Holcomb Energy Systems:Breakthrough technology to the world

[phoneboy]

Just a quick chime in, but have to agree w bistander.  It's funny, because the magnetic field is really only the side effect of the gradient or curl of the vector potential/gradient or curl in the flow of energy (not electrons) and the induced e field to the acceleration/deceleration of that flow.

[citfta]

I think we are discussing the same idea but just using different terminology.  Let's apply 2 volts to a coil.  Now bring a compass slowly towards the coil.  Mark at what point does the compass swing towards the coil?  Now increase the voltage to the 5 volts that bi suggested.  Now again slowly bring the compass towards the coil.  You will see that from the compass's point of view the magnetic field is larger.  So did the field move or just increase in strength?


The energy induced into a coil is caused by a changing magnetic field.  Whether that is caused by the change in strength of the field or the field actually moving the coil doesn't care.


Can we move that field more efficiently without any back torque by doing it electronically instead of mechanically?  That is the question I think we are trying to answer.  Technically we aren't really moving the magnetic field when we do it electronically because we aren't moving the coils that are generating the field.  But it does appear from our tests so far that the fixed rotor is responding as if the magnetic field was actually rotating.  We see this because as we rotate our magnetic field faster we get a higher output even though our input power to the rotating field remains the same.


Carroll

[bistander]

I think we are discussing the same idea but just using different terminology.  Let's apply 2 volts to a coil.  Now bring a compass slowly towards the coil.  Mark at what point does the compass swing towards the coil?  Now increase the voltage to the 5 volts that bi suggested.  Now again slowly bring the compass towards the coil.  You will see that from the compass's point of view the magnetic field is larger.  So did the field move or just increase in strength?
Increased magnitude in this example

The energy induced into a coil is caused by a changing magnetic field.  Whether that is caused by the change in strength of the field or the field actually moving the coil doesn't care.

Can we move that field more efficiently without any back torque by doing it electronically instead of mechanically?

I disagree that efficiency is a factor. Efficiency is about losses. What Holcomb claims is bringing free energy into the system and adding it to the output. Without a movable rotor, torque is inconsequential because it represents no power and zero energy.
That is the question I think we are trying to answer.  Technically we aren't really moving the magnetic field when we do it electronically because we aren't moving the coils that are generating the field.

The properly synthetized RMF from a 3-phase stator actually does move the magnetic flux around the air gap. That's why you get no induction when the rotor is at synchronous speed.
But it does appear from our tests so far that the fixed rotor is responding as if the magnetic field was actually rotating.  We see this because as we rotate our magnetic field faster we get a higher output even though our input power to the rotating field remains the same.


Carroll

Hi citfta,
Comments inserted in bold.
bi

[kolbacict]

I propose an experiment. There are so-called magnetic gearboxes that transmit mechanical torque.
In it, the input shaft is a rotating permanent magnet. And it really works. 
If we replace this rotor-magnet with Holcomb's virtual rotating field, and this also works, then our rotating field is true. If our gearbox does not change the rotation speed, that is, it does not work, then this is an illusion.

[bistander]

I propose an experiment. There are so-called magnetic gearboxes that transmit mechanical torque.
In it, the input shaft is a rotating permanent magnet. And it really works. 
If we replace this rotor-magnet with Holcomb's virtual rotating field, and this also works, then our rotating field is true. If our gearbox does not change the rotation speed, that is, it does not work, then this is an illusion.

Hi kolbacict,
What you describe is simply a synchronous motor. Using that gearbox part would require an impractical stator due to pole count. Take a read in an engineering textbook chapter on synchronous machines.
bi