Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference

[MarkE]

Markie,

Once again you have proven yourself to either be an "armchair debunker" who continues to misread everything I've written or are a complete fool who relies on web searches for answers because he doesn't already know through experience and schooling.

Synchronous reluctance motors were NOT what I described,

Actually, quoting you verbatim, you said: 

For instance, take a reluctance motor ...

nor did I ever bring them up. You continue to debate on things you do not understand. I gave a very clear and concise description of what a "reluctance motor" was (note the lack of the synchronous additive). Reluctance motors do not posses generator action, as they cannot induce mutual induction by rotation. And for your information, I've actually built one, probably why I actually understand how they work and you don't. I take it you have very little experience in actual experiment and real life engagement with other humans involving technical topics. I honestly feel bad for any human who would have to work with you on an engineering project.

That's quite a load of ad hominem attack and appeal to your own authority. 

Now back to the physics:
A VR device such as a solenoid or SR motor does exhibit very measurable BEMF as the reluctance gap changes.   This is readily visible in something as simple as a common solenoid by driving from a voltage source and monitoring the current.  After the initial current build-up, the solenoid will start to move and as it accelerates, the current goes down as a result of the BEMF.  When the solenoid bottoms out, the current jumps up.

For your consideration is my own home made reluctance motor, which exhibits all the properties, both electrically and physically, that I've stated over the last few posts, which you feel is some how "wrong."

[G4RR3ττ]

Mark,

I agree that there was some against the man verbage in many of my comments. And I do apologize for that, it's just that I get the feeling you are intentionally trying to create annoyance by stepping around the fact you that you keep saying I've been talking about "SYNCHRONOUS reluctance motors" and consistently continue to ignore that I'm not. This entire time I've only described a simple home built "reluctance motor" (NOT a "synchronous reluctance motor") as shown through diagrams and actual photos. The two devices while similar in name are like bananas and apples, both fruit, but total different.

If you can admit to that I think we can both be more productive in our arguments. Otherwise you are off point in saying I'm wrong, because we are both talking about different things.

[Nali2001]

I have build Murray's rotor setup.

Will comment a bit more tomorrow.

Nail,

Well, I happily stand corrected on calling you out for not building! Thank you for the awesome pics, very good builds!

Since you have actual experience with these types of magnetic circuits, have you not seen the affects of the parametric voltage drop I * dL/dt? This was literally what MalarkE has been trying to refute, and I have been trying to point out is a real effect. Otherwise the rest of the specifics are off point.

On a side question, what's the efficiency for mechanical input to electrical output for your generator setups? I only ask as that looks to be what you were going for. My setup was made purely for mechanical work, not generator action using magnets. Also I did test the theory of hooking up a capacitor and getting parametric oscillations, which was very, very cool! It will only work at very specific frequencies, so it throws the whole residual magnetism out the window, since you would see an increasing voltage per speed of rotation which isn't present in the tests I've recorded.

Also, couldn't you have just cut your stator core on one side and placed your magnets in the cut? This seems more effective than the circuit you've shown for generator action: would produce a larger delta in flux change.

Finally, if your still into building these, the best rotor design appears to be Jim Murray's elliptical rotor:

[MarkE]

Those are nice builds.

[TinselKoala]

ALL power measurements performed using an oscilloscope with AxB capability, must use DC coupling in order to guarantee a true measurement of power, whether it be input or output power.

Thank you. And you and I and some others here know that we can come up with literally thousands of technical references that support this point. Some people just seem to want to argue.

It is easy to demonstrate, as I have done, that the use of AC-coupled channels destroys all of the quantitative vertical information in the trace except for peak-to-peak amplitude.  If we had not been distracted by a display of unnecessary detail and one-upmanship, we might have been able to answer whether or not phase relationships determined by _zerocrossing_ measurements rather than peak point measurements are also affected by this. I don't know the answer to that. Certainly Alek's point about whether the positive lobe or negative lobe is larger IS affected by the use of AC instead of DC couplings.

I maintain still that the use of AC coupling on Alek's scope, and also on the QEG FTW scopes, and others I have seen displayed, indicates a lack of knowledge of proper metrology or even a deliberate attempt to alter the presentation of data so that it appears more favorable to the claims made.  If you want to think that current that does not change direction is "alternating" that is fine. My math works out just as well as yours does, even if you call DC "blue" and AC "red" current.

Just don't bring me data on an overunity device from a scope that is AC-coupled, without presenting a good reason, and without doing the simple test TinMan did in his demonstration: change the coupling from AC to DC, live, and show that the trace vertical parameters do not change.

I respect Garrett's knowledge and his general approach but I think this past discussion has been more of a personal attack on me, than what I originally intended it to be: A simple discussion of the FACT that AC-coupling is rarely appropriate for scoposcopy but is used inappropriately far too much, and the reason for that inappropriate use, as in Alek's case, is probably because people actually ARE confused about the nature of what they are measuring, how to measure it and what effect the actual controls on the scope have. Does Bill Alek realise that the AC-coupling function of his scope does nothing at all except switch a 0.1 uF capacitor into series with his probe before the attenuator? I seriously doubt it.  And I even wonder if some of the present discussants know that.  And I strongly believe that much of this confusion arises from well-meaning, overly technical discussions that are tangent to the main point, as we have seen from Garrett the past hours. Note that I am not saying Garrett is wrong about his definition of "AC"... but he is wrong to challenge the fact that the use of AC coupled scope channels is generally inappropriate for power determinations in unknown devices that are presented with extraordinary claims of super-efficiency. And the reasons for why it is wrong are, or should be, clearly evident in my video demonstrations that show when "AC" becomes "DC" and what they look like on the scope, with and without the use of AC-coupled channels.