Free Electric Multi-use motor - Home gen-Car motor-Boat Motor-lawn mower

[DreamThinkBuild]

Hi All,

I noticed they updated the page for JB PowerSystem.

http://jbpowersystems.weebly.com/index.html

EPS Electric Engineering Testing Company did the testing for the event:

1. We have a 3 phase generator that has 42 coils in it. (the more coils reduced the number of rotations it needs to produce energy)
2. We have 18/1 gearbox. (this is called a torque multiplier)
3. We have a toque arm that is 10 feet long.
4. The Force is produced by man pushing.
5. We have a fish scale to pull the torque bar to see what force the man would have to push. (10-25)lbs
6. The Man will turn the torque 5 complete rotations.
7. Each rotation turns the gearbox, which turns the generator 5 x 18=90 rpm
8. Each rotation the man travels 10 ft x 3.14 (360 degrees) = 31.4 feet x 5 rpm = 157 ft travel per minute x 25 lbs(per ft) =3925 ft lbs minute  x .74 (watt sec)=2904 watts per minute
9. The engineer meter read 30 volts x 20 amps = 600 watts per phase x 1.732 = 1020 watts per minute.
10. 1020 watts is true power watts out of 1800 watts produced,  also 1020 watts per second  x 0.74(watt Second) = 754.8 ft-lb's sec x 60 sec(minute) =4 5,288 ft lbs per minute x 0.74 = 33513 ft-lb's per minute and the energy used to produce this is 3925 ft-lb's minute. Take 33513 ft-lb's minute divided by 3925 = 8.5 power. It  produce than used

*The engineering company stated that this does not break any laws of physics and this is the most efficient way to produce electricty without pollution.

Wonder if attaching scooter motors to the end of the lever arms and let it ride around and around a track turning the generator in the middle would work. Much like draft animal power but without the animal.

http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/technology/animal_power.htm

[TinselKoala]

Did you notice that "watts per minute" is something that a real engineer would never say or use in an energy calculation.... since it makes no sense?

The WATT is a RATE of energy use or dissipation, a rate of one Joule per second.  Consider a 100 Watt light bulb.
Does it make sense to you to say "100 Joules per second per minute" when talking about the power usage of that bulb?

The only way that a statement like this could make sense is if it is talking about a Rate of Change of the power output. If I go smoothly from one hundred watts to one thousand watts over a period of ten minutes, that would be an average "rate of change" of one hundred Watts per minute.

When I see power and energy units misused as above, and the post is talking about "engineering testing"..... I pretty much know what I am being presented with.


Are we talking about this EPS? It might be interesting to email them to see if there is any confirmation of the claims in the above post.
http://www.eps-international.com/
Or this one:
http://www.epsinc.com/

[TinselKoala]

Gaah. Let's see if we can decode this.

There are some math errors and the major messup of "watts per minute", but the numbers as shown still "appear" to present an OU ratio of about 6:1, if I've done it right myself.

EPS Electric Engineering Testing Company did the testing for the event:

1. We have a 3 phase generator that has 42 coils in it. (the more coils reduced the number of rotations it needs to produce energy)
2. We have 18/1 gearbox. (this is called a torque multiplier)
3. We have a toque arm that is 10 feet long.

A toque is a kind of hat. Maybe you mean "torque" in which case the correct term is moment arm. Anyway, this then is the RADIUS of your circle, right? Ten feet. So your circle is twenty feet across.

4. The Force is produced by man pushing.
5. We have a fish scale to pull the torque bar to see what force the man would have to push. (10-25)lbs
6. The Man will turn the torque 5 complete rotations.
7. Each rotation turns the gearbox, which turns the generator 5 x 18=90 rpm

So, here we are assuming that the 5 complete revolutions are done in one minute. Otherwise, where did the RPM (revolutions PER MINUTE) come from? Really, all we know is that each rotation turns the gearbox 18 rotations, and five input rotations turn the gearbox 90 rotations. If this is done in a minute, say so before this point.

8. Each rotation the man travels 10 ft x 3.14 (360 degrees) = 31.4 feet x 5 rpm = 157 ft travel per minute x 25 lbs(per ft) =3925 ft lbs minute  x .74 (watt sec)=2904 watts per minute

ORLY? Come, let us calculate together. The formula for the circumference of a circle is C=2*pi*r, where r is the radius. Isn't our radius TEN FEET? So the circle is 62.8 feet around, not 31.4 feet.  Next, that means that 314 feet were traveled in a minute. The work performed, then, is 314 feet x 25 pounds force = 7850 foot-pounds, in one minute. That works out to 7850/60 = about 131 footpounds/second, which is a little over 177 Watts.

The quote has 157 feet of travel per minute x 25 pounds = 3925 ftlbs minute??? 157 x 25 = 3925, but the true value is twice that, or 7850 footpounds minute.
http://www.aqua-calc.com/convert/power/foot-pound-per-second-to-watt

9. The engineer meter read 30 volts x 20 amps = 600 watts per phase x 1.732 = 1020 watts per minute.

NOT watts per minute, just watts. But what was the load, how was the meter wired in, where did the 1.732 factor come from? Now we are in the realm where information is lacking to complete my calculation. The load phase angle is needed.

10. 1020 watts is true power watts out of 1800 watts produced,  also 1020 watts per second  x 0.74(watt Second) = 754.8 ft-lb's sec x 60 sec(minute) =4 5,288 ft lbs per minute x 0.74 = 33513 ft-lb's per minute and the energy used to produce this is 3925 ft-lb's minute. Take 33513 ft-lb's minute divided by 3925 = 8.5 power. It  produce than used (sic)

Well, presuming your 1020 Watts (not per second) output figure is correct, 1020/177 = a bit under 6. (There's that 6:1 OU ratio again.... it's everywhere.) But seriously.... the math that is being done in the quotation is just bogus entirely.
1020 Watts x 0.74  = 755 footpounds/second x 60 seconds/minute =  45300 footpounds Per Minute.... times 0.74 again? Why?   Footpounds per minute x 0.74 =... Whaat? This kind of confusion is what happens when units are not understood or included in calculations.

*The engineering company stated that this does not break any laws of physics and this is the most efficient way to produce electricty without pollution.

May we see some proof of the output power measurements, and/or the signed official report from the engineering company that made that statement?

Please?

(srry, I had to edit some errors of my own...)

Bottom line: Using their numbers but calculating correctly, I hope, and eliminating the bogus "watts per minute" fail, I get a ratio of 5.77 output to 1 input, and this agrees using either Watts, or footpound minutes (duh.... the conversion factor is ~ 0.74.) So I'd like to see proof of the input and output numbers. A man dragging a fishscale along at a rate of 314 feet per minute around a circle doesn't seem like a very precise input measurement, and without knowing what the load is and how the output was measured... those nice round numbers of 30 volts and 20 amps (RMS, or peak?) .... the COP can't be trusted.

[DreamThinkBuild]

Hi TinselKoala,

After doing some more searching I cannot find any reference to EPS Electric Engineering Testing Company actually doing any tests for world records or in relationship to JB PowerSystems. The only reference that pops up is on JB's website. 

[TinselKoala]

Well, in all fairness a company hired to do testing might not publish or report results of the tests except to the client. It's up to JB to provide evidence that the testing and the company's conclusions went as he says they did.

But if he's using a company's name as part of a sales promotion, then they might be concerned if he is misrepresenting their findings in any way. So, it boils down to the usual thing: the person making the claim is in control of the information, and if that claimant doesn't want to provide proof of a statement, there isn't much I can do about it, that's for sure. All I can do is examine what _has_ been said for inconsistencies and errors, and try to interpret what those errors mean. In the present case, I am quite certain that no Electrical Power Systems engineer would make a statement including "Watts per second" unless that engineer was talking about a time rate of change of the output of a system, not its constant power output. To me, this reinforces my original opinion.