High RPM to Low RPM, Motor-Generator: Public Discolsure - The Real McCoy

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Crap!

sorry.
edit on (4/16/1212 by loveguy because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamAssassin



This is where having a background in electrical engineering would help you all. Otherwise it's your Achilles heal.


Having a background in Mechanical Engineering would help you understand what is happening at the gear-box.

You would instantly understand why you have hit the academic brick wall when you approach universities.



I wouldn't recommend using a gearbox. I recommend timing V-belts. I also suggest you ask for clarification, in any area you do not understand, before you make assumptions off of the top of your head.
edit on 16-4-2012 by bradagilah because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by bradagilah
 





I wouldn't recommend using a gearbox. I recommend timing V-belts. I also suggest you ask for clarification, in any area you do not understand, before you make assumptions off of the top of your head.


V-belts are actually much worse than coarse cut gears for loss, but that is beside the point.

I find it pretty funny that you keep ascertaining that you have a working(some of your posts seems to indicate that you have multiple units) unit and yet you seem to fail to have any videos (let alone a diagram) of any working units.

You fail to understand simple principles that any first year engineering student would be expected to know backwards and sideways. Simple principles such as torque and work seem to elude your theory yet you carry on that it is because someone else fails to understand electrical/magnetic theory rather than your own knowledge that is flawed.

The flaw in your theory isn't in the electrical principles.......It is in the mechanical aspects.

Think of RPM and torque in the same way as voltage and current.

If you double one....you halve the other ......and lose a little.

Invert the voltage by a factor of two and you divide the current by a factor of two.

Increase the rpm by a factor of two and you divide the torque by a factor of two.

Changing the ratio of rotation will cause losses. No matter how you do it.

Take into account, loss from friction, heat, sound and you are already running at a loss.

Also take in to account that the motor will never work at 100% efficiency. The input will ALWAYS be greater than the output!

Even if the system was perfect up to the generator, the generator is going to lose energy through friction and electro-magnetic losses. It is unavoidable.


As to the pole aspects of the motor.

One pole on a 24 pole 1 kW motor is 1/12th the power of the pole of a 2 pole 1 kW motor - all other things being the same.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
reply to post by bradagilah
 





I wouldn't recommend using a gearbox. I recommend timing V-belts. I also suggest you ask for clarification, in any area you do not understand, before you make assumptions off of the top of your head.


V-belts are actually much worse than coarse cut gears for loss, but that is beside the point.

I find it pretty funny that you keep ascertaining that you have a working(some of your posts seems to indicate that you have multiple units) unit and yet you seem to fail to have any videos (let alone a diagram) of any working units.

You fail to understand simple principles that any first year engineering student would be expected to know backwards and sideways. Simple principles such as torque and work seem to elude your theory yet you carry on that it is because someone else fails to understand electrical/magnetic theory rather than your own knowledge that is flawed.

The flaw in your theory isn't in the electrical principles.......It is in the mechanical aspects.

Think of RPM and torque in the same way as voltage and current.

If you double one....you halve the other ......and lose a little.

Invert the voltage by a factor of two and you divide the current by a factor of two.

Increase the rpm by a factor of two and you divide the torque by a factor of two.

Changing the ratio of rotation will cause losses. No matter how you do it.

Take into account, loss from friction, heat, sound and you are already running at a loss.

Also take in to account that the motor will never work at 100% efficiency. The input will ALWAYS be greater than the output!

Even if the system was perfect up to the generator, the generator is going to lose energy through friction and electro-magnetic losses. It is unavoidable.


As to the pole aspects of the motor.

One pole on a 24 pole 1 kW motor is 1/12th the power of the pole of a 2 pole 1 kW motor - all other things being the same.



What do you need to be convinced OccamAssassin? Let me know exactly what you want to see and how you want to see it. Are you willing to travel to Texas? Let's all cut this small time BS. All you nay sayers, provide me with instruction on exactly what you want to see and how you want to see it...

There are no flaws what so ever in what I had to say, in regards to the mechanics or electronics. The flaws you seem to see, are as a result of your tunneled vision. And timing belts can have efficiencies of 98%, so losses, are not a problem...
edit on 16-4-2012 by bradagilah because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by bradagilah
 



What do you need to be convinced OccamAssassin?


How about reading my previous post and then contemplate on the statement.....



Increase the rpm by a factor of two and you divide the torque by a factor of two.


Why did I say that?



There are no flaws what so ever in what I had to say, in regards to the mechanics or electronics. The flaws you seem to see, are as a result of your tunneled vision. And timing belts can have efficiencies of 98%, so losses, are not a problem...



Lets see, based on your own figures

The motor has an efficiency of between 95% - 99%

The timing belt setup has an efficiency of 98%(I doubt this very much and think you have pulled this figure out of your ar$e - I would typically expect to see efficiencies of around 99.8% with a timing belt and about 99.998% for coarse cut gears.

Just say well give you the benefit of the doubt and well go with the generous side of things

If we put 5kW into the motor

we end up with @99% efficiency 4950W at the shaft

after we go through the timing belt type ratio converter @98%

we end up with 4851W.

Now, can you tell me how you intend on turning 4851W into 5000W to keep the motor turning?


edit on 16/4/2012 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)


To add.

Think of KVL and apply the same principles to the system, but think in Watts.
edit on 16/4/2012 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
reply to post by bradagilah
 



What do you need to be convinced OccamAssassin?


How about reading my previous post and then contemplate on the statement.....



Increase the rpm by a factor of two and you divide the torque by a factor of two.


Why did I say that?



There are no flaws what so ever in what I had to say, in regards to the mechanics or electronics. The flaws you seem to see, are as a result of your tunneled vision. And timing belts can have efficiencies of 98%, so losses, are not a problem...



Lets see, based on your own figures

The motor has an efficiency of between 95% - 99%

The timing belt setup has an efficiency of 98%(I doubt this very much and think you have pulled this figure out of your ar$e - I would typically expect to see efficiencies of around 99.8% with a timing belt and about 99.998% for coarse cut gears.

Just say well give you the benefit of the doubt and well go with the generous side of things

If we put 5kW into the motor

we end up with @99% efficiency 4950W at the shaft

after we go through the timing belt type ratio converter @98%

we end up with 4851W.

Now, can you tell me how you intend on turning 4851W into 5000W and make the motor keep turning?





Ok. Thanks for opening up to dialog. Let me break down what your saying, starting with putting 5 kW into the motor. The motor in question (Baldor EM3710T) requires 576 kW per hp. With the 5 kW being fed into that motor, the motor is theoretically capable of 8.6 hp. The generator head requires 6.7 hp to produce that 5 kW. As such, we have 1.9 hp of excess energy, ready to do something. That energy can be spent on compensating for any losses and can be used to power a load.

I'll clarify it further if that didn't make any sense... Let me know.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by bradagilah
 


Understood completely.

The motor can magically turn 5000W into 6415W.

Bravo.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Post up the independent lab test data.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by bradagilah
 




Hello bradagilah,
A photo of the stator from a Fisher and Paykal washing machine......42pole..3phase...brushless....very popular with home-built windmills...good preformers...and afordable @ $200aus for stator and rotor....

They make for a great PMA.....



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
With respect, I'm skeptical.

From time to time, people are always popping up claiming to know how to build an anti gravity saucer craft, the perpetual motion machine, or free energy solutions that always have claims of more output than input.

Considering that these claims happen, and have happened, but we've yet to see any of these claimed miracles in the public sector, regardless the orgy of specialized techno-babble someone wants to give in describing this miracle machine, I want to see a working model.

Show us a hard, complete, assembled, working, ready to ship and use product that we can test.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by bradagilah

Ok. Thanks for opening up to dialog. Let me break down what your saying, starting with putting 5 kW into the motor. The motor in question (Baldor EM3710T) requires 576 kW per hp. With the 5 kW being fed into that motor, the motor is theoretically capable of 8.6 hp. The generator head requires 6.7 hp to produce that 5 kW. As such, we have 1.9 hp of excess energy, ready to do something. That energy can be spent on compensating for any losses and can be used to power a load.

I'll clarify it further if that didn't make any sense... Let me know.


Sorry but you don't "put" any KW anywhere (if you understood the theory you would know this)
the motor will always and only DRAW the required energy ( in KW or whatever you chose to call it)
to maintain its rotation for a given LOAD
and as anyone who understands physics and thermodynamics knows the instant you convert
energy from one form to another you have loss you can bugger about with efficiency but you
CANNOT get 100% so regardless of what you are feeding the generator too the instant
the LOAD on it and thus on the motor PLUS the conversion losses exceeds the source
of you energy it WILL stall (and IF you are feeding you motor from the generator it will stall before
you put an external load because any "spare" energy will be rapidly used up by the conversion
losses which are HEAT, FRICTION, EDDY CURRENTS, VIBRATION )

In short its garbage it does not work and if you ever make it work in the real world
and produce useful energy from it you will rapidly become either the richest man on earth or dead!

im betting on neither but carry on.
edit on 4/16/12 by ShayneJUK because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by bradagilah
Ok. Thanks for opening up to dialog. Let me break down what your saying, starting with putting 5 kW into the motor. The motor in question (Baldor EM3710T) requires 576 kW per hp. With the 5 kW being fed into that motor, the motor is theoretically capable of 8.6 hp. The generator head requires 6.7 hp to produce that 5 kW. As such, we have 1.9 hp of excess energy, ready to do something. That energy can be spent on compensating for any losses and can be used to power a load.

I'm sorry, but this is real face-palm stuff. In fact I have trouble believing you are being serious, it's so silly. You really haven't a clue how to interpret the datasheets for these devices.

Since the invention of the electric motor/generator people have been going "Hey! Why don't we just power the motor from the generator and the generator from the motor!". And the answer always is: Both devices have an efficiency



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Hi bradagilah,

If you really have something that works, I would suggest that you bypass all the debunkasaurs in the thread and speak directly with the ATS Staff, see if some kind of deal could be worked out for a field investigation.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
OP, this would be the wrong place to announce such a thing.

The laws of thermodynamics could never be twisted altered fudged or tampered with for these astute experts.

But in reality few human laws and constructs are hard and fast. And of course magnetic bearings, super conductors and ferro fluids dont exist yet. Perhaps sometime in the future when the last gallons of oil are in the refinery pipes.....

Until then the shill squad will spout their unbreakable laws, with zero thought that tampering each limitation can negate the laws completely.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadowalker
 

If you have scientific evidence that the laws of physics pertinent to the OP's claims have been broken then by all means present it. Otherwise, you're just another uninformed voice making baseless claims on a conspiracy website.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadowalker
 


"shill squad". Ah, too funny.
Please, if you know so much, give us a solid working model of just ONE of these wonderful machines that exist in this magical fairy land you occupy where wizards break the laws of thermodynamics with every sip of coffee while they ride their unicorns that have amazing free energy tesla saddles.

All we want is ONE working model, no excuses, no used car salesman snake oil techno-babble.

Give us something we can test in the wild, in the real world where for some strange reason it never ever never seems to ever work or perform as promised.
edit on 16-4-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla

Please, if you know so much, give us a solid working model of just ONE of these wonderful machines that exist in this magical fairy land you occupy where wizards break the laws of thermodynamics with every sip of coffee while they ride their unicorns that have amazing free energy tesla saddles.





All we want is ONE working model, no excuses.


And how will the OP prove that it's a working model? With a proper field investigation, that's how.

PS - coffee!!



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


oops
edit on 16-4-2012 by jibajaba because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
The problem that you encounter, outside of the efficiency, is generator lock.

Regardless of the specifications of the coils and the manufacturer's whitepapers, there is a law of that applies (Ampere's Law, along with Maxwell's equations) that prevents you from getting more output at LOAD.

OP, can you show how you have overcome this issue? As you increase efficiency in the generator and approach 100%, the amount of current flowing through the coils is going to create a magnetic field in the opposite direction to the movement of the generator. This magnetic field creates incredible resistance in the generator and creates loss. It can not be overcome by simple compensation using capacitors, so I'd like to know what you've done to accomplish this?

Due to the opposing magnetic field increasing in strength as you increase the output, it requires more input to overcome and thus, you are stuck. I'm really interested in hearing what your explanation is?

~Namaste



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by bradagilah
 

Well golly gee.

YOu're going to be a millionaire, sir. Since nobody has ever produced overunity, you'll be with the likes of Einstein and in every science book created thereafter. What's it like to be famous?

You're about to find out.

Of course, there have been maybe a few hundred thousand people who've tried to produce overunity and failed. So the chance that you succeed is at least 1 in a few hundred thousand probability.

But you look like the gambling type. So your odds are better than normal.
edit on 16-4-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join