PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2022-11-29, 08:09:46
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Author Topic: Holcomb and other FE technology debate  (Read 23986 times)
Full Member
***

Posts: 211
Had a quick look over on the OU forum "Topic: Holcomb Energy Systems:Breakthrough technology to the world"
and IMHO there are a couple of fellows posting/doing some very interesting stuff (rakarskiy, Ufopolitics and others).

Of Note; this "rakarskiy" post evaluates, in it's simplest mathematical form, a conventional synchronous
mechanical generator with electromagnetic excitation - in part: "It remains only to solve the problem of a
solid-state electromagnetic that simulates the rotation of the field from the electromagnet
." - "The magnetic
circuit, it is in its calculation that the secret of the entire project lies.
" - "What is the magnetic permeability of
electrical steel, and how it enhances the magnetic field...
"

A very nice, simplified, description and summary! Thanks.

https://overunity.com/19069/holcomb-energy-systemsbreakthrough-technology-to-the-world/msg566736/#msg566736

Observing a variety of "Wireless Power Transfer" (WPT) schemes (electromagnetic power transfer through air)
shows efficiencies of near (<) 100%, even at some distance. Now, correctly add a "magnetic field amplifying
material/metal" and a proper sequencing technique to roll the magnetic field to this basic scheme and, walla, the
HES methods become apparent!

Food for thought - do you even need to "roll the magnetic field?"
 
Would simply flipping or pulsing or ping-ponging the magnetic field at Killohertz/Megahertz/Gigahertz
yield anything of interest? (recall the gain [x 4] achieved by increasing frequency - re: Don Smith's teachings)

Still a "work in progress" but so far, so good!


   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211

Enhancments and Differing Methods to the HES Principle

Briefly, recall that Smith, Ruslan, et. al. struggled with down converting their high frequency device
outputs to a usable 50Hz or 60Hz conventional power line source. Many videos of the "light bulbs"
show the output frequencies being in the KHz range (purple streaks eminating from the bulbs in the
videos - a CCD camera sensor artifact). The bulbs are, for the most part, frequency insensitive; as
are heaters and other similar devices.

Now, consider using the higher frequency output from the "front end generator" to keep a capacitor
charged; then use this capacitor charge (like a battery) to provide a source to an inverter [DC to AC converter].

This method is used in modern "inverter/generator gas/propane powered" portable AC generators. They
are more efficient since the gas powered prime mover operates at a higher RPM and simply  charges a
capacitor. The capacitor, in turn, supplies an efficient power inverter (the capacitor acts like a battery)
which forms the inverter input pseudo DC source, above the inverter's "drop-out."

The operation, and goals, are straight forward - keep a capacitor charged by a solid-state magnetic
scheme and use it to feed an inverter. Any reasonable (high) frequency can be used to charge the
capacitor while the inverter will provide a conditioned clean 50/60/400Hz true sine wave output
with <1% THD. These can also be easily electronically synchronized to increase the overall system output.

Increasing the front end frequency and voltage can provide a number of bennefits as well; including
size reduction, increased efficiency and so forth.

Over time we can develop and analyze some of these variations in detail.

Just wanted to get this out there before jumping onboard and disappearing into the sunset for a while!



   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2318
solarlab
No offense but your last post is a common mistake I see many making...

It is, a hodge podge of terminology which ignores the most basic concepts relating to energy.

All we really need to explain 99% of most of what we see is work, force(E,B,G fields) and distance(velocity ie. kinetic energy). What modern man has done is replace an intimate understanding with an endless supply of near meaningless terminology. To disregard the cause of things and focus on it's effects which is a mistake.

Don't get me wrong, your obviously a very intelligent and knowledgeable person, more so than 95% I suppose. However nothing you have said gets you any closer to what I and many others like Holcomb know concerning FE.

Think of it this way, when I read your descriptions I see a person relying on others descriptions of the way they see things. Ergo your perception is completely reliant on them not your own intuition and experience which is a bias. It should be understood, we all have a bias but the focus should be to minimize it and concentrate on the facts we know and our goal versus just following others. Ergo, thing X acts on thing Y through a distance, we understand some force interactions but obviously not all ergo this should be our focus.

We could also think of it this way, reread your post then read some of the literature by Faraday, Ampere, Weber, Moray, Figuera or Benitez. In effect what you think your trying to describe is a word salad of bulk or mean terminology so generalized it has no real meaning. A lingo we learn and repeat as a matter of repetition never really thinking about the underlying cause.

This is why most have missed what should have been fairly obvious. This is why what Holcomb was saying through a curve ball at many. That the Faraday effect, what many call "induction", is a primitive understanding at best. All the best FE inventors understood Faradays version of induction was primitive and based on the generation of eddy currents. Whirling magnets past coils of wire inducing a current with a direction such that it opposes the magnetic field which induced it. Did no one suppose that this was possibly the stupidest thing one could possibly do?. I mean it's always opposed so why in the hell would everyone keep doing it?...

Yet here we  are...

regards
AC

« Last Edit: 2022-05-12, 04:16:15 by Allcanadian »


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211

AC,

Don't fret, I never "take offense" to someone expressing their opinion, and if I don't see things from their prospective I usually say why (or just ignore them).

Help us out here then, if you don't mind.

You could start by explaining, in some (or great) detail: "All we really need to explain 99% of most of what we see is work, force(E,B,G fields) and distance(velocity ie. kinetic energy)." Consider both "cause" and "effect," since they both might be related.

Then, maybe provide some further detail that apparently you and many others like Holcomb know concerning FE.

Although I will agree that much of my perception is reliant on many years of studying "others" experience and knowledge, I have not seen any one else view the system I briefly described above (or at least write about or publish anything) even remotely relating to the simple "methods" I outlined above. Possibly you can reference something along these lines; that would be great - I'm a good listener!

Curious, could you point out where there might be some reliance "on others descriptions of the way they see things" or where there is a bias or a deviation from the "facts" as we know them.

Unfortunate that you view my simple explainations as" word salad" - it's quite technically obvious and clear in my mind - yes, I've read an abundance of the cited literature and, by the way, passed the exams on them; all be it a long while back.

Also, maybe you could share your perception of what many call "induction." Early on I discussed Farady and Lorentz and provided some references and notes.

You claim: "All the best FE inventors understood Faradays version of induction was primitive and based on the generation of eddy currents. Whirling magnets past coils of wire inducing a current with a direction such that it opposes the magnetic field which induced it. Did no one suppose that this was possibly the stupidest thing one could possibly do?. I mean it's always opposed why in the hell would everyone keep doing it?.."

So, what's the "smartest thing" to do, in your learned opinion? Please, feel free to help us all out here; it would be greatly appreciated by myself and I'm sure many others.

And, I have to disagree with "Yet, here we are..."  We are now a hell-of-a-lot further than that...

In all honesty your post sounds a bit like frustrated projection; be patient, it will soon all go click.

Or, it might be that I know very little, or nothing, about all this stuff and I should just sit back and wait another 10+ years until you all do it and share your knowledge and widsom!

SL


   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 379
Perrigo comment  always rings in my mind when somebody is talking about Faraday laws of induction. I know it's impossible I know it's rubbish but what if ...... ?

""The device is a generator as truly as the power-driven rotary generator in any power plant. Those generators don't actually 'make' electricity. They condense it from the air. So does the Perrigo. But it does it through the system of wiring, rather than revolutions through a magnetic field. I get my starting point from the air by breaking up the ether waves. The coils on the lead plates do that. I know why they do. It's the way they are connected, one from the other. That's my secret."
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1550
"Those generators don't actually 'make' electricity. They condense it from the air."
"I get my starting point from the air by breaking up the ether waves."
"That's my secret."

Perrigo has a secret but he tells his secret while saying it's a secret. In the dumbest way, it's very strong. He should define "ether". He should define "ether wave". He should define "condensing electricity". He should explain the quantities of electricity that can be extracted from the atmosphere at ground level, when it is well known that, except in stormy weather, they are ridiculously small. Or else he should have kept his mouth shut.

How can you believe such words without any operational sense?

It is crazy to see that the thread "A true OU Breakthrough...? Holcomb scientific research" made to study Holcomb's system, is in decline, while the thread "Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate" is at the top of the "activity". An activity of course without any interest or outlet, since it's about linking to Holcomb old outdated free energy stories from which nothing ever came out. Perrigo, another fairy tale or hoax that has been peddled for a century by those who prefer to delude themselves rather than to experiment, to do research and to confront reality.
Is it enough to claim to have a free energy solution for it to be one, or for us not to close the file after a century of failure? If there were "other FE technology", we would know about it, we would already be using it, we would not be looking for one or wondering if Holcomb's new claim of free energy would be the solution, in fact the first one.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2318
F6FLT
Quote
It is crazy to see that the thread "A true OU Breakthrough...? Holcomb scientific research" made to study Holcomb's system, is in decline, while the thread "Re: Holcomb and other FE technology debate" is at the top of the "activity". An activity of course without any interest or outlet, since it's about linking to Holcomb old outdated free energy stories from which nothing ever came out.

I agree to some extent, I think most realize they can read through all the technical chatter but it seldom amounts to much. Not unlike the Ruslan/Kapanadze thread where 95% of the debate is on circuitry and electronics not a working premise for FE. It just gets old after a while...

Now, on to something new from Figuera...
Quote
Because we all know that the effects that are manifested when a closed circuit approaches and moves away from a magnetic center are the same as when, this circuit being still and motionless, the magnetic field is increased and reduced in intensity;  since any variation , occurring in the flow traversing a circuit is producing electrical induced current. It was considered the possibility of building a machine that would work, not in the principle of movement, as do the current dynamos, but using the principle of increase and decrease, this is the variation of the power of the magnetic field, or the electrical current which produces it.

Most FE inventors used this basic kind of language and we can see it is devoid of the standard terminology we tend to use. The bulk technical terms like inductance, reactance, impedance, phase angles, inverters, converters, lines of force, reluctance and so forth. Many also criticized Holcomb for using the same kind of non-technical but descriptive language.

Here Figuera is describing how a moving magnet is no different than the principle of increase and decrease or variation of the power of the magnetic
field with an electromagnet. Faraday agreed when he said it does not matter how the magnetic field changes only that it does. So we can see these
inventors generally approached the problem from a conceptual/descriptive perspective rather than a mathematical/technical one. I'm not saying either approach is right or wrong, only that all these inventors seem to see and describe what's going on differently than most do.

Figuera then goes on to say...
Quote
The voltage from the total current of the current dynamos is the sum of partial induced currents born in each one of the turns of the induced.
Therefore it matters little to these induced currents if they were obtained by the turning of the induced, or by the variation of the magnetic flux that runs through them;

Here we can begin to see a divergence in the inventors perspective and descriptions from our own. First he describes how the magnetic field changes in intensity and the total current is born as partial currents in each one of the turns of the induced. This could suggest that he was aware that the magnetic field is like an onion having many different layers of varying intensity. Likewise, each one of the turns of a coil could feel this variation in intensity to a different degree as a partial force per unit length but adding to the whole.

Obviously this is very different than a simple magnet field acting on some coils of wire as a bulk or generalized description. Many dispense with any description at all and simply call it induction. What I'm trying to get at is that many tend to use non-descriptive terms and a lumped sum perspective unlike these inventors.

So what does all this mean?, if we were to use infinite element rather than lumped sum analysis we find Figuera and many other inventors were correct.
At any given point in any section of one turn of a conductor all the partial induced currents should produce a greater output than we measure. However normally were only concerned with the average or lumped sum values and ignore all the smaller details.

This is similar to the flawed premise of temperature which is only a mean or average of the actual molecular motion present. It does not account for any individual energy states which could be magnitudes lower or higher than the average. It only looks at the average and "pretends" the higher/lower states do not exist which is not real science in my opinion, it's absurd. It's absurd because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if we could use some mechanism to separate the individual energy states then all bets are off. Most of the equations we know become meaningless because they are based on averages and lumping many things together and pretending the individual states do not exist.

Regards
AC




« Last Edit: 2022-05-18, 00:24:31 by Allcanadian »


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211
Holcomb discussion - some Required Back Ground Study or Review

Although Holcomb has given a wealth of information on his invention in the patents, an
understanding of the basics is assumed to qualify "One as Skilled in the art."

Many books are available that can be used to learn, or review, these basics. One such
publication is Professor Thomas A. LIPO's "INTRODUCTION TO AC MACHINE DESIGN" latest version 2017.

Very few books, IMHO, cover "Magnetic Circuits" in a clear, concise, way from the ground up,
including explainations with the underlying mathematics and derivations.

Following these teachings will provide a baseline from which to work moving forward.

The Table of Contents and two sections are included below. {pdfdrivedotcom}

Addendum:

Gauss Law

It's been a long while, but if recollection hasn't failed; a question arose about "Gauss's Law" not being covered in Lipo's book. Anyway, just in case that recollection is correct; since it's pretty important:

Gauss’s Law for Electric Fields

https://em.geosci.xyz/content/maxwell1_fundamentals/formative_laws/gauss_electric.html

Gauss’s law for the electric field describes the static electric field generated by a distribution of electric charges. It states that the electric flux through any closed surface is proportional to the total electric charge enclosed by this surface. By convention, a positive electric charge generates a positive electric field. The law was published posthumously in 1867 as part of a collection of work by the famous German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss.

Oooops!




   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211

Flat Solid-State Rotor WO 2018 134233 Holcomb

Start our Design Intent Document (DID) by interpreting/reviewing the patent to gain as
much information as possible.

The following six (6) attachments outline some of the prime information found in the patent
review that can be used in the design evaluation. Also consider the device target audience
is powering a cell phone, therefore the overall physical size, to some extent, is provided.



   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1582
SL,

Referring to Figs 18 and 19 and focusing on just poles 1 and 2,  the flux lines shown are incorrect.  Simply look at the coil polarities.  The fields should and will be bucking each other not aiding as shown!

Regards,
Pm
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211
SL,

Referring to Figs 18 and 19 and focusing on just poles 1 and 2,  the flux lines shown are incorrect.  Simply look at the coil polarities.  The fields should and will be bucking each other not aiding as shown!

Regards,
Pm


PM,

These patent drawings are likely for illustrative purposes only and done by a Draftsman. The CST cartoons presented earlier show a more detailed and correct orientation, as is expected. Unfortunately the full series were too large to be posted.

That's one of the main objectives of conducting a detailed CAE analysis of the patent's proposed design. Doubtful that the magnetic force lines would look too much like the iron dust on a paper when sprinkled over a magnet; the interaction is quite interesting, especially when considering the driving pulse variations!

SL


   

Newbie
*

Posts: 27
Maybe there is a universal law of sacrifice.
It says that nothing can be gained without giving.
And we all want something for free. :) ;)
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211
Maybe there is a universal law of sacrifice.
It says that nothing can be gained without giving.
And we all want something for free. :) ;)

OFF TOPIC and SILLY

Sorry Chief but I have no clue what your talking about; except I agree that we all want everything for free!

Unfortunately that only happens on Star Trek - and it's always an illusion and generally turns out very bad.

Hey, stick to your cartoon shows and leave the Science and Engineering to those that can actually do it!

Your FIRST post and it's stupid as crap BTW!
Does remind me of that ad where the guy throws himself into the volcano however... hint hint  8)




   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1582

PM,

These patent drawings are likely for illustrative purposes only and done by a Draftsman. The CST cartoons presented earlier show a more detailed and correct orientation, as is expected. Unfortunately the full series were too large to be posted.

That's one of the main objectives of conducting a detailed CAE analysis of the patent's proposed design. Doubtful that the magnetic force lines would look too much like the iron dust on a paper when sprinkled over a magnet; the interaction is quite interesting, especially when considering the driving pulse variations!

SL

SL,

OK, so we can assume the core layout and the coil polarities are correct in the drawings?  If so, I could see how this particular topology shown for the cell phone application could be bench built with multitudes of e-cores. 

Did you simulate this exact topology in your CAE analysis?

Pm
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1582
SL,

Referring to Figs 18 and 19 and focusing on just poles 1 and 2,  the flux lines shown are incorrect.  Simply look at the coil polarities.  The fields should and will be bucking each other not aiding as shown!

Regards,
Pm

Actually according to the patent, this is exactly what is happening in sequence.  Quote-

"In FIG. 17, pole 58(1) is emitting a North pole flux 58a since a DC pulse has been provided to the coil of coils 61 for pole 58(1) by way of the lead of leads 61 L for that pole to excite the pole. Similarly, pole 57(1), excited by a pulse on the coil of coils 60 for that pole via the lead of leads 60L for the pole, is emitting a South pole flux 57a.

The progression of the North pole flux and South pole flux across armature 59 is further demonstrated in FIG. 18. Pole 58(1) emits North pole flux 58a as discussed above which repels North pole flux 58b which emanates from pole 58(2) which has been excited by a pulse on the lead of leads 61L for the coil of coils 61 for pole 58(2). Flux 58b evolves from pole 58(2), 1.043 milliseconds (times are exemplary) after pole 58(1) is excited. The repulsion of flux 58b by flux 58a sets up a pulsing field which progresses across all of the armature's North poles. Pole 57(1) emits South pole flux 57a as discussed above which repels South pole flux 57b which emanates from excited pole 57(2) and which evolves from pole 57(2) 1.043 milliseconds after pole 57(1) is excited. The repulsion of flux 57b by flux 57a sets up a pulsing field which progresses across all of armature 59' s South poles.
"

These bucking fields move across the planar armature left to right as pictured.

Pm
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211
PM,

Thanks for spotting my error/mis-read! A little further along the patent also clarifies:

Under "FIG. 20" the patent quotes "The poles are sequenced in the following exemplary fashion. North pole 58(1) and South pole 57(1) are simultaneously excited with DC current; 1.043 milliseconds later North pole 58(2) and South Pole 57(2) are excited; and so forth... Then 1.043 milliseconds later, the cycle begins all over againEach pole is excited for four milliseconds and then allowed to collapse for the next period prior to being excited again."

Original simulations were with only one pole active at a time. The field did appear to move Left to Right however.

I'll fix the timing sequence right now and redo the simulations with the proper (proposed) patent timing - each pole's on duration for four (4) milliseconds, while being staggered sequencially by 1.043 milliseconds.

The current simulation configuration is attached - that will likely change to something more suitable for a phone, or whatever, once AEDT replaces CST.

Sl

   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211
PM,

Thanks for spotting my [significant] error/mis-read! A little further along the patent also clarifies:

Under "FIG. 20" the patent quotes "The poles are sequenced in the following exemplary fashion. North pole 58(1) and South pole 57(1) are simultaneously excited with DC current; 1.043 milliseconds later North pole 58(2) and South Pole 57(2) are excited; and so forth... Then 1.043 milliseconds later, the cycle begins all over againEach pole is excited for four milliseconds and then allowed to collapse for the next period prior to being excited again."

Original simulations were with only one pole active at a time. The field did appear to move Left to Right however.

I'll fix the timing sequence right now and redo the simulations with the proper (proposed) patent timing - each pole's on duration for four (4) milliseconds, while being staggered sequencially by 1.043 milliseconds.

The current simulation configuration is attached - that will likely change to something more suitable for a phone, or whatever, once AEDT replaces CST.

Sl
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211
Partzman,

Attached the re-done CAE gifs. Upped the current to 10A with 100 turns (1000 Amp-turns), units in Gauss (I think).

Interesting - now the magnetic field roll is evident. Had to reduce the resolution to minimum (CPU time and gif size).
    [see if this works!] => [forum crashed but it looks like it posted anyway]

Still needs some work - one step at a time!

SL


   
Newbie
*

Posts: 25
Partzman,

Attached the re-done CAE gifs. Upped the current to 10A with 100 turns (1000 Amp-turns), units in Gauss (I think).

Interesting - now the magnetic field roll is evident. Had to reduce the resolution to minimum (CPU time and gif size).
    [see if this works!] => [forum crashed but it looks like it posted anyway]

Still needs some work - one step at a time!

SL

Interesting work and nice analysis! What kind of simulation tool are you using for this?
Thank you.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1582
SL,

Interesting results.  Do I understand you are changing polarity at 4ms?

The more I think about Holcomb's planar configuration, the more clever I see it being.  I'm not sure if I see an advantage for OU yet but perhaps your further analysis will shed some light.

Although gyrator-capacitor modeling in LtSpice can solve complex core arrangements, I can't seem to be able to figure out how to model the stator! 

Pm
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211
Frederik,  go back in the thread for details - CST but migrating to AEDT (does power transfer but more complex).

PM, No polarity change (see Pulse Current and Timing .pngs above) - Start; Pole 1 on for 4mS; then after 1mS Pole 2 on for 4mS, and so forth. All inputs are DC pulses at 10A into 100 turn Pole coils (looks to be saturating however - will check).

OU - consider a Wireless Power Transfer scheme in air (can achieve efficiency near 98%); now add some type of metallic material (ferromagnetic) to "amplify the magnetic field" - see patent - that's part of the OU.

The other part of OU is not having the rotor/stator move (typical generator) thus reducing/eliminating the magnetic drag, etc. (should get another excess energy gain near 400% to 600% with respect to standard generator operation). Maybe a 3X to 4X OU in self run mode (but should be very stable since it employs magnetics)!

Not sure a Spice simulator will be able to do the electromagnetics in this application - well, it can't; Spice doesn't do "magnetics lines and waves" in terms of actually analyzing H and B field effects.

Stator model analysis is next - two types of winding to be examined - CSDW Lap wound (this is what's proposed in the patent) and Fractional Slot type.
See patent FIG. 12. above for the proposed Lap wound stator detail.

Attached pdf - SPGS CSDW FSCW - not sure FSCW will work in this device however.


   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2318
solarlab
Quote
The other part of OU is not having the rotor/stator move (typical generator) thus reducing/eliminating the magnetic drag, etc. (should get another excess energy gain near 400% to 600% with respect to standard generator operation). Maybe a 3X to 4X OU in self run mode (but should be very stable since it employs magnetics)!

I have been down this road before and performed real experiments and it's always problematic...

Work=Force x Distance, Energy is the length of time the work is being performed. Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed. This concept applies on every scale from the quantum to the astronomical... so far as we know.

That being said it doesn't matter if the rotor/stator move or not because the same rules apply. The actual rule is Lenz Law which states that "any field change" will induce a current in such a direction that the induced field will oppose the field which induced it. Be it a generator, transformer or any device which utilizes a changing/moving magnetic field to induce a conduction current in any other object in any way. It's not just wires but any metal object, metal plates, metal fluids, conductive fluids like water with impurities or gasses excited to a plasma state. 

We know this is true because our transformers are subject to Lenz Law in the same way the moving magnetic field of a generator is. At this point the obvious question is what in the hell is going on in Holcomb's generator then?, it makes absolutely no sense to most. His device looks just like a glorified transformer simply switching the fields so they move in a circle but the same rules above must apply.

Think of it this way, this isn't about science or beliefs or simulations or wishful thinking this is about nature. Nature is the stuff all around us and it doesn't give a damn what we think or believe. Thus, it becomes a matter of understanding nature and the study of nature (science) well enough to understand when certain rules apply and when they do not. You see if anyone really understood Lenz Law, like these brilliant inventors do, they might realize it has limitations.

Think about the problem logically, rationally and clearly, if we cannot move or change(moving is changing) a magnetic field to induce a current in a conductor which produces a secondary field which always opposes the field which induced it then what can we do?... this is the the question and in effect the solution. Let's simplify it even further, any changing magnetic field for any reason which induces any current thus a secondary magnetic field must always be opposed...anything click?, anything come to mind?.

So either we understand the natural laws in question well enough to move beyond them or we will always be limited by them.

Regards
AC







---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 211
solarlab
I have been down this road before and performed real experiments and it's always problematic...

Work=Force x Distance, Energy is the length of time the work is being performed. Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed. This concept applies on every scale from the quantum to the astronomical... so far as we know.

That being said it doesn't matter if the rotor/stator move or not because the same rules apply. The actual rule is Lenz Law which states that "any field change" will induce a current in such a direction that the induced field will oppose the field which induced it. Be it a generator, transformer or any device which utilizes a changing/moving magnetic field to induce a conduction current in any other object in any way. It's not just wires but any metal object, metal plates, metal fluids, conductive fluids like water with impurities or gasses excited to a plasma state. 

We know this is true because our transformers are subject to Lenz Law in the same way the moving magnetic field of a generator is. At this point the obvious question is what in the hell is going on in Holcomb's generator then?, it makes absolutely no sense to most. His device looks just like a glorified transformer simply switching the fields so they move in a circle but the same rules above must apply.

Think of it this way, this isn't about science or beliefs or simulations or wishful thinking this is about nature. Nature is the stuff all around us and it doesn't give a damn what we think or believe. Thus, it becomes a matter of understanding nature and the study of nature (science) well enough to understand when certain rules apply and when they do not. You see if anyone really understood Lenz Law, like these brilliant inventors do, they might realize it has limitations.

Think about the problem logically, rationally and clearly, if we cannot move or change(moving is changing) a magnetic field to induce a current in a conductor which produces a secondary field which always opposes the field which induced it then what can we do?... this is the the question and in effect the solution. Let's simplify it even further, any changing magnetic field for any reason which induces any current thus a secondary magnetic field must always be opposed...anything click?, anything come to mind?.

So either we understand the natural laws in question well enough to move beyond them or we will always be limited by them.

Regards
AC

AC,

Your're probably right!

This Holcomb analysis and presentation stuff turned out to be a whole lot of work and effort anyway.

Lots of better things to waste my time on than basic teaching and sharing discoveries so I'll just leave it here.

Not really quitting so to speak - more like I'm giving up - don't think most will ever get it anyway!
An extremely technical and unique subject, I guess; obviously very hard to comprehend, and even harder to explain...


Quite honestly however, you should have tried putting your dogma aside for a moment and at least tried to figure some of it out,
or at least studied what I've presented to date. You would have found that it does work as advertised and was in the process of being
shown, at least through proven CAE analysis methods.


Not sure who you are "preaching" to, but it's obviously not me; you must be aware by now that I'm a little more educated and
experienced than to fall for that mumbo-jumbo!

Anyway - you've got your "forum" back - so good luck with it.

You will likely find something that will work much better; hopefully you'll show us all how it works when you do. 

Just in case that you do come up with something that you can show works, any time soon - well, thanks in advance...

SL


   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1716
That being said it doesn't matter if the rotor/stator move or not because the same rules apply. The actual rule is Lenz Law which states that "any field change" will induce a current in such a direction that the induced field will oppose the field which induced it.
Where, in a good transformer, is this induced field?  The answer is it doesn't exist.  Yes the secondary current could create an opposing field but it does not do so.  The field from the magnetizing current in the primary is there whether or not the secondary is loaded, and it doesn't change in magnitude between being unloaded (no secondary current) and fully loaded (lots of secondary current).  (I did say a good transformer, if there is flux leakage then there is a slight difference in the flux).  What many people don't realize is that the transformer works without any Lenz flux.  The flux that could have been created by the secondary current doesn't exist because the load current in the primary as a mmf exactly cancels the mmf of the load current in the secondary.  THERE IS NO LENZ FLUX.
Smudge
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 95
... What many people don't realize is that the transformer works without any Lenz flux.  The flux that could have been created by the secondary current doesn't exist because the load current in the primary as a mmf exactly cancels the mmf of the load current in the secondary.  THERE IS NO LENZ FLUX.
Smudge


Serious question, does this hold true for a LOPT running in discontinuos mode?

Cadman


---------------------------
'Tis better to try and fail than never try at all
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2022-11-29, 08:09:46