|
We are supposed to be free thinkers, yet we do everything in our power to limit and or control what our peers are thinking. We take pleasure in pointing the finger, bashing the gurus, bashing and badmouthing mainstream. Isn't it interesting that none of the badmouthing, bashing, and finger pointing has brought us to a viable solution and or alternative to any of the so-called problems that we collectively rebel against? Do you not find it strange that nothing being discussed is either useful, or practical for the immediate or long term?
Patents cost money, John Bedini has several, you better believe that someone somewhere believes in what that man has been giving you. It would not be in our best interest to respect the fact that his actions (sharing with the community) could be considered as a violation of agreements made between his investors and himself. You would be wise to take a closer look at the machines you are calling useless.
I am not affiliated with John Bedini, I only study technologies which interest me. Over the years, I have come to understand that one needs to be very creative when one wants to get around one's own protected intellectual property. The idea in the saying, "say what you mean and mean what you say" has no bearing here. We are being motivated to think for themselves, to read between the lines, to form our own conclusions, and pioneer our own paths. It is shameful that the majority form their opinions based on the efforts that their peers put in on the bench. Little or no work is being done by the majority, that which is being done can be reduced to copy and pasting of experiments done by the "alphas" in the community.
The Zero Force Motor, as presented, is a motor only in as far as the adopted geometry mirrors what we were all taught in school about commutated DC machines. I am referring specifically to the quadrature relations between the rotor and stator fields when the device is energized. In this device this relation is established so as to have the maximum torque produced at the desired switching position, that position being the point of maximum induced potential. It should be kept in mind that the device as presented and operated is not capable of producing torque in the true sense of the term, and in fact produces much less torque than any pulse motor I have ever tested. The lack of torque is being interpreted negatively. Most of the diehard experimenters see such things and are compelled to fix a problem which technically doesn't exist. This negative bias stops the replicator from appreciating that this device when operated like the presenter suggests, is the equivalent of an electric turbine. The mechanism which facilitates the production of forward torque, is the same mechanism which produces the undesired negative torque. In this scenario, both are being limited, sacrificed as it were so as to allow the machine to operate more as a speed generating machine versus a torque generating machine.
The few who performed a replication were preoccupied with what was stated by the presenter. There are moments when we must only consider their words and focus on what we are being shown. As I indicated in a previous post, I have built several of these machines, in the exact same manner as was described by the presenter. I studied the device itself and the comments concerning the device and its operation at that time. Between the two, I began to recognize that the adopted and presented geometry was far from ideal. In addition to this, the adopted and presented geometry could not be integrated into existing off the shelf motor and or generators, the latter is something I look for and is not motivated by anything that the presenter suggests. I have found that to get a real idea of what is being suggested by the presenter it is necessary to be familiar with all of his work and not just the device under investigation. We don't see folks performing cross reference, what we observe is the book being judged by its cover. The message then falls on deaf ears, and closed minds. These deaf and closed minded individuals then stunt the growth of their peers via induction.
Zero Force in my opinion relates to the neutralization of the negative torque associated with counter electromotive force. In this machine CEMF is low, but is still produced, CEMF in this device still operates as current limiter. This device can be operated at incredible speeds, at extremely low current. When constructed properly, the wave form should be asymmetrical, direction of rotation of the rotor should have a direct relation to the polarity of the wave. Under such a condition the applied voltage has a new relation to the induced, the two can work so as to augment one another or work antagonistically as is the norm.
All that to say this, we aren't justified in bashing the only individuals who have technically put us on this path that we are on. What they have done is provided you with just enough insight to make you a potential consumer of products in their portfolio. You can choose to become a loyal customer, or you can choose to push beyond. Dig deeper, find that which enable them to be granted patent protection. What you may find may surprise you...some of you.
The idea of the Bloch wall didn't originate with the presenter. Mainstream "informs" us that it doesn't exist. Fact is, who cares if it does or doesn't. If you need the concept to explain what you are doing, do it. If you can explain what you are doing without it good for you. As no one knows what magnetism is, neither and both are right, and neither and both are wrong.....accept that and move on, neutral is where we ultimately want to be anyway......this is message which can be extracted from the machines, hopefully you are familiar with the machines from which I speak. If you aren't now would be the perfect time for you to identify it and identify with it.
Regards
|
Author
Topic: JB Zero Force Motor (Read 9124 times)
