It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

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

page: 7
24
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 05:07 PM

This post is exploding with ignorance, no offense but there's being critical and being stupid. At least I was critical enough to go do the math myself based on the performance data of the motor rather than give an half baked lecture on how alternating current works in a motor.

So far the only remaining concern for me is generator output rating whether it's rated for a single line or all 3 phases.

I'll repeat what I posted on ou.com:

Based on this motor: goo.gl...
And this generator: goo.gl...

I worked out the math below. The power calculation is done for a single phase. The only big assumption is that the generator output rating is also for a single line to line rating. This is what I'm trying to confirm from the manufacturer.

edit on 18-4-2012 by broli because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 06:30 PM

I am not going to call your math(s) ignorant.
But,

I would like to ask a question.
When P in is less than P out, and your delta P is greater than one, where is that unaccounted power coming from?

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 08:17 PM

Hi Broli,

I know you wish I would just go away but I am really just trying to help. You have a small mistake in your calculations. The input power to the motor for single phase is just V x I. The power factor does not enter into the formula for input power. The formula for output power to the shaft is V x I x PF x Eff. I checked several motor control and engineering sites before posting this because I wanted to make sure I was remembering the formulas correctly. You also need to know the power factor is continually changing as the load changes so the output formula is only good for a fixed known load.

Respectfully,
Carroll

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 08:17 PM

Originally posted by butcherguy

I am not going to call your math(s) ignorant.
But,

I would like to ask a question.
When P in is less than P out, and your delta P is greater than one, where is that unaccounted power coming from?

I made a mistake in the calculations... None of this works...

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:02 PM

Originally posted by butcherguy

I am not going to call your math(s) ignorant.
But,

I would like to ask a question.
When P in is less than P out, and your delta P is greater than one, where is that unaccounted power coming from?

I made a mistake in the calculations... None of this works...

I'm hoping that's sarcasm???

Surely, you haven't gone through this entire thread to lead to this conclusion...?

~Namaste

P.S. - If you are being sarcastic, I'd still like to know how you get around the problem of the generator locking up from the magnetic field that builds up around the coils and opposes the stator?

~Namaste

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:23 PM

The video is private? Can you make it public please? Thanks

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:28 PM

Originally posted by hawkiye

The video is private? Can you make it public please? Thanks

Why would he? It DOESN'T WORK.. as he JUST said a few posts above.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 10:24 PM

I made a mistake in the calculations... None of this works...

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 11:03 PM
"I made a mistake in the calculations... None of this works.."

If this is a serious admission then it is one of the best posts I've ever seen on ATS. It's not sad, it's quite admirable. I've never seen anyone in this field of endeavour admit to a mistake.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 11:33 PM

Originally posted by mrwiffler
"I made a mistake in the calculations... None of this works.."

If this is a serious admission then it is one of the best posts I've ever seen on ATS. It's not sad, it's quite admirable. I've never seen anyone in this field of endeavour admit to a mistake.

The OP has been lying to us from the start.

There was no prototype.

There was no team of uber geeks.

There was only one person, a web cam and a lie.

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:09 AM
I get the feeling he wasn't exactly lying. Maybe just overstating things. I think everything he said was probably true to some degree. His navy engineers were probably just buddies of his, young navy engineering students with the skills to maybe fix a washing machine. His south American business interests were probably from a polite person on the other end of a telephone saying, "sure we will be interested in your device...let us know how you go." His prototype I'm sure started up, hummed away, and without any testing he just assumed it was doing what his faulty calculations told him it was. Etc, etc. Just a bit dopey, which is ok in my books.

edit on 19-4-2012 by mrwiffler because: rong speling

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 02:48 AM

It's not a mistake that's how you calculate the REAL power part of energy input. Not including power factor will give you the apparent power in VA. And the load doesn't change in this case the generator has a known load (the torque at 200rpm), and the motor specs are very well known for that specific load. So the used power factor is for 100% load (which is almost exactly what the generator needs at 200rpm) which you can find on the performance page I posted.

I'm not forming any conclusion, he said calculate it yourself and I did and that's what the math shows. I'm not going to put my head out concerning where this magical energy part would come from but I will defend the math. The only unknown to me is that power rating for the generator 'is it measured between 2 lines or is it for all 3 phases combined'. bradagilah said it's the line-to-line power rating this is what I'm trying to confirm. Sadly the manufacturers mail server seems down for now.
edit on 19-4-2012 by broli because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 03:30 AM
That is just it. If your math shows that you have a surplus of power that cannot be accounted for, then you are obviously consuming something you are not accounting for. You cannot create more energy than you consume in any closed process, as we all know it to be a perpetual motion mechanism, and the law of thermodynamics says that is impossible.

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 03:43 AM
All of the mathematical calculations are banking on the correct interpretation of the generator specs. There in lies the problem you will come to discover.
edit on 19-4-2012 by bradagilah because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 03:46 AM
So what is the conclusion here?

Did the OP fail?

In that case the thread should be closed, for this will lead to a mockery of the OP for failing.

vvv

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 03:50 AM
I failed, and recommend closing the thread I started. If someone can please alert a moderator, I would appreciate it.
edit on 19-4-2012 by bradagilah because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 04:08 AM

I failed, and recommend closing the thread I started. If someone can please alert a moderator, I would appreciate it.
edit on 19-4-2012 by bradagilah because: (no reason given)

The admission of failure is admirable and should serve as an example to others that we are all human, and we do sometimes make mistakes, sometimes big embarrassing ones.

Thank you OP.

For future projects, I recommend looking into devising a personal, consumer scaled-down version of pumped storage hydoelectricity.
container of water + turbine + pressurized water pump where water is then recycled in a loop.

there's large scale pumped storage hydroelectric facilities. Is this solution scalable down to the personal home-use level?

Additionally, gas turbine jets can crank a good deal of juice. Instead of using jet fuel, why not use liquid nitrogen to drive the gas jet turbine through the rapid expansion of the liquid Nitrogen heated from an element into gas?
Exhaust could be recycled in a closed loop, and recompressed back down to liquid Nitrogen.
More liquid nitrogen can be obtained for the reaction process as 'fuel' by compressing ambient air, readily available anywhere and everywhere since we breathe it.

Rub is what to use as a heat source to drive the state change rapid expansion of the liquid Nitrogen into gas to drive the turbine. Diesel glow plugs might do it, but, if you can get your hands on an RTG (Radioisotope Thermal Generator, you've then got heat to last decades to drive the state change reaction.

Further, another rub is material that can stand up to the extreme cold of the Liquid Nitrogen.
The expanding gas doesn't have to be hot like a standard jet, just dense and expansive enough to drive the gas jet turbine.

edit on 19-4-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 10:39 AM

Originally posted by charlyv
That is just it. If your math shows that you have a surplus of power that cannot be accounted for, then you are obviously consuming something you are not accounting for. You cannot create more energy than you consume in any closed process, as we all know it to be a perpetual motion mechanism, and the law of thermodynamics says that is impossible.

So the law of thermodynamics says the perpetual rotation of the planets is impossible? Me thinks you should not assume something is violating the law when you fail to consider all the sources of power. The OP never said this is a perpetual motion machine.

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 10:46 AM

I failed, and recommend closing the thread I started. If someone can please alert a moderator, I would appreciate it.
edit on 19-4-2012 by bradagilah because: (no reason given)

I am not buying it OP. Either you trolled us or you decided you did not want to put up with some of the non-sense that goes on in these threads. Or did you get threatened? Which is it? The bold statements you made in your OP do not lend themselves to "oops I made a mistake in calculations none of it works". You do not have deals with south american companies and former Naval engineers working on your project without some serious checking of calculations some serious testing and a working prototype or at least proof of concept?

So do us the courtesy of the truth for once will you? That is if you really want to help humanity?

edit on 19-4-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 10:48 AM

Originally posted by hawkiye

I failed, and recommend closing the thread I started. If someone can please alert a moderator, I would appreciate it.
edit on 19-4-2012 by bradagilah because: (no reason given)

I am not buying it OP. Either you trolled us or you decided you did not want to put up with some of the non-sense that goes on in these threads. Or did you get threatened? Which is it? The bold statements you made in your OP do not lend themselves to "oops I made a mistake in calculations none of it works". You do not have deals with south american companies and former Naval engineers working on your project without some serious checking of calculations some serious testing and a working prototype or at least proof of concept?

So do us the courtesy of the truth for once will you? That is is if you really want to help humanity?

edit on 19-4-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

Seriously, man.

Give up the ghost. It doesn't work. Move along.

new topics

top topics

24