Electric Motor Geenerator/alternator looped

[Grimer]

Grimer,
It's possible that the OU potential of the 2 things you've mentioned are linked:
- 'jerk' or 3rd derivative
- vortex motion

Natural (irrotational) vortexes accelerate towards the center. The large rates of change could exceed the 'critical action time' of the 'system', and bring in environmental energy, according to Davis & Stine type reasoning...

It could work better with charged particles, because their parallel motion in the vortex creates a magnetic field - which brings them together - maybe adding potential energy for free...

How does this relate to the topic though? I have no idea.

Big whorls have little whorls
That feed on their velocity


And little whorls have lesser whorls
And so on to viscosity

[TinselKoala]

Very interesting.


I didn't see anywhere it mentioned the speed of the coins exiting the cone at the bottom.


Did I miss something?

Yes, apparently you did. 

The links talk about the "terminal velocity" of the dropped coin or ball, and explain how that is precisely equal to the speed reached by the gravitational acceleration acting over the _vertical travel_ of the dropped ball. There is no magic arising from making the object travel the path around the vortex funnel; only the coin's or ball's height affects the terminal velocity of the object (neglecting friction and other losses, of course.)

You also haven't put forth a coherent testable hypothesis for your experimental suggestion. What it sounds like you are getting at is this: IF the vortex funnel system adds energy somehow, above and beyond that provided by simple GPE due to the height of the coin/ball release, then the ball/coin will exit, tangentially through an opening, at a velocity greater than it would have at that point while simply falling vertically from the same initial height/velocity.

The testable null derived from that is "IF there is NO ENERGY added to the system by the path taken down the vortex funnel, then there will be no difference in the speed of the coin at the coin's horizontal escape point, than it would have if simply dropped vertically."

In fact, since the coin funnel is less efficient than a simple pendulum, involving drag against the surface, the horizontally ejected coin will be going a little slower than the coin dropped vertically. To the external observer it "looks like" the coin is travelling quite rapidly, but that is because it is going around a tight circle, rather than travelling in a straight line.

Gravity is a conservative field of force. This means, if you will recall your Beer&Johnston and other good engineering basic textbooks, that the energy of the moving coin or ball around a closed loop under the influence of gravity alone is _independent_ of the path taken. The walls of the vortex funnel no more add energy to the motion of the coin or ball than does the string which supports a pendulum bob. Start with the pendulum bob at the same level as the support point, and drop the bob. The string converts the path of the ball from falling vertically when first released, into horizontal travel at the bottom of the arc. This pendulum conversion adds nothing to the energy of the ball: it merely converts GPE efficiently to KE, and as the bob rises on the ascending arc, back again to GPE (but always at the same or lower level, due to the inevitable losses from air and pivot friction, etc.)

The coin vortex is NO DIFFERENT, in fact it is less efficient than the pendulum. Only ADDING ENERGY (see the links I posted) can cause the coin or ball to rise up to or above the point (and velocity) of initial release. The walls of the coin vortex add no more energy to the system than does the string (arm) of a pendulum. That is.... none at all. All the energy in the coin vortex system comes from whatever means is used to raise up the coin or ball to the top of the system in the first place, and none enters the system from any other source (unless you move the whole apparatus, as explained in the links.) This means that the coin or ball will not be going any faster horizontally than it would be going vertically if it were simply dropped. Just like the bob of the pendulum: at the bottom of the arc it is going exactly as fast, horizontally, as it would have been had you simply dropped it vertically from the starting height, without the string.

You now have a link to where you yourself can purchase a small vortex funnel for a few tens of pounds/dollars. You can cut a hole in the steep part of the funnel in the region where the coin or ball is still rolling, before it falls vertically out the bottom. You can use video cameras or other means to measure the horizontal velocity as the ball comes shooting out the hole in the side. (Balls are more efficient than coins in the funnel, as you will see if you actually bother to read the links I've posted.) You can perform this entire experiment for yourself for less than it would cost to convert 2000 pounds into US Dollars.

So you can either just send the money along now, since you have been disproven time and time again by solid physical analysis, or you can keep your money, order your own coin funnel from the link provided, and perform the experiment yourself. Then I won't have to feel guilty about taking candy from a baby, or fleecing an easy mark.

[Grimer]

Yes, apparently you did. 

The links talk about the "terminal velocity" of the dropped coin or ball, and explain how that is precisely equal to the speed reached by the gravitational acceleration acting over the _vertical travel_ of the dropped ball. There is no magic arising from making the object travel the path around the vortex funnel; only the coin's or ball's height affects the terminal velocity of the object (neglecting friction and other losses, of course.)

You also haven't put forth a coherent testable hypothesis for your experimental suggestion. What it sounds like you are getting at is this: IF the vortex funnel system adds energy somehow, above and beyond that provided by simple GPE due to the height of the coin/ball release, then the ball/coin will exit, tangentially through an opening, at a velocity greater than it would have at that point while simply falling vertically from the same initial height/velocity.

The testable null derived from that is "IF there is NO ENERGY added to the system by the path taken down the vortex funnel, then there will be no difference in the speed of the coin at the coin's horizontal escape point, than it would have if simply dropped vertically."

In fact, since the coin funnel is less efficient than a simple pendulum, involving drag against the surface, the horizontally ejected coin will be going a little slower than the coin dropped vertically. To the external observer it "looks like" the coin is travelling quite rapidly, but that is because it is going around a tight circle, rather than travelling in a straight line.

Gravity is a conservative field of force. This means, if you will recall your Beer&Johnston and other good engineering basic textbooks, that the energy of the moving coin or ball around a closed loop under the influence of gravity alone is _independent_ of the path taken. The walls of the vortex funnel no more add energy to the motion of the coin or ball than does the string which supports a pendulum bob. Start with the pendulum bob at the same level as the support point, and drop the bob. The string converts the path of the ball from falling vertically when first released, into horizontal travel at the bottom of the arc. This pendulum conversion adds nothing to the energy of the ball: it merely converts GPE efficiently to KE, and as the bob rises on the ascending arc, back again to GPE (but always at the same or lower level, due to the inevitable losses from air and pivot friction, etc.)

The coin vortex is NO DIFFERENT, in fact it is less efficient than the pendulum. Only ADDING ENERGY (see the links I posted) can cause the coin or ball to rise up to or above the point (and velocity) of initial release. The walls of the coin vortex add no more energy to the system than does the string (arm) of a pendulum. That is.... none at all. All the energy in the coin vortex system comes from whatever means is used to raise up the coin or ball to the top of the system in the first place, and none enters the system from any other source (unless you move the whole apparatus, as explained in the links.) This means that the coin or ball will not be going any faster horizontally than it would be going vertically if it were simply dropped. Just like the bob of the pendulum: at the bottom of the arc it is going exactly as fast, horizontally, as it would have been had you simply dropped it vertically from the starting height, without the string.

You now have a link to where you yourself can purchase a small vortex funnel for a few tens of pounds/dollars. You can cut a hole in the steep part of the funnel in the region where the coin or ball is still rolling, before it falls vertically out the bottom. You can use video cameras or other means to measure the horizontal velocity as the ball comes shooting out the hole in the side. (Balls are more efficient than coins in the funnel, as you will see if you actually bother to read the links I've posted.) You can perform this entire experiment for yourself for less than it would cost to convert 2000 pounds into US Dollars.

So you can either just send the money along now, since you have been disproven time and time again by solid physical analysis, or you can keep your money, order your own coin funnel from the link provided, and perform the experiment yourself. Then I won't have to feel guilty about taking candy from a baby, or fleecing an easy mark.

Thank you for your detailed and interesting reply, TK.


Has it been disproved by the experiment you describe so beautifully?


If so, can I have a link?


If not, are you prepared to carry out that experiment?


If you think £2000 would be "taking candy from a baby, or fleecing an easy mark" then name what you consider a fair price.


The reason I'm asking for you to carry out the experiment is that if my black swan hunch proves to be correct you have a large audience which will believe you since you have a reputation for meticulous and reliable experimentation.


If you feel that carrying out an experiment which you "know" will prove negative, will damage your reputation and hold you up to ridicule then you can do it in private and let me know the results in private. I will keep them confidential. You know I am a man of my word. You will no doubt remember on the Steorn Forum that I paid Hairy Krishna the £200 pounds of our bet - and then gave it to the Save the Children's charity at his request. You know also that when my son who specializes in finding out who people are said it would be no problem to find out who you were, you asked me not to and I agreed.


Cheers


Frank

[tinman]

Hi Tinman,

Thanks, that is an interesting video. Is that DC to DC motor/gen?

I've tried various ways to get a motor/gen to loop and failed. You need 3x COP, as MsCoffman states, in order for you to generate enough power to run itself and run a real load.

Trying to decouple the prime mover from the load has been my main goal, also trying to find efficient generators. I recently acquired two small generators from China.

site: http://small-generator.com

The shipping is expensive to US. The company was really good answering questions I had and the quality of the generators was excellent.

The first is YAF 54 this one is not too bad it's small but needs high rpm to generate.

http://small-generator.com/buy/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=8

The second is YAF 80 this one is a little bigger but really nice output at low rpm. Just hand twisting it can make a 30watt incandescent bulb filament glow a dim red. Very low cogging too seems much less than the low wind Windblue I have. I'm pretty impressed with this one. Just need more time and warmer temps to see how it really performs.

http://small-generator.com/buy/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=10

I'm also putting up these two ideas here a different way of looping, these are untested but may be give someone inspiration for a new idea.

The wind lens is really interesting but I don't hear much about it. Here are two videos showing it off with a 2.5-3x gain on output over regular wind turbines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQexzNg_e9A

The next video is in Japanese but watch the numbers. Without lens 13watts output, with lens 37watts for same air flow/gen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGWCAvBD8eo

The idea I had was to take a efficient high velocity computer fan and focus it through the lens to another bladed fan as generator. The focus and lens can be made out of flowerpots or any other plastic kitchen container. This would partially decouple the output from the input. This design could be placed on a wide wire shelf so no real complicated support is needed for testing purposes.

Next video showing one fan running another, now if the output could be improved with a wind lens 2.5x or more could it aid in looping?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdhDq-FmM38

I also noticed the small-generator site had small hydro-generators that hook to a garden hose.

http://small-generator.com/buy/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=7&products_id=26

The other idea was to take a small solar garden fountain pump(6vdc@1amp or 12vdc@0.5amp 4ft fountain) and make a ring of generators. This one I'm not sure how much loss will be in the piping. It would be interesting to see how the high pressure from the expulsion side be aided by the pull of the low pressure of the suction side through the loop. It may be possible to combine the lens idea to make a water lens section of pipe and a spinning diametric magnet with blades attached. A water lens section can be 3D printed.

Too many ideas so little time.

The prime mover looks to be a brushed motor(probably a series wound motor),and the motor/generator looks like a PM type?-not sure.There is no info about the two,so im just guessing.

Like i said,this is about as close to a looped system(that works) as i've seen. But this is where people get traped-they start thinking-well if i did this,if i did that,it would work.I was thinking the very same thing when i first watched the video. What if i used a propper coupling with correct alignment,what if i used ceramic low friction bearing's?-i mean it realy seems as though it's so close to running itself. This is a trap many(includeing myself) have fallen into,and many more to come yet.

[turbogt16v]

people don't feed the trolls ,
as proven in many themes TinselKoala is here just to troll you