iron core is like a resistance the motor has to overcome."

That's incorrect. "The attraction of the magnet to the iron core" is cogging. Period.

You say "The longer it takes to move that magnet out of "range" of the core, the LONGER the motor has to compensate, using energy, as each additional core minutely affects the TIME each previous core was within range of a magnet."

We've been talking about rated speed or constant RPM, so these amounts of time "in range" are not longer, they're all the same, aren't they?

You were correct and cought me about the linear increase of prime mover power per added core, But actually that was besides the point wasn't it? What I asked you to provide was proof of your claim that I said there was "NO EFFECT". See below.

bi,
... If you continue to say that increasing the number of unloaded coils relative to the rotor has NO EFFECT on the prime mover, ...
...

I never said there was "no effect" on the prime mover from adding cores. And you still can't find where I did because I never did.
bi

[BroMikey]

That is a lie.
bi

Originally posted by BroMikey View Post

.. Science teaches that negative work is being done for free in the form of counter electromotive force. ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now you see I was right because bemf is negative free energy work being done in a motor which is no more than poor management in current design, @ speed?Yeah right

Your creditability sucks.

I live in the real world, where real facts and truth shine, and BS stinks. Your "little fact" smells like BS.
bi

So does the opinion of a COWARD who hides in the dark to try and discredit the work of others.

Hey Turion,

Remember this

Is that a lie from you? It is obviously false. You admitted so a few posts later. So if one considers the telling, writing or transmitting of a falsehood a lie, then you are a liar, are you not?

My identity has no relevance to the validity of your claim. Extraordinary claims demand proof.

Stop all this BS and prove your claimed o.u./free energy device works.

bi

[Turion]

bi,
The attraction of the iron core to the magnet is not cogging. The physical ACTION of the rotor, "jerking" because of the attraction of the magnet to the iron core is "cogging" and that physical action, or cogging goes away at rated speed, or at least has such a minute reaction that it is virtually undetectable. The attraction of the iron core to the rotor magnet is called "magnetism." Look it up.

Magnetism does NOT go away at speed. You have no magic wand that can make that happen. How much negative impact on the prime mover this magnetic attraction of the rotor magnets to the core has is dependent on how long the core is within the magnetic field of a particular magnet. The faster the rotor turns, the less time the magnet is in relation to the core and the less the effect or "cogging" it causes. Much of the neutralization of "cogging" IS DUE TO THE ROTATIONAL FORCE CREATED BY THE SPINNING ROTOR THAT COUNTERACTS THE LINEAR (AXIAL) FORCE OF THE COIL ATTRACTION TO THE MAGNET. But guess what? The prime mover PROVIDES that rotational force, and it uses voltage and current to do it. Each added coil, because its core is attracted to all the magnets on the rotor, has an effect on the prime mover.

You have two choices as you add coils to a machine running at rated speed:
1. Do nothing (at rated speed) and the RPM of the prime mover will decrease and the amp draw of the motor will increase. And now you no longer have that "rated speed" you keep throwing around like it was some magic term. And the decreased rpm makes every coil you add affect the prime mover EXPONENTIALLY as all magnets move past the cores at a reduced speed allowing for more interaction with the coil cores from EVERY CORE of EVERY COIL.
2. Increase the voltage to the prime mover to maintain the RPM (rated speed) , and the amp draw will STILL increase.

In BOTH cases there is a NEGATIVE EFFECT on the POWER CONSUMPTION of the prime mover (even at "rated speed") with the addition of EVERY COIL to the machine. If you say there is not, you lie. Just like you lied about the linear increase.

And all your BS about how none of this “affects motor production at rated speed” is another BS paintbrush you use to cover the FACTS.
If you are able to turn a motor at “rated speed” with a 5 pound load or a 50,000 pound load the outcome is the same. It performed at “rated speed.”
The real ISSUE is what was the INPUT TO THE MOTOR to achieve that rated speed with those two different loads, and that is what my claims are based on.
With magnetic neutralization or without magnetic neutralization if the motor is turning at “rated speed” it is turning at a specific RPM. But it takes FAR GREATER INPUT TO THE MOTOR to get it to rated speed without magnetic neutralization on the generator.
If you say that is not true. YOU are a liar. Just like you lied about the linear increase.


See, I can continue to bring up meaningless crap from the past too. Again and again and again.

And by the way, this is all just physics, and violates NONE of Newton's laws. You should read a book!

As usual, you will respond to this by ignoring all the salient points and focusing on semantics, grammar, punctuation or spelling to prove you know more than I do. But the thing is, you DON'T. At least not about this.

[BroMikey]

bi,NONE of Newton's laws. You should read a book!

As usual, you will respond to this by ignoring all the salient points and focusing on semantics, grammar, punctuation or spelling to prove you know more than I do. But the thing is, you DON'T. At least not about this.

Hey Turion,

Remember this

Is that a lie from you? It is obviously false. You admitted so a few posts later. So if one considers the telling, writing or transmitting of a falsehood a lie, then you are a liar, are you not?

My identity has no relevance to the validity of your claim. Extraordinary claims demand proof.

Stop all this BS and prove your claimed o.u./free energy device works.

bi

Bi-gender sure knows how to side-wind any relevant material then proceed to say he didn't say that. What a mess. All generators perform free energy in the form of negative work known as bemf. Thane is right about that. See Heins Law which stated

For every motor or generator action there a complimentary and equal reaction.

[bistander]

The attraction of the iron core to the magnet is not cogging.

Yes, it is, when rotating. Look it up.

The physical ACTION of the rotor, "jerking" because of the attraction of the motor to the iron core is "cogging" and that physical action, or cogging goes away at rated speed, or at least has such a minute reaction that it is virtually undetectable. The attraction of the iron core to the rotor magnet is called "magnetism." Look it up.

I did look it up. Both 'magnetic cogging' and 'magnetism'. The numerous definitions for each correspond to my understanding and use in these discussions. I suggest that you study cogging and Newton's Laws especially about force.

Magnetism does NOT go away at speed.

I have never said otherwise.

You have no magic wand that can make that happen. How much negative impact on the prime mover this magnetic attraction of the rotor magnets to the core has is dependent on how long the core is within the magnetic field of a particular magnet. The faster the rotor turns, the less time the magnet is in relation to the core and the less the effect or "cogging" it causes. Much of the neutralization of "cogging" IS DUE TO THE ROTATIONAL FORCE CREATED BY THE SPINNING ROTOR THAT COUNTERACTS THE LINEAR (AXIAL) FORCE OF THE COIL ATTRACTION TO THE MAGNET.

Wrong. The momentum of the rotor has no effect on the axial force. Look it up. Study Newton.

But guess what? The prime mover PROVIDES that rotational force, and it uses voltage and current to do it.

The prime mover applies torque to the shaft of generator. It does not transfer or apply any axial force (in a property aligned horizontal coupling). Axial forces between the generator rotor and stator are not "felt" in the motor. Look it up.

Each added coil, because its core is attracted to all the magnets on the rotor, has an effect on the prime mover.

Yes, and that effect is cogging. Each core added also brings with it additional core loss at speed and that is responsible for the additional load the prime mover sees at speed, not cogging.

You have two choices as you add coils to a machine running at rated speed:
1. Do nothing (at rated speed) and the RPM of the prime mover will decrease and the amp draw of the motor will increase. And now you no longer have that "rated speed" you keep throwing around like it was some magic term. And the decreased rpm makes every coil you add affect the prime mover EXPONENTIALLY as all magnets move past the cores at a reduced speed allowing for more interaction with the coil cores from EVERY CORE of EVERY COIL.
2. Increase the voltage to the prime mover to maintain the RPM (rated speed) , and the amp draw will STILL increase.

Been through this before. Generators are used to develope power on an essentially continuous basis so operate at a constant RPM (or frequency, like 60Hz). As such, there is no difference in time spent with magnet/core alignment when altering the number of cores.

In BOTH cases there is a NEGATIVE EFFECT on the POWER CONSUMPTION of the prime mover (even at "rated speed") with the addition of EVERY COIL to the machine. If you say there is not, you lie. Just like you lied about the linear increase.

Again, I have never said that there is no additional power needed to rotate the rotor at a constant speed when the core is increased, or in your case, a core is added. There is more power required to rotate with each core added. I've always said that. And that power is due to core loss. And that power is supplied by the prime mover. The shaft power increases linearly with additional cores, but due to motor efficiency, the prime mover input power increases more than linearly.

And all your BS about how none of this “affects motor production at rated speed” is another BS paintbrush you use to cover the FACTS.
If you are able to turn a motor at “rated speed” with a 5 pound load or a 50,000 pound load the outcome is the same. It performed at “rated speed.”
The real ISSUE is what was the INPUT TO THE MOTOR to achieve that rated speed with those two different loads, and that is what my claims are based on.
With magnetic neutralization or without magnetic neutralization if the motor is turning at “rated speed” it is turning at a specific RPM. But it takes FAR GREATER INPUT TO THE MOTOR to get it to rated speed without magnetic neutralization on the generator.

I've never said otherwise. But that is irrelevant to the primary function of the generator. Of course it must start from standstill at least once. But why turn it off and start it again. Especially if as you claim, you're getting free power. If cogging bothers you and burns up your little scooter motor, by all means, use you anti-cogging scheme. But claiming that anti-cogging scheme is magnetic neutralization which somehow affects performance at rated speed (constant RPM) is total BS.

If you say that is not true. YOU are a liar. Just like you lied about the linear increase.

Much of what you say is untrue. I speak the truth. Look it up

See, I can continue to bring up meaningless crap from the past too. Again and again and again.

And you're still wrong. I recently brought it up again because you continue to lie about what I've said about the subject. You don't understand the science and physics involved so you apparently misconstrue what I write or purposely misrepresent it. Like this:

"bi,
... If you continue to say that increasing the number of unloaded coils relative to the rotor has NO EFFECT on the prime mover, ..."
___________

Have you got your most recent attempt working yet? Will we ever see the output/input test?
bi

[BroMikey]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrzMbSdQZlo

Mr Clean

Hi Gmeat, the only explanation that makes sense to me is what Thane mentioned once (I think), that the BEMF "force" is allowed to exit the air gap due to the conductive rotor, & is simply redirected by the path of least reluctance & the coil configuration.

But the huge thing is that the BEMF/ (the "would-be" losses) are ADDED to the process, instead of SUBTRACTED!

So rather than generator coil - BEMF= regular output

...you would have the gen coil + the BEMF= augmented output

& theoretically the more you load it... the more BEMF you provide

...........................

You can turn volume way down and read captions on some of his videos. Doesn't hurt the ears but it is still bewildering. Always loaded with mistakes, falsehoods and downright lies. Just stupid.
bi

[Turion]

Blue is mine
Green is yours
Black is my response to your latest BS.



The attraction of the iron core to the magnet is not cogging.

Yes, it is, when rotating. Look it up.

I did. Here you go:
The permanent magnets produce an attraction force to all magnetic materials. Cogging is an result of the iron core motor design. The iron core has “preferred” positions relative to the magnets, and the motor must vary its thrust force to overcome these positions.

So, as I SAID, the magnetic attraction CAUSES cogging, but the attraction of the magnet to the core is "magnetism"

Cogging torque of electrical motors is the torque due to the interaction ( known as magnetism) between the permanent magnets of the rotor and the stator slots of a permanent magnet machine. It is also known as detentor no-current torque. This torque is position dependent and its periodicity per revolution depends on the number of magnetic poles and the number of teeth on the stator. Cogging torque is an undesirable component for the operation of such a motor. It is especially prominent at lower speeds, with the symptom of jerkiness. Cogging torque results in torque as well as speed ripple; however, at high speed the motor moment of inertia filters out the effect of cogging torque.

The physical ACTION of the rotor, "jerking" because of the attraction of the motor to the iron core is "cogging" and that physical action, or cogging goes away at rated speed, or at least has such a minute reaction that it is virtually undetectable. The attraction of the iron core to the rotor magnet is called "magnetism." Look it up.

I did look it up. Both 'magnetic cogging' and 'magnetism'. The numerous definitions for each correspond to my understanding and use in these discussions. I suggest that you study cogging and Newton's Laws especially about force.

Magnetism does NOT go away at speed.
I have never said otherwise.

You have no magic wand that can make that happen. How much negative impact on the prime mover this magnetic attraction of the rotor magnets to the core has is dependent on how long the core is within the magnetic field of a particular magnet. The faster the rotor turns, the less time the magnet is in relation to the core and the less the effect or "cogging" it causes. Much of the neutralization of "cogging" IS DUE TO THE ROTATIONAL FORCE CREATED BY THE SPINNING ROTOR THAT COUNTERACTS THE LINEAR (AXIAL) FORCE OF THE COIL ATTRACTION TO THE MAGNET.
Wrong. The momentum of the rotor has no effect on the axial force. Look it up. Study Newton.

The increased speed of rotation of the rotor affects the TIME the core is within the influence of the magnet and is ALLOWED to exert axial force. Therefore, a change in rotation speeds DIRECTLY affects the axial force that can be exerted on the core by the magnet OVER TIME. If that magnet was pushing or pulling on the rotor and the force of that push or pull was measured over time, are you telling me the same amount of work would be done in one minute as in one hour? Try hanging from a rope for an hour and tell me that is no different than hanging for one minute. Do you understand the use of common sense?

But guess what? The prime mover PROVIDES that rotational force, and it uses voltage and current to do it.
The prime mover applies torque to the shaft of generator. It does not transfer or apply any axial force (in a property aligned horizontal coupling). Axial forces between the generator rotor and stator are not "felt" in the motor. Look it up.
Each added coil, because its core is attracted to all the magnets on the rotor, has an effect on the prime mover.

Yes, and that effect is cogging. Each core added also brings with it additional core loss at speed and that is responsible for the additional load the prime mover sees at speed, not cogging.
Cogging basically goes away at speed. Only magnetic attraction remains. Cogging is a physical, jerking action. It is smoothed out at speed. So now CORE LOSSES are responsible for the load on the prime mover? Please cite your source for this. What I have read says that core losses IN A GENERATOR are responsible for less output by the coil and have NO EFFECT on the prime mover.

You have two choices as you add coils to a machine running at rated speed:
1. Do nothing (at rated speed) and the RPM of the prime mover will decrease and the amp draw of the motor will increase. And now you no longer have that "rated speed" you keep throwing around like it was some magic term. And the decreased rpm makes every coil you add affect the prime mover EXPONENTIALLY as all magnets move past the cores at a reduced speed allowing for more interaction with the coil cores from EVERY CORE of EVERY COIL.
2. Increase the voltage to the prime mover to maintain the RPM (rated speed) , and the amp draw will STILL increase.
Been through this before. Generators are used to develope power on an essentially continuous basis so operate at a constant RPM (or frequency, like 60Hz). As such, there is no difference in time spent with magnet/core alignment when altering the number of cores.
In BOTH cases there is a NEGATIVE EFFECT on the POWER CONSUMPTION of the prime mover (even at "rated speed") with the addition of EVERY COIL to the machine. If you say there is not, you lie. Just like you lied about the linear increase.

Again, I have never said that there is no additional power needed to rotate the rotor at a constant speed when the core is increased, or in your case, a core is added. There is more power required to rotate with each core added. I've always said that. And that power is due to core loss. And that power is supplied by the prime mover. The shaft power increases linearly with additional cores, but due to motor efficiency, the prime mover input power increases more than linearly.

And all your BS about how none of this “affects motor production at rated speed” is another BS paintbrush you use to cover the FACTS.
If you are able to turn a motor at “rated speed” with a 5 pound load or a 50,000 pound load the outcome is the same. It performed at “rated speed.”
The real ISSUE is what was the INPUT TO THE MOTOR to achieve that rated speed with those two different loads, and that is what my claims are based on.
With magnetic neutralization or without magnetic neutralization if the motor is turning at “rated speed” it is turning at a specific RPM. But it takes FAR GREATER INPUT TO THE MOTOR to get it to rated speed without magnetic neutralization on the generator.

I've never said otherwise.

So you agree magnetic neutralization works then.

But that is irrelevant to the primary function of the generator. Of course it must start from standstill at least once. But why turn it off and start it again. Especially if as you claim, you're getting free power. If cogging bothers you and burns up your little scooter motor, by all means, use you anti-cogging scheme. But claiming that anti-cogging scheme is magnetic neutralization which somehow affects performance at rated speed (constant RPM) is total BS.

I never said "magnetic neutralization affects performance at rated speed (constant RPM)" That's a lie. Show me where I said that. You lied about the linear increase and now you are lying about this.


Have you got your most recent attempt working yet? Will we ever see the output/input test?
As I have said before, YOU will never see anything. And yes, my machine is up and running. The new coil material is a disappointment, but funny thing, the OLD coils, even though I can't run them for long, are putting out more than I claimed. I have posted input and output tests, showing the disappointing results. I have nothing to hide. When it doesn't work, I share that too. I have wire coming on Friday, and will wind two new coils for testing. If they work out, I will invest in enough wire to wind all new coils. I need to see around 120 volts out of my coils across the load, and hopefully an additional 900 feet of wire on the coils will make that happen.

[BroMikey]

I have wire coming on Friday, and will wind two new coils for testing. If they work out, I will invest in enough wire to wind all new coils. I need to see around 120 volts out of my coils across the load, and hopefully an additional 900 feet of wire on the coils will make that happen.

Cool Turion man. U think another 900ft will fit? okay then if it gives you 120v X 600ma X 12 coils = 850watts is that enough?

[bistander]

Blue is mine
Green is yours
Black is my response to your latest BS.



The attraction of the iron core to the magnet is not cogging.

Yes, it is, when rotating. Look it up.

I did. Here you go:
The permanent magnets produce an attraction force to all magnetic materials. Cogging is an result of the iron core motor design. The iron core has “preferred” positions relative to the magnets, and the motor must vary its thrust force to overcome these positions.

So, as I SAID, the magnetic attraction CAUSES cogging, but the attraction of the magnet to the core is "magnetism"

Cogging torque of electrical motors is the torque due to the interaction ( known as magnetism) between the permanent magnets of the rotor and the stator slots of a permanent magnet machine. It is also known as detentor no-current torque. This torque is position dependent and its periodicity per revolution depends on the number of magnetic poles and the number of teeth on the stator. Cogging torque is an undesirable component for the operation of such a motor. It is especially prominent at lower speeds, with the symptom of jerkiness. Cogging torque results in torque as well as speed ripple; however, at high speed the motor moment of inertia filters out the effect of cogging torque.

The physical ACTION of the rotor, "jerking" because of the attraction of the motor to the iron core is "cogging" and that physical action, or cogging goes away at rated speed, or at least has such a minute reaction that it is virtually undetectable. The attraction of the iron core to the rotor magnet is called "magnetism." Look it up.

I did look it up. Both 'magnetic cogging' and 'magnetism'. The numerous definitions for each correspond to my understanding and use in these discussions. I suggest that you study cogging and Newton's Laws especially about force.

Magnetism does NOT go away at speed.
I have never said otherwise.

You have no magic wand that can make that happen. How much negative impact on the prime mover this magnetic attraction of the rotor magnets to the core has is dependent on how long the core is within the magnetic field of a particular magnet. The faster the rotor turns, the less time the magnet is in relation to the core and the less the effect or "cogging" it causes. Much of the neutralization of "cogging" IS DUE TO THE ROTATIONAL FORCE CREATED BY THE SPINNING ROTOR THAT COUNTERACTS THE LINEAR (AXIAL) FORCE OF THE COIL ATTRACTION TO THE MAGNET.
Wrong. The momentum of the rotor has no effect on the axial force. Look it up. Study Newton.

The increased speed of rotation of the rotor affects the TIME the core is within the influence of the magnet and is ALLOWED to exert axial force. Therefore, a change in rotation speeds DIRECTLY affects the axial force that can be exerted on the core by the magnet OVER TIME. If that magnet was pushing or pulling on the rotor and the force of that push or pull was measured over time, are you telling me the same amount of work would be done in one minute as in one hour? Try hanging from a rope for an hour and tell me that is no different than hanging for one minute. Do you understand the use of common sense?

But guess what? The prime mover PROVIDES that rotational force, and it uses voltage and current to do it.
The prime mover applies torque to the shaft of generator. It does not transfer or apply any axial force (in a property aligned horizontal coupling). Axial forces between the generator rotor and stator are not "felt" in the motor. Look it up.
Each added coil, because its core is attracted to all the magnets on the rotor, has an effect on the prime mover.

Yes, and that effect is cogging. Each core added also brings with it additional core loss at speed and that is responsible for the additional load the prime mover sees at speed, not cogging.
Cogging basically goes away at speed. Only magnetic attraction remains. Cogging is a physical, jerking action. It is smoothed out at speed. So now CORE LOSSES are responsible for the load on the prime mover? Please cite your source for this. What I have read says that core losses IN A GENERATOR are responsible for less output by the coil and have NO EFFECT on the prime mover.

You have two choices as you add coils to a machine running at rated speed:
1. Do nothing (at rated speed) and the RPM of the prime mover will decrease and the amp draw of the motor will increase. And now you no longer have that "rated speed" you keep throwing around like it was some magic term. And the decreased rpm makes every coil you add affect the prime mover EXPONENTIALLY as all magnets move past the cores at a reduced speed allowing for more interaction with the coil cores from EVERY CORE of EVERY COIL.
2. Increase the voltage to the prime mover to maintain the RPM (rated speed) , and the amp draw will STILL increase.
Been through this before. Generators are used to develope power on an essentially continuous basis so operate at a constant RPM (or frequency, like 60Hz). As such, there is no difference in time spent with magnet/core alignment when altering the number of cores.
In BOTH cases there is a NEGATIVE EFFECT on the POWER CONSUMPTION of the prime mover (even at "rated speed") with the addition of EVERY COIL to the machine. If you say there is not, you lie. Just like you lied about the linear increase.

Again, I have never said that there is no additional power needed to rotate the rotor at a constant speed when the core is increased, or in your case, a core is added. There is more power required to rotate with each core added. I've always said that. And that power is due to core loss. And that power is supplied by the prime mover. The shaft power increases linearly with additional cores, but due to motor efficiency, the prime mover input power increases more than linearly.

And all your BS about how none of this “affects motor production at rated speed” is another BS paintbrush you use to cover the FACTS.
If you are able to turn a motor at “rated speed” with a 5 pound load or a 50,000 pound load the outcome is the same. It performed at “rated speed.”
The real ISSUE is what was the INPUT TO THE MOTOR to achieve that rated speed with those two different loads, and that is what my claims are based on.
With magnetic neutralization or without magnetic neutralization if the motor is turning at “rated speed” it is turning at a specific RPM. But it takes FAR GREATER INPUT TO THE MOTOR to get it to rated speed without magnetic neutralization on the generator.

I've never said otherwise.

So you agree magnetic neutralization works then.

But that is irrelevant to the primary function of the generator. Of course it must start from standstill at least once. But why turn it off and start it again. Especially if as you claim, you're getting free power. If cogging bothers you and burns up your little scooter motor, by all means, use you anti-cogging scheme. But claiming that anti-cogging scheme is magnetic neutralization which somehow affects performance at rated speed (constant RPM) is total BS.

I never said "magnetic neutralization affects performance at rated speed (constant RPM)" That's a lie. Show me where I said that. You lied about the linear increase and now you are lying about this.


Have you got your most recent attempt working yet? Will we ever see the output/input test?
As I have said before, YOU will never see anything. And yes, my machine is up and running. The new coil material is a disappointment, but funny thing, the OLD coils, even though I can't run them for long, are putting out more than I claimed. I have posted input and output tests, showing the disappointing results. I have nothing to hide. When it doesn't work, I share that too. I have wire coming on Friday, and will wind two new coils for testing. If they work out, I will invest in enough wire to wind all new coils. I need to see around 120 volts out of my coils across the load, and hopefully an additional 900 feet of wire on the coils will make that happen.w

I'll just list my comments as I read your reply above.

1)
Why talk about it if it's not rotating? So when it is rotating, the only effect the attraction between the magnets and core(s) is cogging. They're the same thing! Magnetic attraction, magnet to core = cogging.

2)
You talk about "a change in rotation speeds DIRECTLY affects". Why? We're talking about a constant speed generator. Zero speed change. No time difference spent over the core(s).

3)
You say "Cogging basically goes away at speed. Only magnetic attraction remains."
Magnetic attraction is cogging.

4)
You say " What I have read says that core losses IN A GENERATOR are responsible for less output by the coil and have NO EFFECT on the prime mover."
You read that wrong. Core loss must be supplied from the source of energy to the system which is the input power to the prime mover. Now if you want to turn down the load so the input power remains the same and claim core loss came from the load, you're fooling yourself. So just stop telling that lie about what t said.

5)
You say "So you agree magnetic neutralization works then."
The scheme which you call "magnetic neutralization" is an anti-cogging" scheme or cogging mitigation method. And yes, I have said often that it can mitigate cogging.

6)
You say "I never said "magnetic neutralization affects performance at rated speed (constant RPM)" That's a lie. Show me where I said that. You lied about the linear increase and now you are lying about this."
Why do you use it?

That's been your whole line of BS for years. Special coils to outrun Lenz and magnetic neutralization to eliminate magnetic drag. Vola, free energy. So correct us now please. Unless your magnetic neutralization affects performance at speed, why use it?

7)
You say "hopefully an additional 900 feet of wire on the coils will make that happen."
Good luck with that.
bi

[Turion]

What I have said all along still stands. Your lies and BS have no effect on what happens on the bench. Keep believing what you want and twisting facts and statements to support your BS. Because that’s all you have. I will continue with MY work on actual functioning prototypes.

[bistander]

What I have said all along still stands. Your lies and BS have no effect on what happens on the bench. Keep believing what you want and twisting facts and statements to support your BS. Because that’s all you have. I will continue with MY work on actual functioning prototypes.

Find it odd nobody has ever seen and there is no record of a "functioning prototype" from you? FUNCTIONING is your big lie. What is it? 18 failures now. And still no clue. Truth is you never could prove your claim and never will. Go ahead; make my day.
bi

[BroMikey]

Hi Turion,
Therefore, any reasonable person would likely not consider using bifilar wound generator coils.

Now, you claim that can use bifilar generator coils and derive more power and/or other performance benefits compared to conventional wound coils of equal mass designed for, and operating at the speed and load.

I see no evidence, or reason, to support that claim.

You say you ran a test years ago.

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. You didn't bother to present any data, notes, video, or anything else to support your claim.

You saw how the test in the subject video was run.
Or, just loop your machine.

Regards,
bi

In the year 2020 plastic pictures