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

2023-09-27, 00:48:20
News: A

feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

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

« previous next »

Author Topic: Holcomb and other FE technology debate (Read 49835 times)

solarlab	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #50 on: 2022-04-13, 04:55:39 »
Sr. Member Posts: 317	Before I move on to the CAE Design and build, I'll just finally add this. Review, in detail, Holcomb's patent WO 2018/134233 A2. It provides a wealth of practical information on how the device operates with a good deal of practical build information. Of particular interest is figures 6. thru 23. This embodiment lends itself to simple fabrication using a 3 axis Mill for both metal base fab and cnc winding as well as an STM32xxxx processor (with SiC or GaN MosFETS). Note the "Geometric Isolation" - brilliant isolation scheme to reduce/eliminate counter-emf. Page 11 at 1. Good luck and good day! SL https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2018134233A2/en?oq=wo2018134233

e2matrix	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #51 on: 2022-04-13, 20:47:37 »
Sr. Member Posts: 317	Quote from: solarlab on 2022-04-13, 00:01:14 Partzman, A great deal of the "elimiation of counter-emf" approach stems from discussions a few years back with a "theoretical" Physicist. Over time the discussions amounted to many hundreds of pages. Some transcribed notes relating to counter-emf mitigation from those discussion are attached. You're likely familiar with his work, but if not... hopefully, a bit more insight into what Holcomb's device operation methods might be. BTW - it appears the Ruslan type devices are affected by changes in the atmospheric electric field - causes the instability; therefore this magnetic scheme is attractive (its mobile and requires no connections/interactions with earth). SL solarlab, In reading through your attachment from AABramovich it sounds like this very interesting info might be related to how the TPU works also. What do you think?

solarlab	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #52 on: 2022-04-14, 04:50:15 »
Sr. Member Posts: 317	e2matrix, Counter-emf (BEMF), or more precisely, the reduction/elimination thereof is integral to all magnetic excess energy systems - quite simply, defeat/reduce Lenz's Law and you have excess energy. Not being very familiar with Marc's TPU techniques, I can not comment, other than above. Further Comments regaring Holcomb's Approach: - Patent WO 2018/134233 "SOLID-STATE, COMPACT, HIGH-EFFICIENCY, ELECTRIC POWER GENERATOR BATTERY ALTERNATIVE" (referenced and linked in the above post) was his "original" submission but the Patent Office had their "standard problem" with it. See page 53/53 - in part "The present application and claim 1-56 relate to an alleged perpetual motion machine (perpetuum mobile): The application relates to a "generator" that can be used a battery replacement (p.1, 1.3). Contrary to the established definition in the art of the term "electric generator" (used in claim 1), the object to the invention does not transform mechanical energy into electrical power as the rotor is stationary with respect to the stator (p.5, 1.15-16). ... ... {second paragraph} ... The applicant's attention is rawn to the fact that claims relating to inventions in respect of which no international search report has been established need not the the subject of an international preliminary examination (Rule 66.1(e) PCT). ... ... ... the applicant is reminded that a search may be carried oout during examination befor the EPO (see EPO Guidelines C-IV, 7.2), should the problems which led to the Article 17(2) declaration be overcome. In short - no patents for Excess Energy devices ... since Lenz's Law is a "LAW" and WE know more than you do! Anyway; Holcomb's not that easily detered, so the work around (somewhat elegant) was to file patent WO 2021/063522 "A UNIQUE METHOD OF HARNESSING ENERGY FROM THE MAGNETIC DOMAINS FOUND IN FERROMAGNETIC AND PARAMAGNETIC MATERIALS" wherein he states on page 7 - line 17 "On November 17, 2017 ... "The disclosure did not explain the mechanism of input energy to allow the output of more energy than the apparent input energy. This mechanism is addressed in the present disclosure. The input to output energy does balane when the energy harvested from the magnetic demains of the ferromagnetic material of the electrical steel is put into the energy equation." So - briefly - defeat Lenz's Law, technically good for man-kind and Science; but, illegal according to the DS. Just had to mention this since unless you have dealt with this "stuff" (these guys) sometimes it's not readily apparent! But we will win (are already winning, actually). On another NOTE: Holcomb originally envisioned "only replacing the rotating rotor on a standard generator with his 'electronic fixed-in-place rotor' to gain excess energy through Lenz reduction. This is even stated in many previous patents and again he repeats this in his 063522 patent at page 7, line 15, "4. The solid state rotor can be used to retrofit any standard generator, single phase, two phase or three phase;" OK, back to the CAE analysis...

Allcanadian	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #53 on: 2022-04-14, 17:16:37 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 2512	solarlab Quote Anyway; Holcomb's not that easily detered, so the work around (somewhat elegant) was to file patent WO 2021/063522 "A UNIQUE METHOD OF HARNESSING ENERGY FROM THE MAGNETIC DOMAINS FOUND IN FERROMAGNETIC AND PARAMAGNETIC MATERIALS" wherein he states on page 7 - line 17 "On November 17, 2017 ... "The disclosure did not explain the mechanism of input energy to allow the output of more energy than the apparent input energy. This mechanism is addressed in the present disclosure. The input to output energy does balance when the energy harvested from the magnetic demains of the ferromagnetic material of the electrical steel is put into the energy equation." So - briefly - defeat Lenz's Law, technically good for man-kind and Science; but, illegal according to the DS. To add some perspective, I tend to agree with the patent office. As inventors we cannot have every quack out there making claims based on beliefs instead of facts. So at the very least if were going to claim excess energy then we should also try to give a coherent explanation of where we think it's coming from. It's not too much to ask in my opinion otherwise I think we all know where this would end up. This is first and foremost a fact based scientific process and proof or justification is required. Did you pick up on what holcomb was saying in his explanation?. Quote, "The input to output energy does balance when the energy harvested from the magnetic domains of the ferromagnetic material of the electrical steel is put into the energy equation". The extra energy given to the domains is a secondary effect from a primary effect never mentioned. However it doesn't matter because when we consider the energy in the magnetic domains versus the output the numbers add up. It works so long as nobody asks where the extra energy in the magnetic domains came from in the first place. I like Holcomb... he's a thinker. There is also the fact that holcomb did not defeat Lenz Law and the law still holds in the context it was derived. It is still true that a magnetic field change will induce another current/magnetic field in such a direction that it's magnetic field will oppose the one which produced it. This is and will always be true unless we change the context so the law no longer applies. It's like saying objects will always fall towards Earth due to the laws of Gravity, which is true. However a helium filled balloon does not fall because there is a counter force acting upwards against the force of Gravity. So the first claim is true however the second is also true because the context has changed and a counter force was added. It's important to understand the actual context in which a law is claimed and not read any more or less into it. For example, there is no law saying we cannot add another force/process which works around Lenz Law. This is true because we have not violated the law only changed the circumstances in which it applies. They are two very different things and there is simply no need to violate Lenz Law in order to transform energy. 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...

Chet K	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #54 on: 2022-04-14, 18:23:13 »
Group: Ambassador Hero Member Posts: 3905	I did get this from Stefan ( a man he is friendly with ) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aAzahOni1n0&feature=youtu.be

solarlab	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #55 on: 2022-04-14, 18:38:40 »
Sr. Member Posts: 317	AC, Some very good points, thought provoking, thanks. However consider this: - if we were to somehow "add magnetic domains of the ferrite material" to conventional transformers and motors would they then provide "excess energy?" Probably not. Defeat Lenz's Law might be the wrong choice of words; but unless you can "mitigate" Lenz you will still have an output less than 1 (<1). Or not? IMHO, the "magnetic domains energy balance" was just an elegant work around. Nearly all magnetic machines contain ferromagnetic material (iron) magnetic domains. Holcomb goes into significant detail in his patents explaining how he mitigates Lenz's Law (counter-emf, a.k.a. back-emf). Until the CAE analysis (and proof-of-concept build) are completed my "Brain Jury" is still out; however Holcomb's approach and his descriptions are some of the best yet. Also, we differ on opinion regarding the Patent Office. We should have the option to see "all" ideas so that we can make a logical judgement as to the "ideas" validity - as was done in the first Holcomb submission. These forums are somewhat of a platform but the patent office would provide a more formal and structured environment - many Scientific and Engineering Journals still somehwat provide this but they have declined to a great extent over the years (Editorial Boards, etc.). Regards

solarlab	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #56 on: 2022-04-14, 22:55:36 »
Sr. Member Posts: 317	Here's a little Dilbert observation: - open Holcomb's WO 2021/063522 patent in a pdf viewer (Adobe Reader or Foxit Reader or whatever), (open a second pdf viewer in another window (side by side) - convient to follow the text) - set the view to "page" (where a mouse wheel roll advances by one page at a time), - start at Fig. 5 and page roll through to Fig. 21, Watch the "dual trace, quarter circle, end capped line move one phase at a time! This effect is also is shown when paging from Fig. 25 through Fig. 29. Just found that rather, well, cool... Like the ole' paper animated movies we used to make.

JimBoot	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #57 on: 2022-04-15, 00:18:02 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 1670	Thanks Solarlab I appreciate your observations. Very interesting.

Allcanadian	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #58 on: 2022-04-15, 02:33:28 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 2512	solarlab Quote Holcomb goes into significant detail in his patents explaining how he mitigates Lenz's Law (counter-emf, a.k.a. back-emf). Thanks for posting the patent. I had to read the patent a couple times to figure out what he's doing and I got this one wrong. It's not like the majority of other HV/HF devices ie. Ruslan/Kapanadze and his layout of the concept is pretty unique. Whoever created the layout for the cellphone charger is a genius. I have only seen a few other instances of a similar setup and even then it's debatable if the concept applies. I think this may be a keeper because it works around the issue of field interference with other electronics. As I said prior, the Ruslan/Kapanadze tech has a massive field of influence doing some really bizarre stuff. It could never be allowed to go mainstream in my opinion. The only real issue is the complex switching which requires a microcomputer but I think that could be simplified... cool. 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...

solarlab	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #59 on: 2022-04-15, 06:24:31 »
Sr. Member Posts: 317	Found the cell phone battery application quite exciting as well - hope the analysis shows promise??? Check out STMicroelectronics. ARM based industrial grade devices. They deal a lot in motor controllers, etc. Nice Demo Boards, cheap, and their free development software stuff is very well done and really useful. Check out their STM Cube MX stuff and GraphicsFX (get a demo board with a display and drag and drop cartoons - looks and works just like a cell phone touch display [actually they are] - about $50-$80US?). Lots of SiC/GaN drivers, and FETS, etc. Combined with Matrix Flowcode (flow chart design that outputs "C" code, etc.) you can quickly () design the controller even if you're not a programmer! Flowcodes free version is probably all you need to do a controller. https://www.st.com/en/evaluation-tools/stm32-eval-boards.html https://www.st.com/en/development-tools/stm32cubemx.html https://www.matrixtsl.com/flowcode/ Anyway, have a look, pretty sure you'll be impressed... I think I mentioned a while ago that the "Ruslan Generator" is very unstable and it appears it's due to the Earth's Atmospheric Electric Field varies all over the place (for example, when a thunderstorm approaches, even from about 200 miles away, the earth's electric field reverses polarity - ouch, especially if that's even remotely integral to your system. Not sure if there's a work around.)

broli	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #60 on: 2022-04-15, 11:58:36 »
Full Member Posts: 147	Holcomb recently held an interview for those interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8RAwOCbq0s It seems so far they have no units in customer or verificatory bodies hands, only "witness" verification has been performed so far. And they're still looking for partners to manufacture the units. Imo they should go small first if their claims are real. Even a continuous unit outputting 100W (for charging phones, laptops,...) has a significant disruptive effect that it will attract attention from big investors to scale out manufacturing and the power scales. Of course this all may be irrelevant as soon as their claims are verified by independent research and the tsunami of (probably mostly Chinese) companies start using the effect in their own devices as again the patent is not describing any new IP besides "electron spin" which has been known for ages to cause ferromagnetism.

F6FLT	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #61 on: 2022-04-15, 12:23:53 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 1909	This is a video with an extremely complacent interviewer. They talk about the manufacturing, the maintenance, all the benefits of the machine, without daring to address the pesky question: "Are you aware that the machine defies the known laws of physics and that your explanation by electron spin explains absolutely nothing about the continuous input of energy that ultimately comes from who knows where?" --------------------------- "Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

Chet K	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #62 on: 2022-04-15, 16:03:52 »
Group: Ambassador Hero Member Posts: 3905	This will surely be a challenge to them (maintaining control of tech ) IMO ,it will be akin to trying to control or meter sunshine Or breathes of air ! Once it’s out there in today’s world,unless it’s been designed to be extra difficult ( nano this or that (manufacturing) To say they have a tiger by the tail … probably more like a planet by the tail ! A very needy and desperate population ,which needed this decades ago ! This is surely our destiny ,come what may !!

Smudge	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #63 on: 2022-04-15, 16:53:58 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 1762	I have looked carefully at that latest patent application (it is not a patent) WO 2018/134233. Like other Holcombe applications it is weird in that it is trying to teach the patent examiner some basic EM history with references to Faraday, Watt, Gramme, Lenz and Tesla. Perhaps he thinks that will help in getting the patent granted. He is wrong with regard to Tesla's modification to the Faraday disc, it did not cancel the reverse torque. In fact he is wrong about many of his claims which come from someone who has only a naive understanding of magnetic phenomena. He states that his rotor as static hence reverse torque is not an issue, but then later on goes into detail on how his wonderful system cancels reverse torque. He mentions graphene several times and thinks it has high permeability. In fact it is highly diamagnetic and has permeability near zero. His view on fields emanating from pole faces is naive to the extreme. He talks about field lines running parallel to the surface of the rotor (this is not a moving/ rotating field although his rotor coil sequencing attempts to do that to field lines emanating normal to those surfaces) and that is just nonsense. He talks about unipole rotors and such things can''t exist (field lines can't just appear from nowhere, there has to be a reverse pole somewhere like along the drive shaft of the rotor that doesn't exist in his machine). He does show rotors with N and S poles but then doesn't use them in his battery replacement system which needs unipole rotors. So all in all a pretty useless patent application in my view. Smudge

solarlab	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #64 on: 2022-04-15, 17:20:00 »
Sr. Member Posts: 317	More Fun? Using the Dilbert flip show, dual side-by-side pdf windows, to assist us in analyzing a "typical" patent (Holcomb did spoiled us)! NOTE: This first embodiment (Figs. 1 thru 4) might be a good 3D CAE candidate to simply validate the claims. 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." 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 --------------------- Anyway, having the DRAWINGS on the left and TEXT on the right you might find helpful, I hope! Smudge, This one probably is nonsense as well - like all others - and your proof is: ( ), simply trust me..... na. Fact is Holcomb has a lab, investors, and is building devices!

solarlab	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #65 on: 2022-04-15, 18:01:29 »
Sr. Member Posts: 317	Quote from: broli on 2022-04-15, 11:58:36 Holcomb recently held an interview for those interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8RAwOCbq0s It seems so far they have no units in customer or verificatory bodies hands, only "witness" verification has been performed so far. And they're still looking for partners to manufacture the units. Imo they should go small first if their claims are real. Even a continuous unit outputting 100W (for charging phones, laptops,...) has a significant disruptive effect that it will attract attention from big investors to scale out manufacturing and the power scales. Of course this all may be irrelevant as soon as their claims are verified by independent research and the tsunami of (probably mostly Chinese) companies start using the effect in their own devices as again the patent is not describing any new IP besides "electron spin" which has been known for ages to cause ferromagnetism. Thanks for the video link. Note that Holcomb is looking for joint developers. Since "electricity" touches pretty much everything; lots of opportunity, everywhere! Large power users (industry) appears to be the initial target users but adding one to a split A/C (self running) or refrigerator (simple add-on box), etc. - billions of them out there... Joint ventures are needed. SL

solarlab	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #66 on: 2022-04-15, 18:41:55 »
Sr. Member Posts: 317	Quote from: Smudge on 2022-04-15, 16:53:58 I have looked carefully at that latest patent application (it is not a patent) WO 2018/134233. Like other Holcombe applications it is weird in that it is trying to teach the patent examiner some basic EM history with references to Faraday, Watt, Gramme, Lenz and Tesla. Perhaps he thinks that will help in getting the patent granted. He is wrong with regard to Tesla's modification to the Faraday disc, it did not cancel the reverse torque. In fact he is wrong about many of his claims which come from someone who has only a naive understanding of magnetic phenomena. He states that his rotor as static hence reverse torque is not an issue, but then later on goes into detail on how his wonderful system cancels reverse torque. He mentions graphene several times and thinks it has high permeability. In fact it is highly diamagnetic and has permeability near zero. His view on fields emanating from pole faces is naive to the extreme. He talks about field lines running parallel to the surface of the rotor (this is not a moving/ rotating field although his rotor coil sequencing attempts to do that to field lines emanating normal to those surfaces) and that is just nonsense. He talks about unipole rotors and such things can''t exist (field lines can't just appear from nowhere, there has to be a reverse pole somewhere like along the drive shaft of the rotor that doesn't exist in his machine). He does show rotors with N and S poles but then doesn't use them in his battery replacement system which needs unipole rotors. So all in all a pretty useless patent application in my view. Smudge Smudge, You bring up a good point: "He (Holcomb) mentions graphene several times and thinks it has high permeability. In fact it is highly diamagnetic and has permeability near zero. His view on fields emanating from pole faces is naive to the extreme." Holcomb refers to graphene as a conductor not a ferrite: "Graphene has extremely high electrical current density (a million times that of copper) and intrinsic mobility (100 times that of silicone). Graphene has a lower resistivity than any other known material at room temperature, including silver." https://www.graphene-info.com/graphene-properties So, corner the copper market to stop production - well, good luck with that! Note that Graphene is only one carbon atom thick (around 0.34 nm) and is also recognized as the toughest 2D material - much harder than either steel or diamond of the same dimensions... Graphene sheets are flexible, and in fact ... - you can stretch it up to 20% of its initial size without breaking it. And yes, WO 2018/134233 was not granted (not a patent, per sa) that's why WO 2021/063522 was submitted.

Allcanadian	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #67 on: 2022-04-15, 18:49:35 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 2512	Smudge I believe you have made a few errors in your conclusions. Quote He is wrong with regard to Tesla's modification to the Faraday disc, it did not cancel the reverse torque I have never seen any credible testing of Tesla's modifications to the Faraday disk so I don't know whether it helped or hindered. Did you test it?, I built and tested it a decade ago but it was a hack job and inconclusive. I couldn't find magnets with a large enough diameter to make it worth while. Quote He mentions graphene several times and thinks it has high permeability. In fact it is highly diamagnetic and has permeability near zero. When the author mentions graphene coating he is referring to the pole windings ie. "graphene coated magnet wire" page 7,8. The inventor mentions this in other patents relating to graphene superconductors to reduce resistance. Quote His view on fields emanating from pole faces is naive to the extreme. He talks about field lines running parallel to the surface of the rotor (this is not a moving/ rotating field although his rotor coil sequencing attempts to do that to field lines emanating normal to those surfaces) and that is just nonsense. In fact, we don't know whether this is true or not because in order to make that determination we would need to know the switching sequence, pole orientations and field density as it relates to the geometry. On fields running parallel to a surface, I was doing this not long ago with my non-ferrous electromagnet, it's easy. With respect to field lines emanating normal to those surfaces we should keep in mind there is no such thing as field lines, they are imaginary. Quote He talks about unipole rotors and such things can''t exist (field lines can't just appear from nowhere, there has to be a reverse pole somewhere like along the drive shaft of the rotor that doesn't exist in his machine). He does show rotors with N and S poles but then doesn't use them in his battery replacement system which needs unipole rotors. So all in all a pretty useless patent application in my view. With respect to the rotor poles, he may be referring to the predominant pole. As an inventor I often do this ignoring the return paths and concentrating on the action of predominant pole(s) in question. I understand the return path is present it's just not as important. It would seem to me your not considering the obvious fact holcomb is an inventor not a scientist. Think of it this way, in my COP>100 device I did everything wrong, I did everything you and most others would never do. You would never even think to build it the way I did because in theory it shouldn't do anything... but it did. In fact, this is the way most new discoveries are made and most are blind luck or by accident. The thing to remember is that if we don't test the concept we will never know one way or the other. Even if there's only a 1% chance a concept could work it has to be tested. As an inventor there are generally no hard and fast rules. The only rule is "Getter Done" any way, any how regardless of what anyone else thinks. Throw everything including the kitchen sink at the problem and see what sticks. So I'm pretty sure holcomb doesn't have most of the details and theory sorted out yet but it doesn't matter. If it works... it works. 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...

solarlab	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #68 on: 2022-04-15, 19:00:55 »
Sr. Member Posts: 317	Forgot - Make graphene at home (DIY): http://www.graphene-battery.net/graphene.htm

Allcanadian	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #69 on: 2022-04-15, 19:09:32 »
Group: Moderator Hero Member Posts: 2512	solarlab Thanks for the latest patent, keep them coming. I have managed to nail down quite a few concepts/technologies but the glowing/flowing magnetism still eludes me. This shows up in countless articles and patents from the late 1800's to date. I have looked at this concept off and on for over a decade but it seems I'm no closer to cracking it. There's something there but damned if I can nail it down. It's my nemesis... 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...

broli	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #70 on: 2022-04-15, 23:42:10 »
Full Member Posts: 147	I have to agree with Smudge on this one. The patents show or tell nothing new. Holcomb is explaining elementary EM as if he himself just discovered EM. I made a rendition of the generator in SolidWorks to better visualize the setup. The "input coils" are a 4 pole "rotating" magnetic field whereas the output is in a 36 slot, 4 pole, 3 phase configuration. Again I don't see where the magic is unless Thane Heins and this guy are right and transformers do weird things if you offer more than one "return path". ------------------------ Holcomb and other FE technology debate 2022-04-16_00-07-03_1.png (1046.19 kB, 1253x1093 - viewed 598 times.) Holcomb and other FE technology debate 2022-04-16_00-07-03_2.png (1146.17 kB, 1253x1093 - viewed 554 times.)

JimBoot	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #71 on: 2022-04-16, 05:41:01 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 1670	Quote from: solarlab on 2022-04-15, 18:41:55 Smudge, You bring up a good point: "He (Holcomb) mentions graphene several times and thinks it has high permeability. In fact it is highly diamagnetic and has permeability near zero. His view on fields emanating from pole faces is naive to the extreme." Holcomb refers to graphene as a conductor not a ferrite: "Graphene has extremely high electrical current density (a million times that of copper) and intrinsic mobility (100 times that of silicone). Graphene has a lower resistivity than any other known material at room temperature, including silver." https://www.graphene-info.com/graphene-properties So, corner the copper market to stop production - well, good luck with that! Note that Graphene is only one carbon atom thick (around 0.34 nm) and is also recognized as the toughest 2D material - much harder than either steel or diamond of the same dimensions... Graphene sheets are flexible, and in fact ... - you can stretch it up to 20% of its initial size without breaking it. And yes, WO 2018/134233 was not granted (not a patent, per sa) that's why WO 2021/063522 was submitted. in the 2018/134233 application he does say graphene has a high permeability. “ The rotor can be made by cutting the laminates from electrical steel in the desired diameter with, for example, 16 pole pieces of equal size and distribution. Material of high magnetic permeability, such as graphene, can be used.” it is only mentioned as a conductor in the granted patent though.

gyula	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #72 on: 2022-04-16, 09:16:02 »
Group: Tech Wizard Hero Member Posts: 1072	Here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081021545000059 we find this: "Magnetism discovered in the graphene-based systems offers unique opportunities for their spintronics applications. Graphene is intrinsically nonmagnetic as all the outer electrons in carbon hexatomic rings are perfectly paired to take shape in σ- and π-bonds. All the efforts to make graphene magnetic are carried out to break the symmetric bonds to release the unpaired electrons and generate net spins. When the periodic spins on the graphene plane are close enough to interact with each other, magnetic cluster or magnetic ordering comes into existence. In the past decade, such theoretical predictions have been verified by two persuasive experimental results: (1) introducing point defects can undoubtedly and effectively induce the magnetic moments in graphene, and (2) the spins distributed at the different sites on the graphene basal plane can couple (anti)ferromagnetically to form spin clusters. Although the precise control of the distribution of abundant spins in graphene is still tremendously challenging, the spintronics application of graphene-based materials is promising." Elsewhere this is written: "Graphene, one of the world's strongest materials, isn't normally magnetic. But when stacked and twisted, graphene develops a rare form of magnetism, new research finds. " Regarding electrical conductivity: Graphene is 1.4 times as conductive as copper by volume, but if you factor in density, it is 5.8 times more conductive (if a given sample of copper can carry 1 kA with a 1 V drop in voltage, the same weight, and length, of graphene, could carry 5.8 kA with with a 1 V drop in voltage - in theory)

Cadman	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #73 on: 2022-04-16, 13:34:37 »
Full Member Posts: 115	I think you guys may be over-analyzing it? The layman’s answer might be as simple as - the source of the additional magnetic flux is the intermediate winding ring. The center windings induce the intermediate windings which in turn induce the outer windings with their own magnetic field which is separate from the center winding field. As for all the verbiage in the patents, maybe it’s “If you can’t convince them with logic, then baffle ‘em with bullshit.” --------------------------- 'Tis better to try and fail than never try at all

Centraflow	Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate « Reply #74 on: 2022-04-16, 13:48:10 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2764	Quote from: Cadman on 2022-04-16, 13:34:37 I think you guys may be over-analyzing it? The layman’s answer might be as simple as - the source of the additional magnetic flux is the intermediate winding ring. The center windings induce the intermediate windings which in turn induce the outer windings with their own magnetic field which is separate from the center winding field. As for all the verbiage in the patents, maybe it’s “If you can’t convince them with logic, then baffle ‘em with bullshit.” https://media.tenor.com/images/90417756e0736470ddc69dddebb367f6/tenor.gif --------------------------- "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.

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

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

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

2023-09-27, 00:48:20

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