Holcomb and other FE technology debate

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > General - Free Energy Related > Miscellaneous Discussions (Moderator: Allcanadian) > Holcomb and other FE technology debate

2023-09-26, 22:34:34
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

« previous next »

Author Topic: Holcomb and other FE technology debate (Read 49792 times)

Allcanadian	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #300 on: 2022-08-09, 17:37:16 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 2512	Grumpy Quote ROFLMAO!!! Interesting response... Do you think Centraflow figured out what SM was doing?, I think he has or is extremely close. If Mike has figured it out then who else?, how many others could there be?. In any case I understand and agree with your response because it is comical. For some reason some of the most unlikely people seem to get lucky. I think Mike hit on the real secret and a person has to actually take the time to build something just to see what happens. Not this weekend warrior replication bs we see I mean going through all the research and theory, actually thinking about our goal and what were doing then building something to see what happens. As I have said on many occasions almost everyone stumbled onto this process by blind luck. As well after a person understands what's actually happening we also understand the odds of an average person discovering it is basically zero. It's not like looking for a needle in a haystack, it's like looking for a needle in the middle of 20 sections of land covered in haystacks. As Mike also pointed out it's not one thing is a multitude of things which have to occur at exactly the right time in the right context in order for anything to happen. Let's do some math relating to the Holcomb device... Suppose we have three coil(s) sets and each of said coil set can operate over a given range of frequencies in order to produce X result. Let's say a frequency range of 100kHz for each coil set in large 1kHz increments and only one combination will produce the desired result. We now have 27 million possible combination and this is only if the coil windings, geometry, orientation, core material, core geometry etc... are all correct. So we could throw in maybe 100 more variables which is a major understatement and were now at only 2.7 billion possible combinations. A person could start guessing however if we were to take one guess every minute it would take us around 85 years or a lifetime. Which may explain why most of the FE inventors who had success spent a lifetime looking for answers...Do you feel lucky?. Regards AC --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger I take comfort in the fact there are people magnitudes more intelligent than I could ever be developing new technology I will probably never understand. It proves evolution works...

Grumpy	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #301 on: 2022-08-09, 18:00:59 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3932 tExB=qr	Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022-08-09, 17:37:16 Grumpy Interesting response... Do you think Centraflow figured out what SM was doing?, I think he has or is extremely close. If Mike has figured it out then who else?, how many others could there be?. I think Mike found it in an obscure way with good intentions. I compare it to the kicks that Peter worked with when he was using the bifilar pulse compression method (one wire delayed about 220ns) with white noise. With that many different and changing frequencies, some of them will be right. Just as many frequencies will be wrong, and you'll get things you don't want. Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022-08-09, 17:37:16 In any case I understand and agree with your response because it is comical. For some reason some of the most unlikely people seem to get lucky. Yes, if you try random things like Giantkiller, Otto, and all others on that path, you can occasionally get lucky, but chances of knowing what really did what are slim. Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022-08-09, 17:37:16 I think Mike hit on the real secret and a person has to actually take the time to build something just to see what happens. Not this weekend warrior replication bs we see I mean going through all the research and theory, actually thinking about our goal and what were doing then building something to see what happens. As I have said on many occasions almost everyone stumbled onto this process by blind luck. As well after a person understands what's actually happening we also understand the odds of an average person discovering it is basically zero. It's not like looking for a needle in a haystack, it's like looking for a needle in the middle of 20 sections of land covered in haystacks. As Mike also pointed out it's not one thing is a multitude of things which have to occur at exactly the right time in the right context in order for anything to happen. I disagree with Mike on the basic premise, but not the result. One might figure it out if they explored force field induction, i.e. using fields to induce a current in a conductor. One might also figure it out from the basic elements of Tesla's radiant energy phenomenon, but information is scarce. Tesla's writing that were confiscated are still classified and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Peter proved SM's kick as described by Spherics, so this would also lead to the answers. Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022-08-09, 17:37:16 Let's do some math relating to the Holcomb device... Suppose we have three coil(s) sets and each of said coil set can operate over a given range of frequencies in order to produce X result. Let's say a frequency range of 100kHz for each coil set in large 1kHz increments and only one combination will produce the desired result. We now have 27 million possible combination and this is only if the coil windings, geometry, orientation, core material, core geometry etc... are all correct. So we could throw in maybe 100 more variables which is a major understatement and were now at only 2.7 billion possible combinations. A person could start guessing however if we were to take one guess every minute it would take us around 85 years or a lifetime. Which may explain why most of the FE inventors who had success spent a lifetime looking for answers...Do you feel lucky?. Regards AC Hence Peter got interesting results using white noise.

Centraflow	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #302 on: 2022-08-09, 20:35:00 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2764	Still on my phone but a quick remark. There is in principle only ONE frequency, the natural resonant frequency of the inductance and capacitance of the "Toroid". What maybe perceived as multi frequency is in fact millions of phases of the same frequency. Imagine all these pulses so close together and being fed back to the beginning to further increase the pulses, what would the multimeter show with a reference to ground! DC, bit it is not, the number of pulses one to the other are within the 9-10nm band, but that also has a modulation of a few. Hz. Regards Mike --------------------------- "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860 As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.

JimBoot	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #303 on: 2022-08-09, 22:23:14 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 1670	Quote from: Centraflow on 2022-08-09, 07:46:35 Yes, I only posted that because this thread is all free energy debate. Regards Mike no it s not. It’s about the Holcomb energy device that is shipping.

Grumpy	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #304 on: 2022-08-09, 22:31:48 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3932 tExB=qr	Holcomb's advertising says: Cutting Energy Bills — And Carbon Footprints — in HALF. Sounds like a partial solution, and probably very expensive. Especially when others are looking to remove energy bills entirely and reverse carbon footprints. anyone know what the Holcomb technology costs?

Grumpy	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #305 on: 2022-08-09, 22:57:45 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3932 tExB=qr	Quote from: Centraflow on 2022-08-09, 20:35:00 Still on my phone but a quick remark. There is in principle only ONE frequency, the natural resonant frequency of the inductance and capacitance of the "Toroid". What maybe perceived as multi frequency is in fact millions of phases of the same frequency. Imagine all these pulses so close together and being fed back to the beginning to further increase the pulses, what would the multimeter show with a reference to ground! DC, bit it is not, the number of pulses one to the other are within the 9-10nm band, but that also has a modulation of a few. Hz. Regards Mike Is the "millions of phases of the same frequency" responsible for the rotation?

Centraflow	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #306 on: 2022-08-10, 07:54:26 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2764	Quote from: Grumpy on 2022-08-09, 22:57:45 Is the "millions of phases of the same frequency" responsible for the rotation? Well yes because they are phase delays, the coils and the capacitance to ground are effective multiple delay lines, probably from SM's surround sound cinima work. There is a very low frequency beat which I have had between 4hz and 9hz depending on the unit. Regards Mike PS the attached is at the near limit of my scope, note the H scale is 5nsec, even here you see the power build. If there was feed back then after a few seconds you would not see the traces as it would be a solid mass. ------------------------ Holcomb and other FE technology debate IMG_20210706_094649.jpg (1490.2 kB, 3264x1840 - viewed 532 times.) --------------------------- "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860 As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.

Allcanadian	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #307 on: 2022-08-10, 21:34:00 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 2512	Jimboot Quote Yes, I only posted that because this thread is all free energy debate. Regards Mike no it s not. It’s about the Holcomb energy device that is shipping. If you look on page one you can see I started this thread and named it "Holcomb and other FE technology debate" for the reasons the title implies. My reasoning was that most of these devices have a similar working principal even if the designs or layout appear very different. Thus it seemed wise to include "other FE technologies" which may relate to the Holcomb device. Grumpy Quote Holcomb's advertising says: Cutting Energy Bills — And Carbon Footprints — in HALF. Sounds like a partial solution, and probably very expensive. It may be no coincidence they claim the input is halved which is the same as saying the output has doubled. Many other inventors have claimed there output was also doubled (input times 2) and the number 2 keeps popping up. Which begs the question why the output would be exactly twice the input?, no more no less. In fact, there is a long history behind the division, often called the distillation, of energy producing twice the output. Often relating to the number 3 and the trinity of unity, -1>>>0<<<+1, North pole>>>Neutral<<<South pole and so on. Walter Russell's cosmology had much to say on this topic and Nikola Tesla claimed Russell's work was ground breaking. This is part of the reason why we cannot discount the past or others when speaking of the present. The devil is always in the details... Regards AC --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger I take comfort in the fact there are people magnitudes more intelligent than I could ever be developing new technology I will probably never understand. It proves evolution works...

Grumpy	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #308 on: 2022-08-10, 22:24:49 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3932 tExB=qr	So, when someone claims an output that is 100 or even 1000 times the input, we should all take notice.

Allcanadian	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #309 on: 2022-08-11, 15:48:21 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 2512	Grumpy Quote So, when someone claims an output that is 100 or even 1000 times the input, we should all take notice. Of course there could be exceptions but it depends on the context... As Holcomb and many other FE inventors implied, each cycle produces a set gain and the total cycles per second determines the total output. So when you say COP>1000 it could be 500 cycles/sec times a COP of 2, 500 x 2 = 1000. It's the same as a V8 truck engine, the total HP is divided by 8 cylinders or the HP/cylinder generated at a given RPM. The RPM is the time period, 8 power cycles per rotation per minute. The more power cycles per unit of time the greater the total power output. To my knowledge no FE device was greater than COP>10 per stage per cycle. It was always a multi-stage device running at high frequency or cycles per second to produce a greater output. You didn't honestly think it was a COP> 100 or 1000 in one stage/cycle did you?. Regards AC --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger I take comfort in the fact there are people magnitudes more intelligent than I could ever be developing new technology I will probably never understand. It proves evolution works...

Centraflow	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #310 on: 2022-08-11, 16:35:11 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2764	Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022-08-11, 15:48:21 Grumpy Of course there could be exceptions but it depends on the context... As Holcomb and many other FE inventors implied, each cycle produces a set gain and the total cycles per second determines the total output. So when you say COP>1000 it could be 500 cycles/sec times a COP of 2, 500 x 2 = 1000. It's the same as a V8 truck engine, the total HP is divided by 8 cylinders or the HP/cylinder generated at a given RPM. The RPM is the time period, 8 power cycles per rotation per minute. The more power cycles per unit of time the greater the total power output. To my knowledge no FE device was greater than COP>10 per stage per cycle. It was always a multi-stage device running at high frequency or cycles per second to produce a greater output. You didn't honestly think it was a COP> 100 or 1000 in one stage/cycle did you?. Regards AC You would have to parallel outputs to gain power, and or feed back into the drive. SM's words, It builds up over a few seconds. Regards Mike --------------------------- "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860 As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.

Grumpy	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #311 on: 2022-08-11, 17:07:05 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3932 tExB=qr	Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022-08-11, 15:48:21 Grumpy Of course there could be exceptions but it depends on the context... As Holcomb and many other FE inventors implied, each cycle produces a set gain and the total cycles per second determines the total output. So when you say COP>1000 it could be 500 cycles/sec times a COP of 2, 500 x 2 = 1000. It's the same as a V8 truck engine, the total HP is divided by 8 cylinders or the HP/cylinder generated at a given RPM. The RPM is the time period, 8 power cycles per rotation per minute. The more power cycles per unit of time the greater the total power output. To my knowledge no FE device was greater than COP>10 per stage per cycle. It was always a multi-stage device running at high frequency or cycles per second to produce a greater output. You didn't honestly think it was a COP> 100 or 1000 in one stage/cycle did you?. Regards AC I wasn't referring to COP at all. I was referring to a magnification factor.

Grumpy	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #312 on: 2022-08-11, 17:12:12 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3932 tExB=qr	Quote from: Centraflow on 2022-08-11, 16:35:11 You would have to parallel outputs to gain power, and or feed back into the drive. SM's words, It builds up over a few seconds. Regards Mike Depends on the device and the principles of operation. There is more than one way to convert energy.

solarlab	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #313 on: 2022-08-16, 06:06:01 »
Sr. Member Posts: 317	Update - LinGen Beta Tests delayed Beta Tests by the local Wheelchair Club (or, as they call themselves, "The Granny Team") got a major setback last week. While ordering enough parts to build up 10 systems, plus a couple spares, we got a MAJOR SHOCK: - $4 SiC MOSFETs jumped to over $40 each (8 required per system), and are on allocation; - STMicrosystems STM32F7xx Discovery boards are now on allocation (purchase limited to 1 per month) per customer. WTF? So unfortunately the "Alpha Tests" will be limited to only a couple of units and "Beta Tests" are on hold for now. We'll complete the design but, without proper beta testing, the development and release is delayed, at least for now. No further comments - political or otherwise - BUT "J. C. ", give us a F'in break! We're trying to get some real work done here... SL « Last Edit: 2022-08-17, 07:04:12 by solarlab »

Chet K	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #314 on: 2022-08-16, 11:23:30 »
Group: Ambassador Hero Member Posts: 3904	I have newer donated boards which I have saved for builders who might need ?____? Will see ? Put one of your “techs” in touch ! Chetkremens@Gmail.com

chief kolbacict	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #315 on: 2022-08-16, 19:36:12 »
Full Member Posts: 120	Quote from: solarlab on 2022-08-16, 06:06:01 While ordering enough parts to build up 10 systems, plus a couple spares, we got a MAJOR SHOCK: - $4 SiC MOSFETs jumped to over $40 each (8 required per system), and are on allocation; - STMicrosystems STM32F7xx Discovery boards are now on allocation (purchase limited to 1 per month) per customer. WTF? Are you under sanctions? This puzzles me. It made for them all more expensive. But we should rejoice.

JimBoot	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #316 on: 2022-08-16, 22:31:20 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 1670	Quote from: solarlab on 2022-08-16, 06:06:01 Update - LinGen Beta Tests delayed Beta Tests by the local Robotics Club (or, as they call themselves, "The BattleBot Team") got a major setback last week. These guys like the idea of a perpetual high power source! While ordering enough parts to build up 10 systems, plus a couple spares, we got a MAJOR SHOCK: - $4 SiC MOSFETs jumped to over $40 each (8 required per system), and are on allocation; - STMicrosystems STM32F7xx Discovery boards are now on allocation (purchase limited to 1 per month) per customer. WTF? So unfortunately the "Alpha Tests" will be limited to only a couple of units and "Beta Tests" are on hold for now. We'll complete the design but, without proper beta testing, the development and release is delayed, at least for now. No further comments - political or otherwise - BUT "J. C. ", give us a F'in break! We're trying to get some real work done here... SL love that you are getting a team involved. That is awesome! Have you decided how you will fabricate the core?

solarlab	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #317 on: 2022-08-17, 05:35:13 »
Sr. Member Posts: 317	Chet K and JimBoot, These boards are for integrating the LinGen Controller within the current Wheelchair Microprocessors. STM32F746G-DISCO (https://www.st.com/en/evaluation-tools/32f746gdiscovery.html) STM32MP157F-DISCO (https://www.st.com/en/evaluation-tools/stm32mp157f-dk2.html) No "core" material/designs have been finalized as yet - a few very good CAE candidates (some are modern composite materials) but until they are fully tested the design remains a work-in-progress. SL « Last Edit: 2022-08-17, 07:02:27 by solarlab »

JimBoot	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #318 on: 2022-08-17, 09:07:12 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 1670	Quote from: solarlab on 2022-08-17, 05:35:13 Chet K and JimBoot, These boards are for integrating the LinGen Controller within the current Wheelchair Microprocessors. STM32F746G-DISCO (https://www.st.com/en/evaluation-tools/32f746gdiscovery.html) STM32MP157F-DISCO (https://www.st.com/en/evaluation-tools/stm32mp157f-dk2.html) No "core" material/designs have been finalized as yet - a few very good CAE candidates (some are modern composite materials) but until they are fully tested the design remains a work-in-progress. SL Nice. Just had a read. Not easily available here. I need to go low tech first. Not quite a hamster driven commutator wheel but I'll be looking at manual switching until I can understand the behaviour of the device.

solarlab	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #319 on: 2022-08-18, 19:34:24 »
Sr. Member Posts: 317	Quote from: JimBoot on 2022-08-17, 09:07:12 Nice. Just had a read. Not easily available here. I need to go low tech first. Not quite a hamster driven commutator wheel but I'll be looking at manual switching until I can understand the behaviour of the device. JimBoot, There are lots of ST32x Neucleo boards available for <$15us and the development software is free (STM32CubeIDE, etc.). Might be cheaper [actually, it is a lot cheaper] than trying to build a commutator. Some of the IRF540 type driver/FET boards (not optimum but will work) run 4 boards of 4 channels each for <$15us. Just sayin! Your call - of course... Also, (major advantage) - Programmable, so you can easily fool with the sequencing, etc (change the code or set it up to just enter xxxmS via an included, on board, switch or keypad or touch screen LCD). Here's a video that kind-of briefly sums it up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMAgD9SS5_E SL « Last Edit: 2022-08-18, 21:44:12 by solarlab »

solarlab	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #320 on: 2022-08-19, 05:13:01 »
Sr. Member Posts: 317	F.Y.I. This is a US Patent US20040007932A1 filed by Chung Hyun residing in Kawanishi-shi, Japan on Nov. 8, 2002; simply titled "Generators" wherein Hyun claims to have developed (from the Abstract) "A generator capable of providing constant supply of electric energy ... which produces a traveling magnetic field in addition to an alternating magnetic field ..." And buried in the text at [0014] (page 1) "... Thus, the electromotive forces (a force generated by the alternating field plus one generated by the traveling magnetic field), which are greater than the power supplied to the primary winding, are induced to the secondary winding so that self-excitation occurs" (or, in other words - excess energy). Download: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20040007932A1/en?oq=US+2004%2f0007932 Examination of the the first embodiment starting at [0057] is quite interesting. Note that Hyun makes no mention of Lenz's Law, but instead, claims the "excess energy" is due to the "traveling magnetic field." The fifth embodiment appears to be similar to the "LinGen." Although the device is quite simple, decyphering the patent might be a bit challenging (IMHO, worth the effort however). --------------------- Legal status: 2009-11-23 STCB Information on status: application discontinuation. ABANDONED -- FAILURE TO RESPOND TO AN OFFICE ACTION --------------------- SL ------------------------ Holcomb and other FE technology debate US20040007932A_Fig_25-26A.PNG (253.24 kB, 1313x1216 - viewed 302 times.) Holcomb and other FE technology debate US20040007932A_Fig_27.PNG (138.92 kB, 1269x842 - viewed 315 times.)

F6FLT	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #321 on: 2022-08-19, 10:09:08 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 1909	Regarding the possibility of overunity, Chung Hyun's configuration makes no more sense than Holcomb's. Whether the field is variable and/or moving is the same thing. The "displacement" of a field is a view without physical reality. Increasing the field in one place while decreasing it in another gives the impression of displacement, in the same way that projecting a beam of light onto a wall by turning the projector. The light point seems to move along the wall. In reality nothing moves along the wall, it is only the photons emitted from the rotating projector that hit the screen at one point, then another next to it, and so on. For an electric or magnetic field, it is the same. A certain field is generated at a certain point in space from coils, and by playing with the currents, the same field is then generated at another point, close by, and so on giving the illusion that the field is moving. Seen from a coil that recovers this flux, the only field it feels is that of the place where it is. It sees no displacement but a variable field, which is what it really is and only. --------------------------- "Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

Centraflow	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #322 on: 2022-08-19, 10:40:48 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2764	Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-08-19, 10:09:08 Regarding the possibility of overunity, Chung Hyun's configuration makes no more sense than Holcomb's. Whether the field is variable and/or moving is the same thing. The "displacement" of a field is a view without physical reality. Increasing the field in one place while decreasing it in another gives the impression of displacement, in the same way that projecting a beam of light onto a wall by turning the projector. The light point seems to move along the wall. In reality nothing moves along the wall, it is only the photons emitted from the rotating projector that hit the screen at one point, then another next to it, and so on. For an electric or magnetic field, it is the same. A certain field is generated at a certain point in space from coils, and by playing with the currents, the same field is then generated at another point, close by, and so on giving the illusion that the field is moving. Seen from a coil that recovers this flux, the only field it feels is that of the place where it is. It sees no displacement but a variable field, which is what it really is and only. Yes I agree with what you are saying, it is the emitter that moves. Regards Mike --------------------------- "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860 As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.

solarlab	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #323 on: 2022-08-19, 19:22:42 »
Sr. Member Posts: 317	Holcomb Varification Question 1. How is it that after studying the Holcomb patents for several days I was able to determine the four (4) basic principles of the operation, determine how to varify these characteristics and, in turn, use several modern professional CAE tools to simulate, and thus, varify the operation of at least one version of the Holcomb device? 2. How is it that the "first pass" WAG (wild ass guess) design I used in the simulation yielded an output Voltage of 40 Volts peak-to-peak with a substantial co-energy component using only 8 poles (4-N & 4-S) and an ad-hoc Lap winding? 3. If it doesn't work then how come it actually works and was proven, and shown, to work on a first pass WAG CAE implementation? SL Chronology: https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4261.msg99442#msg99442 ------------------------ Holcomb and other FE technology debate Co-Energy_Energy_HES_EM7 50-70s.png (246.12 kB, 875x293 - viewed 293 times.) Holcomb and other FE technology debate Induced_Voltage_Coil-9_HES_EM7 small.png (410.92 kB, 1243x416 - viewed 284 times.)

solarlab	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #324 on: 2022-08-22, 02:45:57 »
Sr. Member Posts: 317	Quote from: JimBoot on 2022-08-16, 22:31:20 love that you are getting a team involved. That is awesome! Have you decided how you will fabricate the core? JimBoot, Core Design/Fabrication Update Resin 3D Printers are being looked at with respect to fabricating the Rotor/Stator plates. In short - a composite ferro magnetic material mix might lend itself well to the process. After detailed discussions with a local Materials Expert (he does this type of thing professionally), there seems to be "some good light at the end of tunnel." We'll try it and see how it works out! A review of current 3D Printer models can be found here: https://www.productchart.com/3d_printers/ Go to "Type" and select "LCD and LDM" - highlight the printer to check details/availability. Controller Development (informational only) A very quick, easy (and free demo + 30 day evaluation) for Matrix Flowcode - flowchart based software design for pretty much any microcontroller (including STM32 Nucleo boards) might be a great starting point. I use the full version of Flowcode 8 and more than happy with it - very fast development cycle (couple of hours after a short learning curve). Fun to play with if nothing else - interesting built-in graphical parts simulator! Configure a flow chart - run - turn the knobs, watch the motors turn, flash the LEDs, display stuff. etc.. https://www.matrixtsl.com/flowcode/download/ Good Flowcode 8 tutorial/informational videos: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQDWBb7bxuCh5xQrCuEUujuA7vsuZ1Me- SL

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u

2023-09-26, 22:34:34

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2