The book is dedicated to self-propelled mechanical generating devices.

[bistander]

You have one drawback, you don't read the material you are referring to.  Everything is clearly told there, calculated for the final conclusion.

Yep, I read that. I asked the question to point out how ridiculous you are. How realistic is a 104 pole 1 kw alternator? Can you give me an example where one might be purchased?
You're out in left field with all those numbers that you stick in any equations which you can find. It makes no sense.
bi

[rakarskiy]

Yep, I read that. I asked the question to point out how ridiculous you are. How realistic is a 104 pole 1 kw alternator? Can you give me an example where one might be purchased?
You're out in left field with all those numbers that you stick in any equations which you can find. It makes no sense.
bi

Well, what do you think! But the electromagnetic moment is formed by induction and for the simplest generator in one turn (frame), no squares can be applied, everything is based on basic formulas.
To find a solution, it is necessary to start from the basic calculation. Yes, the generator machine will come out expensive, since to get the result, the cost of magnets will increase significantly (if something decreases, something arrives: E = B * L*V).  I was interested in another question in this task - the fulfillment of the condition of the Law of Conservation of Energy in the simplest generator, the fulfillment of the constant that the mechanical power applied to the rotation of the generator will be conditionally equal to electric, ideally.  It turned out that this is a myth, and even an absolute one. The braking torque of the generator depends on the conditions of its design. The constant of the law of conservation of energy in the generator does not work, and depends not on the physics of the process, but on the engineering solution. Just making a superunit generator is expensive, so the condition price /power =electromagnetic moment varies in the ratio of the equality of electrical power to mechanical power. This is not a constant , it is a commercial attraction for production.
You can only do it yourself, other models have been developed and calculated, not such a cosmic conversion factor, but sufficient to make yourself non-volatile. The cost of manufacturing such a machine is still very high.

Link to the article with the solution:  http://rakarskiy.narod.ru/_ld/0/40_COP_1_motot_gen.pdf

[kolbacict]

Have you seen enough Indian cinema?

Exactly. And not only Indian ones.

[bistander]

Well, what do you think! But the electromagnetic moment is formed by induction and for the simplest generator in one turn (frame), no squares can be applied, everything is based on basic formulas.
To find a solution, it is necessary to start from the basic calculation. Yes, the generator machine will come out expensive, since to get the result, the cost of magnets will increase significantly (if something decreases, something arrives: E = B * L*V).  I was interested in another question in this task - the fulfillment of the condition of the Law of Conservation of Energy in the simplest generator, the fulfillment of the constant that the mechanical power applied to the rotation of the generator will be conditionally equal to electric, ideally.  It turned out that this is a myth, and even an absolute one. The braking torque of the generator depends on the conditions of its design. The constant of the law of conservation of energy in the generator does not work, and depends not on the physics of the process, but on the engineering solution. Just making a superunit generator is expensive, so the condition price /power =electromagnetic moment varies in the ratio of the equality of electrical power to mechanical power. This is not a constant , it is a commercial attraction for production.
You can only do it yourself, other models have been developed and calculated, not such a cosmic conversion factor, but sufficient to make yourself non-volatile. The cost of manufacturing such a machine is still very high.

Link to the article with the solution:  http://rakarskiy.narod.ru/_ld/0/40_COP_1_motot_gen.pdf

Sticking random ​values into misapplied equations and using fuzzy math proves nothing except that you lack fundamental comprehension of the science. From previous encounter between us on E.F., Ampere's force formula yields a force between the two conductors, not a moment.
Also I see little if any value in your approach to disprove conservation of energy.
I suggest you visit nearby university and seek review of book by those skilled in the field.
bi

[rakarskiy]

Sticking random ​values into misapplied equations and using fuzzy math proves nothing except that you lack fundamental comprehension of the science. From previous encounter between us on E.F., Ampere's force formula yields a force between the two conductors, not a moment.
Also I see little if any value in your approach to disprove conservation of energy.
I suggest you visit nearby university and seek review of book by those skilled in the field.
bi

Dear opponent! If you found an error. inaccuracy I will listen to you with pleasure. I solved the problem for the simplest generator, according to the rules of physics, the section of electromechanics.  If you can't decide and point out the inaccuracy with your opponent's decision, then the statement is nothing more than bravado, nothing more. If so, then go to the educational institution yourself.

The simplest generator