New reactionless motor from India

[allcanadian]

@Gravityblock


I once built PM motor which would not generate and I posted the plans for it here in the forums. It was interesting because it had a strong motor action however no matter how fast it was rotated it would not generate any voltage.


Now if we can build a motor which will not generate then why not a generator which will not motor?. In a motor the generator action generates a Cemf in opposition to the applied Emf limiting current. At which point we might ask what function does the motoring action play in a generator and what are the consequences of removing the motor function?.






AC

[gravityblock]

At which point we might ask what function does the motoring action play in a generator and what are the consequences of removing the motor function?.

A loss of torque.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

Deleted, double posted by accident.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

At which point we might ask what function does the motoring action play in a generator and what are the consequences of removing the motor function?

A loss of torque.

Gravock

AC,

At the initial startup of the simple device, the forces are unbalanced and there is an acceleration, net torque, net force, net inertia, and a net moment of inertia.  The individual bodies of the system are not isolated.  However, after the individual bodies of the system have become balanced by achieving a constant velocity (uniform motion), then the system will proceed at a uniform motion until it becomes unbalanced according to Newton's first law.  The isolated bodies of the system will no longer have an acceleration, net torque, net force, etc.  We've already established F=ma is False and F_net=ma is True, and the same applies for torque, etc.

An isolated body has a constant velocity. That's once again Newton's first law of motion.  When a body is isolated, we can regard it as a system unto itself.  Conversely, when a body's velocity changes, that very change is a signal that the body is not isolated. Some other body has to be acting on it to produce the change in velocity. The action of one body on another generally transfers energy between them. Only the total energy is conserved, not the energy of each body separately.  Conservation of energy applies to systems, not to individual bodies. 

In other-words, after the initial startup and after the forces on the individual bodies have become balanced and in a state of uniform motion, then it takes no additional energy for the system itself to further lift the heavier weight.  We no longer need the motor or prime mover that initially caused the individual bodies to become unbalanced in the first place.  However, since we don't live in a perfect world and the system will have friction, air resistance, etc. then the motor is only needed to overcome these slight inherent losses so the system will remain balanced and in a state of uniform motion.  At this point, the motor isn't lifting the weight.  In summary, the motor is only needed to overcome the inherent losses in the system and to initially cause the individual bodies to become unbalanced in the first place.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

The first question that all these claims fail is:  Given that motors and generators are duals of each other, why does the machine need both?  If both are over unity, then only one is required.  If only one is over unity, then only that device is required.  If neither is overunity (which is the reality), then the claim is false.

Your postulate above is based on a false assumption.  Trying to self-loop a system introduces additional resistant forces that were not previously there.  Such as deceleration, inertia, negative torques, and negative forces, etc. which acts against the system itself in which you're trying to self-loop.  In other-words, your postulate is based on a false assumption that there are no resistant forces introduced to the system that acts against the system itself when trying to self-loop it.

Gravock