Core saturation and Lenz.

[broli]

I agree that the gain to the proposed flywheel during the approach would be the same as the loss at the accelerated exit, however something has changed at TDC. The core does not decrease in magnetic field as the magnet exits and therefore has a greater attraction during the exit phase.

This would increase the exit losses, and with 2x gearing there should be 2x the additional loss.

Even at equal speed, you have shown additional mechanical loss on exit. If the core was not energized, then the exit loss should be only little over approach gain.

I have made elliptical gears for other magnetic projects and I must say they are difficult. The layout alone in CAD can take an entire day for a single gear set. I can then mill them out of Lexan sheet in a few minutes.

Yes I know about the exit loss. But you believe this loss gets greater at greater speeds. This is where we don't agree. Even if we approach the core veeery slowly and leave from TDC at lightning speed. The mechanical gain and losses remain equal if we did the same experiment with any combination of speeds. It's because the force acted over the same distance irregardless of the speed. Does that make sense?

I dont understand it but it sound like you do so Im going to tell you something
first  Tesla is in the Bible revelation second he screwed us with ac and dc  power now I know what everyone thinks im a idiot but listen photon power  comes from 144,000 it cannot be measured in conventional volt metters  or electric metters the reason theres no gaps so tesla created the gaps  so jp morgan could sell the power to enslave the world now some are  going to say its not teslas fault blame is not the point the point is  the open loop between the magnets releases the frequency to the air that  frequency is the ineffeciency so tesla knew the only way to release all  the energy at once was to open the circuit the points which creates the  spark so thats the wrong way now im not a engeneer but if you have a  way to create the spark constant with no gaps thats the key and if you  scientist figure out the frequency to offset the gaps in the 60hz we  dont pay no one so it should be like this 60/144,000= frequency gaps the  metter reads
or 60x144,000= frequency gaps
so with that we  should be able to make a crystal or series of crystals to ballance our  power to perfect from what tesla screwed the world with. turn the  economy and finish my unimited earth battery conversion tesla took to  his grave now if you know how to build the circuit i posted the video  the battery is easy it went well over 5 miles
and next im going to  build a martha stuart generator with vinegar milk grape honey molases  =potasium salt and water thats the formula how it goes together good  luck im going to a buffet in the morning if you beat me congrats.its  about turning our economy from these dictators.

Wrong thread?

[cletushowell]

im not very good at expalining things so if you dont understand please dont get mad just ask a different way
what im saying is there is loops of inifinty there is two loops one of three and one of five
I dont know how to get out of the loops but I know how to complete the loops so if you have a magnet motor
its going to get stuck on one spot you can either discharge this spot with a frequency to match the magnet or
you can absorb the frequency and magnify it to the other side by three loops but magnets are all different strength so its hard to perfect unless your using elctromagnets and even electro magnets are shit because iron is not the same so you need optics so you have to create the magnetic poles of frequency with no iron like how I warp the light bulb but using optics
compensate the lost frequency of the design with frequency conversion from other frequencies  exampel if your using a light pulse your going to have a frequency loss of the light spectrum but if we convert the frequency above the spectrum were not using to equal the loss were losing to the air then we have a complete loop so were essential taking the exray frequency and spliting it into light rays and equaling the lost energy so it never stops the lost energy goes to the air we take that energy back. I hope some one understands.

[lumen]

Yes I know about the exit loss. But you believe this loss gets greater at greater speeds. This is where we don't agree. Even if we approach the core veeery slowly and leave from TDC at lightning speed. The mechanical gain and losses remain equal if we did the same experiment with any combination of speeds. It's because the force acted over the same distance irregardless of the speed. Does that make sense?

Wrong thread?

Well, that's not exactly what I'm saying and I agree that force x distance is the work regardless of speed, but lets go back to just the magnet on a wheel rotating by the coil as in your example.

As the magnet approaches the coil core, and is about 45 degrees from TDC, the magnet aligns some domains in the core and the core starts to become attractive. This attraction is in the approaching direction and applies a gain to the rotation direction.

At the same 45 degree point after TDC, during the exit phase, the core is still fully saturated from the coil current and provides additional attraction to the magnet that did not exist on the approach side. This additional attraction is working against the rotation direction and applies as loss to the rotating direction.

There would then be greater mechanical loss on the exit after TDC where the core remains saturated for a longer time than on the approach. The distance and speed have not changed, but the force did.  Do you agree this would be true?

[broli]

Well, that's not exactly what I'm saying and I agree that force x distance is the work regardless of speed, but lets go back to just the magnet on a wheel rotating by the coil as in your example.

As the magnet approaches the coil core, and is about 45 degrees from TDC, the magnet aligns some domains in the core and the core starts to become attractive. This attraction is in the approaching direction and applies a gain to the rotation direction.

At the same 45 degree point after TDC, during the exit phase, the core is still fully saturated from the coil current and provides additional attraction to the magnet that did not exist on the approach side. This additional attraction is working against the rotation direction and applies as loss to the rotating direction.

There would then be greater mechanical loss on the exit after TDC where the core remains saturated for a longer time than on the approach. The distance and speed have not changed, but the force did.  Do you agree this would be true?

yes completely. This is what the animated presentation shows, in fact there I don't even consider the attraction on approach which would lower the mechanical loss in my favor. But I assume you are going to try to make a point by having a mutual understanding first, so please go on.

[lumen]

yes completely. This is what the animated presentation shows, in fact there I don't even consider the attraction on approach which would lower the mechanical loss in my favor. But I assume you are going to try to make a point by having a mutual understanding first, so please go on.

In trying to find a method to return as much electrical energy as possible, we would need a way to reduce joule heating which is the major loss.
Because saturation current on exit is a required condition, the only way to reduce this is to reduce the time, but because there is a limit on rotation speed due to the recovery time of the coil as it collapses with larger inductance, electrical output gain would increase if the system controlled the approach and exit speeds.

Because accelerating and decelerating a mass also takes energy, a workable method would be to use elliptical gearing so the deceleration recovers energy that is again used to accelerate the object.

At this point you can now see the problem. Essentially, there would be two different gear ratios, geared 1x on the approach and say 2x on the exit side. Now because the exit side has 2x the leverage on the mechanical portion of the device. This means you would also have 2x the mechanical losses compared to the 1x mechanical gain on the approach side.

Now because we have 2x mechanical loss but reduced the joule heating time by 1/2, does this increase the actual usable output? If so , then a 5x ratio would be better, because you would lose 5x mechanical losses but joule heating time would be 1/5 also.

This is only a concept to overcome the hidden factors that seem to make these devices not function as calculated.