Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

[tinman]

No, actually for now, I am going to ignore Verpies' and Itsu's results and stick by everything I said in my posting.  There's no special case for magnets.  They are devices that can change the overall electrical impedance and related efficiency of electrical devices, no one doubts that.  But what they can't do is "useful work" or output "magnetic energy" on their own.  For example, if PW is correct and the spinning rotor is absorbing electrical energy during the energizing cycle and speeding up, and then kicking back that energy at the end of the energizing cycle and/or after the energizing cycle is OFF and as a result slowing slowing down, then the spinning rotor is simply acting like an invisible spring storing and releasing energy.  The energy goes from electrical to rotational (i.e.; mechanical) back to electrical.

So how dose the rotor store more energy than it receives?--how dose it give back more than it is given. What about the friction losses in the bearings,and windage losses. Even though small,they are still there. So how is it we get more back than we put into spinning the rotor?. If losses are taken into account,and more work is being done to spin the rotor than what is given back due to losses,then why dose the P/in drop when the rotor is in position and part of the opperation of the system?. You can say what you like,and stick to what your books say,but it was indeed the external alternating magnetic fields that converted losses(like waste heat) into electrical energy.

I did the test you wanted me to,to standards above what you requested. The results are known from this test,and are very accurate. But now because those results do not conform to your !! laws !! you start putting forward more test,and more test. Im happy to do these test,and post the result's,but they will show the same thing every time--the system is always more efficient with the rotor and magnets in play.

Now we have Itsu working on the same thing-although in a different thread,and along side him we have Verpies doing all the calculations for those test's--sound familiar MH ?. I seem to remember carrying out some tests some time ago as per 2 EE's request(one of them now sadly not with us).
Now,if my test showed an under unity result,every one would have been happy-as they would be if Itsu's results were also under unity. But as the results that were calculated (by others) with my test,all sorts of bullshit started to flow--and so i pulled the plug on that. Now we see the same thing starting to happen in regards to the results that have so far been calculated from Itsu's test.

I have said all along MH,you have no room for change,and what i have seen here(and other forums) is that !!most!! of the well educated EE guys are much the same. Verpies and smudge are probably the only two EE guys i know that have an open mind,and not ruled by the book. It is guys like Verpies and Smudge that will go the whole nine yards,and not just dismiss findings as errors just because they are not in line with outdated !!laws!!.

Like you said MH--we shall see. And if Itsu's result's are correct,then we shall see if he can put all this together,and come up with some like--well,i dont know-->maybe a rotating device that can deliver more power to a load than it consumes,i mean that is what he appears to have ATM,only on a smaller scale-->now wouldnt that be a hoot

Brad

[MileHigh]

Brad:

>>> So how dose the rotor store more energy than it receives?--how dose it give back more than it is given.

I am not sure what you mean by that.  Your evidence is showing that the motor gets more efficient when the rotor is spinning.  What do you mean and where does it show that it "is giving back more than it is given?"  I only see it giving back less than it is given with the rotor and without the rotor.  If you are going to say the input power went down then we are talking in circles.  The only thing you have is a bird's eye view of what is taking place - you motor loses less input power to heat when the rotor spins.  We don't know exactly where or exactly why that is happening.

>>> You can say what you like,and stick to what your books say,but it was indeed the external alternating magnetic fields that converted losses(like waste heat) into electrical energy.

You are still looking at it the wrong way.  You have two separate cases and they are both under unity.  No waste heat losses were converted into electrical energy.  If you put in a better bearing will waste heat losses be converted into electrical energy?

>>> I did the test you wanted me to,to standards above what you requested. The results are known from this test,and are very accurate. But now because those results do not conform to your !! laws !! you start putting forward more test,and more test. Im happy to do these test,and post the result's,but they will show the same thing every time--the system is always more efficient with the rotor and magnets in play.

You need to embrace testing and when you get anomalous results your mind should be crackling and you should be inventing more tests for yourself to confirm or deny your results.  Who said the results don't conform to the laws of physics?  Not me, not PW, only you are claiming that.  Your measurements are 100% mundane and normal.  You have a very poorly performing coil that shows slightly better performance with a spinning rotor in place.  You need to think about that and realize it.  All that you did was change the overall electro-mechanical impedance of the device when you added the rotor.  That's it - no laws were broken.  It's very important for you to realize this.

>>>  I have said all along MH,you have no room for change,and what i have seen here(and other forums) is that !!most!! of the well educated EE guys are much the same.

Yeah but the truth on the forums is we have all been down this road before and then an honest researcher finds an error.  In the "pro" world that Sterling Allen follows, everything he writes up with enthusiasm eventually gets busted or fizzles out.  Think of the German chain-drive bubbler.  It would be wonderful if one day somebody breaks out.

So I figure it's either a break out or renewables become more and more of our energy pie.  There is so much sun and so much land that perhaps in 100 years the millions of square kilometers of desert in Australia will be powering a good chunk of East Asia.  You never know.

MileHigh

[tinman]

Brad:

>>> So how dose the rotor store more energy than it receives?--how dose it give back more than it is given.

I am not sure what you mean by that.  Your evidence is showing that the motor gets more efficient when the rotor is spinning.  What do you mean and where does it show that it "is giving back more than it is given?"  I only see it giving back less than it is given with the rotor and without the rotor.  If you are going to say the input power went down then we are talking in circles.  The only thing you have is a bird's eye view of what is taking place - you motor loses less input power to heat when the rotor spins.  We don't know exactly where or exactly why that is happening.

>>> You can say what you like,and stick to what your books say,but it was indeed the external alternating magnetic fields that converted losses(like waste heat) into electrical energy.

You are still looking at it the wrong way.  You have two separate cases and they are both under unity.  No waste heat losses were converted into electrical energy.  If you put in a better bearing will waste heat losses be converted into electrical energy?

>>> I did the test you wanted me to,to standards above what you requested. The results are known from this test,and are very accurate. But now because those results do not conform to your !! laws !! you start putting forward more test,and more test. Im happy to do these test,and post the result's,but they will show the same thing every time--the system is always more efficient with the rotor and magnets in play.

and when you get anomalous results your mind should be crackling and you should be inventing more tests for yourself to confirm or deny your results.  Who said the results don't conform to the laws of physics?  Not me, not PW, only you are claiming that.  Your measurements are 100% mundane and normal.  You have a very poorly performing coil that shows slightly better performance with a spinning rotor in place.  You need to think about that and realize it.  All that you did was change the overall electro-mechanical impedance of the device when you added the rotor.  That's it - no laws were broken.  It's very important for you to realize this.

>>>  I have said all along MH,you have no room for change,and what i have seen here(and other forums) is that !!most!! of the well educated EE guys are much the same.

Yeah but the truth on the forums is we have all been down this road before and then an honest researcher finds an error.  In the "pro" world that Sterling Allen follows, everything he writes up with enthusiasm eventually gets busted or fizzles out.  Think of the German chain-drive bubbler.  It would be wonderful if one day somebody breaks out.

So I figure it's either a break out or renewables become more and more of our energy pie.  There is so much sun and so much land that perhaps in 100 years the millions of square kilometers of desert in Australia will be powering a good chunk of East Asia.  You never know.

MileHigh

MH
Here is where we see that your understanding,or your belief sways reality.
First you say

you motor loses less input power to heat when the rotor spins.  We don't know exactly where or exactly why that is happening.

Then you say

No waste heat losses were converted into electrical energy.

So how can you say the second,when in the first you say we dont know what or why that is happening?.

You need to embrace testing

I do MH,but i see a pattern forming here. When one test dose not show results that you think should be seen,you come up with another test--first,lower the voltage !which i did!-->same result , then raise the voltage,but lower the duty cycle !which i also did!-->same results. It has come apparent that each and every test i do that dose not abide by your laws of physics,you just make up another test,and i have a feeling that these different tests would keep coming until such time as you get the results that suit your law's.

Anyway,i will continue on,and see how we go.


Brad

[tinman]

@ Verpies

if you have enough time to follow this thread as well,below is a pic of a coil i already had lying around that i will try first.

It has a hollow ferrite core that i have filled with plastic coated soft iron wire,as i have a mig welder,so do not have any of the welding rod Itsu used. But being plastic covered,we know that they will be electrically isolated from each other. The inductance is 11.55mH,and resistance is 3 ohm's. I have left the extra rod length hanging out the back of the coil as Itsu has in his setup. If the results are not the same as he is seeing,then i will make up a coil like his,and see if we can get the same results then.

I only have 2 x 1uF poly caps,but can pick up some tomorrow during my lunch break. I also have now my non inductive .1 ohm CVR that i raided from an old DMM--should do the job ?. I have the IRF954 mosfets,and they are good for 23 amps continuous,or 76 amps pulsed.

If you get the time,could you throw up a sketch of the best suited circuit for the equipment i have--keeping in mind that my FG and scope share common grounds.

Cheers
Brad

[gyulasun]

....
Does that make sense, or have I missed something?

Hi poynt99,

Well, your explanation makes sense, thank you. (For completeness I mention I also read verpies' additional reminder to this question in his Reply #195.)

In my previous post I mentioned Newton's Third law, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" and this law may not seem to be 100% correct in this case, once the reaction force from a strong magnet becomes higher than the action force coming from a weak magnet.  I am pleased...   

Gyula