Kapanadze and other FE discussion

[rakarskiy]

Wesley, there is no eternal device, there are time intervals, relative to the observer, in which devices operate. For example, a permanent magnet. Keeps the production of magnetic flux for as long as its capabilities and operating conditions allow. Conventionally, a "piece of metal alloys" once launched by an electromagnetic pulse generates a magnetic flux. If its period that it will generate a magnetic field is 120 years, then - in relation to the observer, whose life span is 80 years, this is a magnetically perpetual magnetic field generator.

For example, your "official science", which you do good, does not know how a transformer and a synchronous generator work, where the phase winding is laid in grooves. or wound on a metal stator rod. Magnetic lines from the rotor poles do not cross the phase wires in these designs. Just like don't cross the wires in the transformer window. Empirically, design engineers have derived a formula for calculating the EMF for these structures, which is called the "EMF transformer formula". Physicists cannot explain, carrying all sorts of nonsense, the smarter ones simply call it an engineering formula "in fact".

Doctor (of Medicine) Robert Holcomb was able to build a generator with a rotor that does not rotate, neither physicists nor the corporations that control the energy industry can accept this, as this destroys their foundations.

Are you a researcher?, or a warrior of the system?
You can contact them and visit their center, the company where their device works. There is no need to go to Georgia here, the Holcomb Center is located in the USA, and operates on the basis of US laws.

[pix]

Doctor (of Medicine) Robert Holcomb was able to build a generator with a rotor that does not rotate, neither physicists nor the corporations that control the energy industry can accept this, as this destroys their foundations.

Every asynchronous induction motor has rotating magnetic field without physical rotation.
And Holcomb-style device you will have when you take a typical 3 phase slip ring motor ( commonly used in electric winches and cranes) and mechanically lock the rotor like Holcomb did. Measure output at slip rings and see if you get OU.


Cheers,
Pix

[rakarskiy]

pix, This is the first thing that came to mind for many electrical engineers. Many have tried it, all had the same result: COP less than 1, very less. They got a transformer with very poor efficiency. There is a difference between a generator and a transformer, while the EMF formula is general, I already know this for sure.

In this experiment, they just approached the generator version, but the guy made a mistake, and so did I, advising him.

https://rakatskiy.blogspot.com/2022/06/static-electromagnetic-transducer.html

But even with a mistake, we can consider COP-1.3-2.0

[Sergh]

All these misunderstandings are due to excessive formalization. When a formal description is used, the general understanding of the physical entity is lost.
Example: Some wind many different coils and assume that their connection options change something and the result is an exclusive device.

Unfortunately, it is not. The resultant effect of many coils is equal to the same effect as from one. No matter how you wind it, along, across, in the opposite direction - nature integrates everything.

   Any formal concept does not fully correspond to the real one. Formalization was invented by people to make life easier.

[stivep]

But even with a mistake, we can consider COP-1.3-2.0

Thank you for your comment.
getting more energy net contradicts  models and rules in physics as energy must come from somewhere.
So it is not important  to us what you have till you present it , prove it,  brand it and you can't even patent the mechanisms in physics as there are no patents for natural phenomena and its mechanisms. You can only  patent  applications.
Till than such  claim is rejected.

COP >than 1  can't be seen at the output as a NET VALUE.
and can't be utilized in real world.
Example  with Refrigerator is not the proof, but just a look  at one of components inside of the the  complex phenomena
Wesley