I came across this motor from India.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/04/15/breaking-news-over-unity-reactionless-generator-invented-in-india/
That was covered a few months ago on R-G when the article first published. Of course if the machine were really 250% efficient, self-looping would be no problem. Yet, they don't do it. The reasons are painfully obvious: They measure VA products instead of real power.
MARK E
I forgot..how's that go again ??
Oh yeah
"Nothing to see here folks...move along "
::)
Quote from: ramset on August 15, 2015, 11:49:17 AM
MARK E
I forgot..how's that go again ??
Oh yeah
"Nothing to see here folks...move along "
::)
By all means show something interesting. Show a motor / generator combination that runs itself. Can you do that? Apparently, in this case as in all prior cases of free energy from motor / generator combinations, nobody can. Most importantly: that includes the claimant.
Have you spoken with the "claimsnts' ??
Quote from: ramset on August 15, 2015, 08:03:54 PM
Have you spoken with the "claimsnts' ??
Why would I bother over such a specious claim? Time has already eroded it as it does all these ridiculously silly motor / generator claims. The first question that all these claims fail is: Given that motors and generators are duals of each other, why does the machine need both? If both are over unity, then only one is required. If only one is over unity, then only that device is required. If neither is overunity (which is the reality), then the claim is false.
Tewari has been wrong for more years than some of this forum's members have been alive. And he's still wrong.
Quote from: MarkE on August 15, 2015, 10:53:07 PM
Why would I bother over such a specious claim? Time has already eroded it as it does all these ridiculously silly motor / generator claims. The first question that all these claims fail is: Given that motors and generators are duals of each other, why does the machine need both? If both are over unity, then only one is required. If only one is over unity, then only that device is required. If neither is overunity (which is the reality), then the claim is false.
I know of a simple device based on a reactionless unidirectional force (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLVa_yBIAm8) that doesn't have a dual, and I have it! It doesn't fight it's own rotation, and it's doing mechanical work by lifting a heavier weight. However, looping it is an entirely different issue.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on August 16, 2015, 06:53:23 AM
I know of a simple device based on a reactionless unidirectional force (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLVa_yBIAm8) that doesn't have a dual, and I have it! It doesn't fight it's own rotation, and it's doing mechanical work by lifting a heavier weight. However, looping it is an entirely different issue.
Gravock
So you think that video demonstrates a reactionless drive do you? You don't think the presenter is doing work or working against a reaction force? Is that what you claim? LOL.
Quote from: MarkE on August 16, 2015, 08:20:30 AM
So you think that video demonstrates a reactionless drive do you? You don't think the presenter is doing work or working against a reaction force? Is that what you claim? LOL.
It's the simple things that escapes and gets by us!
Gravock
Quote from: MarkE on August 16, 2015, 08:20:30 AM
So you think that video demonstrates a reactionless drive do you?
Quote from: gravityblock on August 16, 2015, 01:04:07 PM
It's the simple things that escapes and gets by us!
Gravock
MarkE,
Where's the duality in this, that you speak of? For example, a motor also acts as a generator, and a generator also acts as a motor. The dual nature of a motor/generator opposes itself. However, moving the heavier weight up and down by hand won't rotate the lighter weight, nor will it accelerate or decelerate the lighter weight in regards to it's angular velocity. The most it can do is change the length of the moment arm. If the moment arm is increased, then the torque increases which will accelerate the lighter weight. However, the moment of inertia will also increase which will decelerate the lighter weight (conservation of angular momentum). As you can see, the system remains unchanged and can't be ran in reverse due to an absence of a reactional force and will proceed with a uniform motion according to Newton's first law, thus a reactionless force is being demonstrated. Since this has no dual and it can't run in reverse, then it also demonstrates a unidirectional force.
Newton's first law states, "an object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force". This law is often called "the law of inertia". The forces remain balanced throughout the system and it remains unchanged and in a state of uniform motion, even while doing work by lifting a heavier mass. There's no inertia (resistant force) in lifting the heavier weight, thus it can be considered a reactionless force. In summary, this simple device demonstrates a reactionless unidirectional force.
Gravock
Quote from: ramset on August 15, 2015, 11:49:17 AM
MARK E
I forgot..how's that go again ??
Oh yeah
"Nothing to see here folks...move along "
::)
According to MarkE, It's more like:
"Nothing to see here or anywhere folks...so move along to nowhere".
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on August 16, 2015, 05:12:41 PM
MarkE,
Where's the duality in this, that you speak of? For example, a motor also acts as a generator, and a generator also acts as a motor. The dual nature of a motor/generator opposes itself. However, moving the heavier weight up and down by hand won't rotate the lighter weight, nor will it accelerate or decelerate the lighter weight in regards to it's angular velocity. The most it can do is change the length of the moment arm. If the moment arm is increased, then the torque increases which will accelerate the lighter weight. However, the moment of inertia will also increase which will decelerate the lighter weight (conservation of angular momentum). As you can see, the system remains unchanged and can't be ran in reverse due to an absence of a reactional force and will proceed with a uniform motion according to Newton's first law, thus a reactionless force is being demonstrated. Since this has no dual and it can't run in reverse, then it also demonstrates a unidirectional force.
Newton's first law states, "an object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force". This law is often called "the law of inertia". The forces remain balanced throughout the system and it remains unchanged and in a state of uniform motion, even while doing work by lifting a heavier mass. There's no inertia (resistant force) in lifting the heavier weight, thus it can be considered a reactionless force. In summary, this simple device demonstrates a reactionless unidirectional force.
Gravock
No, it does not. There are reaction forces all over the place in that demonstration. You are just being silly now. There are dozens of ways to make the reaction forces visible. I'm not surprised you can't think of any.... but those of us with a good grounding in statics and dynamics can.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 16, 2015, 07:24:16 PM
No, it does not. There are reaction forces all over the place in that demonstration. You are just being silly now. There are dozens of ways to make the reaction forces visible. I'm not surprised you can't think of any.... but those of us with a good grounding in statics and dynamics can.
Your reply is an argument by assertion with no scientific or mathematical rebuttal. You have a good grounding in B.S.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on August 16, 2015, 05:12:41 PM
MarkE,
Where's the duality in this, that you speak of? For example, a motor also acts as a generator, and a generator also acts as a motor. The dual nature of a motor/generator opposes itself. However, moving the heavier weight up and down by hand won't rotate the lighter weight, nor will it accelerate or decelerate the lighter weight in regards to it's angular velocity. The most it can do is change the length of the moment arm. If the moment arm is increased, then the torque increases which will accelerate the lighter weight. However, the moment of inertia will also increase which will decelerate the lighter weight (conservation of angular momentum). As you can see, the system remains unchanged and can't be ran in reverse due to an absence of a reactional force and will proceed with a uniform motion according to Newton's first law, thus a reactionless force is being demonstrated. Since this has no dual and it can't run in reverse, then it also demonstrates a unidirectional force.
Newton's first law states, "an object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force". This law is often called "the law of inertia". The forces remain balanced throughout the system and it remains unchanged and in a state of uniform motion, even while doing work by lifting a heavier mass. There's no inertia (resistant force) in lifting the heavier weight, thus it can be considered a reactionless force. In summary, this simple device demonstrates a reactionless unidirectional force.
Gravock
LOL
@Gravityblock
I once built PM motor which would not generate and I posted the plans for it here in the forums. It was interesting because it had a strong motor action however no matter how fast it was rotated it would not generate any voltage.
Now if we can build a motor which will not generate then why not a generator which will not motor?. In a motor the generator action generates a Cemf in opposition to the applied Emf limiting current. At which point we might ask what function does the motoring action play in a generator and what are the consequences of removing the motor function?.
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on August 16, 2015, 10:42:21 PM
At which point we might ask what function does the motoring action play in a generator and what are the consequences of removing the motor function?.
A loss of torque.
Gravock
Deleted, double posted by accident.
Gravock
Quote from: allcanadian on August 16, 2015, 10:42:21 PM
At which point we might ask what function does the motoring action play in a generator and what are the consequences of removing the motor function?
Quote from: gravityblock on August 17, 2015, 12:42:38 AM
A loss of torque.
Gravock
AC,
At the initial startup of the simple device, the forces are unbalanced and there is an acceleration, net torque, net force, net inertia, and a net moment of inertia. The individual bodies of the system are not isolated. However, after the individual bodies of the system have become balanced by achieving a constant velocity (uniform motion), then the system will proceed at a uniform motion until it becomes unbalanced according to Newton's first law. The isolated bodies of the system will no longer have an acceleration, net torque, net force, etc. We've already established F=ma is False and F
net=ma is True, and the same applies for torque, etc.
An isolated body has a constant velocity. That's once again Newton's first law of motion. When a body is isolated, we can regard it as a system unto itself. Conversely, when a body's velocity changes, that very change is a signal that the body is not isolated. Some other body has to be acting on it to produce the change in velocity. The action of one body on another generally transfers energy between them. Only the total energy is conserved, not the energy of each body separately. Conservation of energy applies to systems, not to individual bodies.
In other-words, after the initial startup and after the forces on the individual bodies have become balanced and in a state of uniform motion, then it takes no additional energy for the system itself to further lift the heavier weight. We no longer need the motor or prime mover that initially caused the individual bodies to become unbalanced in the first place. However, since we don't live in a perfect world and the system will have friction, air resistance, etc. then the motor is only needed to overcome these slight inherent losses so the system will remain balanced and in a state of uniform motion. At this point, the motor isn't lifting the weight. In summary, the motor is only needed to overcome the inherent losses in the system and to initially cause the individual bodies to become unbalanced in the first place.
Gravock
Quote from: MarkE on August 15, 2015, 10:53:07 PM
The first question that all these claims fail is: Given that motors and generators are duals of each other, why does the machine need both? If both are over unity, then only one is required. If only one is over unity, then only that device is required. If neither is overunity (which is the reality), then the claim is false.
Your postulate above is based on a false assumption. Trying to self-loop a system introduces additional resistant forces that were not previously there. Such as deceleration, inertia, negative torques, and negative forces, etc. which acts against the system itself in which you're trying to self-loop. In other-words, your postulate is based on a false assumption that there are no resistant forces introduced to the system that acts against the system itself when trying to self-loop it.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on August 17, 2015, 03:15:35 AM
Your postulate above is based on a false assumption. Trying to self-loop a system introduces additional resistant forces that were not previously there. Such as deceleration, inertia, negative torques, and negative forces, etc. which acts against the system itself in which you're trying to self-loop. In other-words, your postulate is based on a false assumption that there are no resistant forces introduced to the system that acts against the system itself when trying to self-loop it.
Gravock
MarkE and his minions can no longer use the argument that a system isn't COP > 1 if it can't be self-looped. That argument is wrong based on a false assumption, as previously shown.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on August 17, 2015, 04:06:11 AM
MarkE and his minions can no longer use the argument that a system isn't COP > 1 if it can't be self-looped. That argument is wrong based on a false assumption, as previously shown.
Gravock
Work can be done with no energy if that work is being done internally within the system itself. However, if a system is doing work that is external to itself, then it requires energy to do that work.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on August 17, 2015, 04:52:07 AM
Work can be done with no energy if that work is being done internally within the system itself. However, if a system is doing work that is external to itself, then it requires energy to do that work.
Gravock
AC,
This means inertia acts within and upon itself, and it requires no energy to do so.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on August 17, 2015, 04:06:11 AM
MarkE and his minions can no longer use the argument that a system isn't COP > 1 if it can't be self-looped. That argument is wrong based on a false assumption, as previously shown.
Gravock
LOL, it's straw man days again. Set-up and slay arguments that you have invented.
As if you didn't already know: COP is a figure of merit for heat pumps that measures the amount of heat energy
moved relative to the energy expended
moving that heat energy. A 100% efficient heat pump moves N Joules of heat while expending zero Joules. It would therefore have a COP of N/0 which is undefined.
Next time please try a bit harder.
Quote from: MarkE on August 17, 2015, 05:08:21 AM
LOL, it's straw man days again. Set-up and slay arguments that you have invented.
As if you didn't already know: COP is a figure of merit for heat pumps that measures the amount of heat energy moved relative to the energy expended moving that heat energy. A 100% efficient heat pump moves N Joules of heat while expending zero Joules. It would therefore have a COP of N/0 which is undefined.
Next time please try a bit harder.
Call it whatever you want, but it doesn't change what it is. Most people have adopted the analogy of a heat pump's COP to represent a system that is greater than unity. I replaced COP > 1 with OU in my statement below.
MarkE and his minions can no longer use the argument that a system isn't OU if it can't be self-looped. That argument is wrong based on a false assumption, as previously shown.
Gravock
Quote from: allcanadian on August 16, 2015, 10:42:21 PM
@Gravityblock
I once built PM motor which would not generate and I posted the plans for it here in the forums. It was interesting because it had a strong motor action however no matter how fast it was rotated it would not generate any voltage.
Now if we can build a motor which will not generate then why not a generator which will not motor?. In a motor the generator action generates a Cemf in opposition to the applied Emf limiting current. At which point we might ask what function does the motoring action play in a generator and what are the consequences of removing the motor function?.
AC
A shaded pole motor dose not generate,so just build the opposite to one of them,and you have a generator that will have no motor effect :D
Quote from: gravityblock on August 17, 2015, 05:23:49 AM
Call it whatever you want, but it doesn't change what it is. Most people have adopted the analogy of a heat pump's COP to represent a system that is greater than unity. I replaced COP > 1 with OU in my statement below.
MarkE and his minions can no longer use the argument that a system isn't OU if it can't be self-looped. That argument is wrong based on a false assumption, as previously shown.
Gravock
Oh, I see you have propped up and slain another lovely straw man.
Quote from: MarkE on August 17, 2015, 08:39:54 AM
Oh, I see you have propped up and slain another lovely straw man.
I have successfully refuted your original argument and position that a system isn't OU if it can't be self-looped. I did not refute an argument that wasn't advanced by you, as you falsely assert. You're false assertion that "I have propped up and slain another lovely straw man" is an appeal to emotion.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on August 17, 2015, 09:02:57 AM
I have successfully refuted your original argument and position that a system isn't OU if it can't be self-looped. I did not refute an argument that wasn't advanced by you, as you falsely assert. You're false assertion that "I have propped up and slain another lovely straw man" is an appeal to emotion.
Gravock
Then you have defeated a straw man of your own invention. Be my guest: Show where I allegedly made the argument you claim.
Quote from: MarkE on August 17, 2015, 09:46:27 AM
Then you have defeated a straw man of your own invention. Be my guest: Show where I allegedly made the argument you claim.
No, the straw man was your own invention based on a false assertion. You continue to assert you didn't make an argument that was successfully refuted, without stating and clarifying your original argument and position. You have done this so you can continue to muddy the waters.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on August 17, 2015, 09:55:08 AM
No, the straw man was your own invention based on a false assertion. You continue to assert you didn't make an argument that was successfully refuted, without stating and clarifying your original argument and position. You have done this so you can continue to muddy the waters.
Gravock
LOL. Anytime you like you are free to actually attempt to show that I ever made the argument you claim.
Quote from: MarkE on August 15, 2015, 08:04:26 AM
That was covered a few months ago on R-G when the article first published. Of course if the machine were really 250% efficient, self-looping would be no problem. Yet, they don't do it. The reasons are painfully obvious: They measure VA products instead of real power.
Quote from: MarkE on August 15, 2015, 10:53:07 PM
The first question that all these claims fail is: Given that motors and generators are duals of each other, why does the machine need both? If both are over unity, then only one is required. If only one is over unity, then only that device is required. If neither is overunity (which is the reality), then the claim is false.
The above clearly shows your original argument and position that if a system is OU, then self-looping is no problem. In other words, if a system isn't able to be self-looped, then it can't be OU and the claim is false. Your postulate is based on a false assumption that there are no resistant forces introduced to the system that acts against itself when trying to self-loop it. Thus, your argument is based on a false assumption and is wrong!
Gravock
@ Gravok & MarkE
You guys are classic
You two are arguing over who started an argument lol.
This is better than the Benny Hill show.
As the weather here is really crappy ATM,and no good for UFO watching,it is always nice to come here for some comical relief ;D
Quote from: gravityblock on August 17, 2015, 10:13:40 AM
The above clearly shows your original argument and position that if a system is OU, then self-looping is no problem. In other words, if a system isn't able to be self-looped, then it can't be OU and the claim is false. Your postulate is based on a false assumption that there are no resistant forces introduced to the system that acts against itself when trying to self-loop it. Thus, your argument is based on a false assumption and is wrong!
Gravock
LOL another Gravock fail.
Quote from: tinman on August 17, 2015, 10:20:22 AM
@ Gravok & MarkE
You guys are classic
You two are arguing over who started an argument lol.
This is better than the Benny Hill show.
As the weather here is really crappy ATM,and no good for UFO watching,it is always nice to come here for some comical relief ;D
The discussion is entirely silly and entirely hilarious.
Quote from: MarkE on August 17, 2015, 10:25:48 AM
LOL another Gravock fail.
No, this is your epic fail and not mine. Don't throw your own short-comings off onto me.
Gravock
Quote from: MarkE on August 17, 2015, 10:26:44 AM
The discussion is entirely silly and entirely hilarious.
Yhea, and it's even more hilarious because you don't realize the joke is on you!
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on August 17, 2015, 10:39:38 AM
Yhea, and it's even more hilarious because you don't realize the joke is on you!
Gravock
LOL. Sure it is.
@All
I read the full article and believe this may have some credibility. First the inventor Tewari has been an electrical engineer for some 58 years and is an expert on nuclear energy having acted in multiple boards and commissions. To my knowledge no one here has a fraction of Tewari's proven expertise and are hardly qualified to judge anything considering the lack of technical data. Thus any claims that it cannot work are simply hearsay and speculation... nothing more.
As well the inventor specifically states that the generator is a reaction-less generator having very little back-torque. He states, "the magnetic circuit within the machine is configured to cancel back torque while inducing current and producing power". I believe this has credibility based on my own experiments at the bench concerning my permanent magnet motor with no generator action. At first I did not think this was possible however I have proven it to be true. As well my permanent magnet motor with no generator action also uses a modification of the magnetic circuit to specifically negate all generator action. Thus I have no need to speculate about a motor with no generator action through modification of the magnetic circuit... I have proven it to be true through real experiments.
At which point we are left with quite a few questions concerning this technology. First claiming it cannot work is unfounded speculation because we do not know because we have no technical data or specifications... we do not know if it works or not. It would seem to me the effect revolves around what was claimed in the article:
QuoteMr. Tewari showed me a stiff conductor about a foot long which was allowed to rotate at the center and connected at each end with small gauge wire. A magnetic circuit was placed under the conductor. When a current was allowed to flow through the conductor it rotated, due to a torque induced on the conductor according to Flemings Left Hand Rule and standard theory, verified by experiments at the dawn of the electrical age. With a simple rearrangement of the magnetic circuit, the same current produced no rotation – the torque was cancelled.
It would seem to me the most logical place to start would be to spend 10 minutes of your life and reproduce this simple experiment for yourself then proceed from there just as Tewari did. I mean he has basically told you how he came to develop this technology...rearrangement of the magnetic circuit... so why wouldn't you?. I guess it is much easier to just sit back and throw around unfounded accusations and speculate how it cannot work that to prove the matter for ourselves.
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on August 17, 2015, 11:27:17 AM
@All
I read the full article and believe this may have some credibility. First the inventor Tewari has been an electrical engineer for some 58 years and is an expert on nuclear energy having acted in multiple boards and commissions. To my knowledge no one here has a fraction of Tewari's proven expertise and are hardly qualified to judge anything considering the lack of technical data. Thus any claims that it cannot work are simply hearsay and speculation... nothing more.
Now THAT is an appeal to authority.
Quote
As well the inventor specifically states that the generator is a reaction-less generator having very little back-torque. He states, "the magnetic circuit within the machine is configured to cancel back torque while inducing current and producing power". I believe this has credibility based on my own experiments at the bench concerning my permanent magnet motor with no generator action. At first I did not think this was possible however I have proven it to be true. As well my permanent magnet motor with no generator action also uses a modification of the magnetic circuit to specifically negate all generator action. Thus I have no need to speculate about a motor with no generator action... I have proven it to be true through real experiments.
Those are examples of reducing efficiency. What you are going to have a very hard time proving is that you get energy out of a motor or a generator in excess of energy that you put in.
Quote
At which point we are left with quite a few questions concerning this technology. First claiming it cannot work is unfounded speculation because we do not know because we have no technical data or specifications... we do not know if it works or not. It would seem to the effect revolves around what was claimed in the article:
We in fact have more than 150 years of experience with electrodynamic machines and their very well understood and daily reproven operating principles. Tewari makes the extraordinary claims against that evidence, has done so for years and has come up short on verifiable evidence every time.
Quote
It would seem to me the most logical place to start would be to spend 10 minutes of your life and reproduce this simple experiment for yourself then proceed from there just as Tewari did. I mean he has basically told you how he came to develop this technology...rearrangement of the magnetic circuit... so why wouldn't you?. I guess it is much easier to just sit back and throw around unfounded accusations and speculate how it cannot work that to prove the matter for ourselves.[/size]
[/size]
[/size]
[/size]
AC[/size]
You are free to see if you can achieve the extraordinary and cheat the First Law of Energy to your heart's content.
@all
I have found this pdf on his website and I think it is worth spending few minutes to go through as it contains description of the principle with some example pics.
@MarkE
QuoteNow THAT is an appeal to authority.
It is however that does not change the fact Tewari has 58 years of experience as an Electrical Engineer...can anyone here claim the same?. It relates to hands on experience and technical ability thus credibility and I would be more inclined to believe him than you because I have no proof you have 58 years of experience in electrical engineering or any real experience for that matter.
QuoteThose are examples of reducing efficiency. What you are going to have a very hard time proving is that you get energy out of a motor or a generator in excess of energy that you put in.
You are using the begging the question fallacy in which the conclusion was included in the premise. My claim is that a modification to the magnetic circuit can change the properties of the circuit and I never claimed excess energy.
QuoteWe in fact have more than 150 years of experience with electrodynamic machines and their very well understood and daily reproven operating principles. Tewari makes the extraordinary claims against that evidence, has done so for years and has come up short on verifiable evidence every time.
You are using the bandwagon fallacy to promote the idea that just because others could not succeed Tewari cannot. As well as the fallacy fallacy argument assuming that just because Tewari's claims are extraordinary, poorly justified and contradictory that they must be wrong. We have no real proof of anything in my opinion.
QuoteYou are free to see if you can achieve the extraordinary and cheat the First Law of Energy to your heart's content.
Of course I am, and once again you are using the begging the question fallacy in which the conclusion was included in the premise. I do not intend to cheat the First Law of Energy that is absurd however I do intend to find out what could be happening in Tewari's devices which would cause him to make the claims he has. Hell, I may even learn something along the way, lol.
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on August 17, 2015, 01:50:11 PM
@MarkE
It is however that does not change the fact Tewari has 58 years of experience as an Electrical Engineer...can anyone here claim the same?. It relates to hands on experience and technical ability thus credibility and I would be more inclined to believe him than you because I have no proof you have any 58 years of experience in electrical engineering or any real experience for that matter.
You are reasserting the appeal to authority fallacy.
That fact of his experience does not create evidence for the extraordinary claim. There is either hard evidence that supports his extraordinary claim or there isn't. Time has shown that there isn't.
Quote
You are using the begging the question fallacy in which the conclusion was included in the premise. My claim is that a modification to the magnetic circuit can change the properties of the circuit and I never claimed excess energy... you did.
Hardly. You asserted:
QuoteQuoteI believe this has credibility based on my own experiments at the bench concerning my permanent magnet motor with no generator action. At first I did not think this was possible however I have proven it to be true. As well my permanent magnet motor with no generator action also uses a modification of the magnetic circuit to specifically negate all generator action.
The current equation for such a motor would be:
I = V/(R
SOURCE + R
WIRING + R
WINDING) Simplified:
I = V/R
TOTALSince up to the point of magnetic saturation torque is proportional to current and that current does not change with speed, the output power that is the product of torque and speed decreases monotonically with decreasing speed while the input power is independent of speed. The motor only operates at maximum efficiency at an indefinite speed. Taking only the unrefuted observation that the First Law of Energy is true, then the motor efficiency can only approach unity at an indefinite speed and is therefore very low at any definite speed. In order to escape that conclusion, you are burdened with showing the extraordinary: A violation of the First Law of Energy.
Quote
You are using the bandwagon fallacy to promote the idea that just because others could not succeed Tewari cannot. As well as the fallacy fallacy argument assuming that just because Tewari's claims are extraordinary, poorly justified and contradictory that they must be wrong. We have no real proof of anything in my opinion.
No, I am showing the fact that we have a vast quantity of reliable evidence that runs counter to Tewari's uncorroborated claims.
Quote
Of course I am, and once again you are using the begging the question fallacy in which the conclusion was included in the premise. I do not intend to [/size]cheat the First Law of Energy that is absurd however I do intend to find out what could be happening in Tewari's devices which would cause him to make the claims he has. Hell, I may even learn something along the way, lol.[/size]
[/size]
[/size]
[/size]
AC[/size]
LOL, the First Law is an incredibly reliably observation not a preconceived conclusion.
Quote from: kEhYo77 on August 17, 2015, 01:11:23 PM
@all
I have found this pdf on his website and I think it is worth spending few minutes to go through as it contains description of the principle with some example pics.
He relies on the failed N machine for support.
@MarkE
QuoteYou are reasserting the appeal to authority fallacy.
Did I ... Oh crap, I must be caught in my own illogical fallacy loop again.
QuoteThat fact of his experience does not create evidence for the extraordinary claim. There is either hard evidence that supports his extraordinary claim or there isn't. Time has shown that there isn't.
So the "facts" of his own "experience" does not create "evidence" for the extraordinary claims?. You may want to inform the variable time, wormhole, multiple universe people of your miraculous sense of logic because they won't listen to me. Just give them a ring... hey dudes the facts of your own complete lack of tangible experience does not create evidence for extraordinary claims... I'm sure they will be astounded by your sense of logic even if your not a Vulcan.
QuoteThere is either hard evidence that supports his extraordinary claim or there isn't. Time has shown that there isn't.
What is time if time is variable Mark.. I mean really?, why according to the real experts his device may have created a time warping wormhole to multiple parallel universes in which case decades may have past for Mr.Tewari while your stuck here. Yes Mark, very strange but apparently true so in fact in Mr.Tewari's time his device may be very much un-extraordinary relative to yours here.
You know I enjoy this I do however there is one point I cannot quite reconcile. At the end of the day this application of supposedly superior logic, the fallacy, basically amounts to mental masturbation. I mean sure you may think it feels good Mark however I would point out the obvious fact that the Greek/Roman civilizations that created this logic were an epic failure. The historians generally agree that as these civilizations gained supposed intelligence they would tend to sit around debating everything to death and made little or no real progress. I call them the mass-debater's because they get off on this kind of thing despite the fact they tend to go round and round going nowhere fast which would seem to contradict their beliefs.
Would you be wiling to bet the farm on what basically amounts to an epic failure?... I'm saying no thank you I think I will pass. So while I do believe in logic I also believe in common sense and I'm not quite ready to plunge down the rabbit hole head first. To each his own.
AC
Superposition of BMEF fields and a split EMF flux.
I think it is just another confirmation that there is something very intriguing in exotic geometries and non standard configurations that tend to produce some asymmetric responses.
Quote from: MarkE on August 17, 2015, 02:25:27 PM
He relies on the failed N machine for support.
No, this is another false assertion and misdirection by you. Tewari is relying on M hypothesis and not the failed N hypothesis. MarkE and others like him suffers from indetermination of velocity and acceleration measurement used in the major physical equations which are hidden behind the term of inertial frame creating Petitio Principi fallacy. The below picture clearly shows that the velocity of the charge must be determined with regard to the source of the magnetic field as is shown in this publication (http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5875.pdf), and not with regard to an arbitrary observer, which belongs to the concept that directly causes action-reaction paradox absurdity characteristic in the concept of N hypothesis. The velocity of the magnetic field is equal to the velocity of its source, i.e. to the velocity of the magnet. The field moves with its source!
Gravock
.
( I have no interest in this thread , which is why there's something I'm not totally sure about in the posted diagram . I only looked at the diagram, I did not read the posts , there a bit ........... )
I assume that in the diagram just posted in Post / 'Reply #47' , that the coil around the cylinder-magnet does actually carry electrical-current doesn't it ( it's not a permanent-magnet in the shape of a Coil is it )
The N hypothesis led to the theory of relativity. Einstein's first postulate is based on Faraday's description of a homopolar engine. N hypothesis seriously violates laws of energy and angular momentum conversations. This violation is shown in the following device below (first image below, which is similar in concept with the image in my previous post) and in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jINHHXaPrWA) showing how the scientific community has embedded the idea of circular mental masturbation into it's theories and equations in which MarkE and his minions subscribe to. The device below invalidates N theory and confirms the M hypothesis (http://www.andrijar.com/dcmachines/).
However, the device below has limited rotation due to the physical constraints of the design, much like the physical constraints we found in the simple device as presented by the Crazy Russian Hacker. Previous attempts in overcoming this design flaw to allow for a full rotation has failed. It appears Tewari has overcome the physical constraints inherit in the design flaws of modern DC generators. The second image below is a snapshot of a publication by Tewari, titled "Genesis of Free Power Generation (http://www.tewari.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/article2wGIFs.doc)".
Gravock
Quote from: guest1289 on August 17, 2015, 07:46:43 PM
.
( I have no interest in this thread , which is why there's something I'm not totally sure about in the posted diagram . I only looked at the diagram, I did not read the posts , there a bit ........... )
I assume that in the diagram just posted in Post / 'Reply #47' , that the coil around the cylinder-magnet does actually carry electrical-current doesn't it ( it's not a permanent-magnet in the shape of a Coil is it )
Yes, the coil does carry electrical current, and the arrows show the direction through the coil.
Gravock
Quote from: allcanadian on August 17, 2015, 05:14:13 PM
@MarkE
Did I ... Oh crap, I must be caught in my own illogical fallacy loop again.
You do keep asserting the appeal to authority fallacy.
Quote
So the "facts" of his own "experience" does not create "evidence" for the extraordinary claims?. You may want to inform the variable time, wormhole, multiple universe people of your miraculous sense of logic because they won't listen to me. Just give them a ring... hey dudes the facts of your own complete lack of tangible experience does not create evidence for extraordinary claims... I'm sure they will be astounded by your sense of logic even if your not a Vulcan.
If you want to keep playing this game we can. It is not as though you can't look up the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.
Quote
What is time if time is variable Mark.. I mean really?, why according to the real experts his device may have created a time warping wormhole to multiple parallel universes in which case decades may have past for Mr.Tewari while your stuck here. Yes Mark, very strange but apparently true so in fact in Mr.Tewari's time his device may be very much un-extraordinary relative to yours here.
LOL if there are wormholes anywhere associated with this machine they aren't through parallel universes.
Quote
You know I enjoy this I do however there is one point I cannot quite reconcile. At the end of the day this application of supposedly superior logic, the fallacy, basically amounts to mental masturbation. I mean sure you may think it feels good Mark however I would point out the obvious fact that the Greek/Roman civilizations that created this logic were an epic failure. The historians generally agree that as these civilizations gained supposed intelligence they would tend to sit around debating everything to death and made little or no real progress. I call them the mass-debater's because they get off on this kind of thing despite the fact they tend to go round and round going nowhere fast which would seem to contradict their beliefs.
LOL, now you're attempting to argue against authority. If you want to advance Mr. Tewari's claims: bring reliable evidence that they are true. Then you'll be doing something that Mr. Tewari hasn't. He should be very grateful.
Quote
Would you be wiling to bet the farm on what basically amounts to an epic failure?... I'm saying no thank you I think I will pass. So while I do believe in logic I also believe in common sense and I'm not quite ready to plunge down the rabbit hole head first. To each his own.
Forget the rabbit hole. Accepting extraordinary claims against established elements is a swan dive from a high board into an empty pool.
Quote
AC
Quote from: gravityblock on August 17, 2015, 05:52:35 PM
No, this is another false assertion and misdirection by you. Tewari is relying on M hypothesis and not the failed N hypothesis. MarkE and others like him suffers from indetermination of velocity and acceleration measurement used in the major physical equations which are hidden behind the term of inertial frame creating Petitio Principi fallacy. The below picture clearly shows that the velocity of the charge must be determined with regard to the source of the magnetic field as is shown in this publication (http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5875.pdf), and not with regard to an arbitrary observer, which belongs to the concept that directly causes action-reaction paradox absurdity characteristic in the concept of N hypothesis. The velocity of the magnetic field is equal to the velocity of its source, i.e. to the velocity of the magnet. The field moves with its source!
Gravock
LOL, the N machine isn't over unity as claimed.
Quote from: MarkE on August 17, 2015, 09:48:47 PM
LOL, the N machine isn't over unity as claimed.
I never said it was, as you falsely assert. The N hypothesis violates the conservation laws, thus the epic failure of the N machine.
Gravock
Regarding that Diagram of the device in 'Reply #49'
The Reason why that electrical-wire would rotate, is Exactly the same reason it rotates in the Faraday-Motor , and in Faraday-Motors it rotates right around, and in all the much much simpler versions .
( That device , the Big-Block shaped like a square-ish horseshoe-magnet, but the cylinders in the middle joining the S-Pole to the N-Pole, the result would be that it's magnetic-field would remain inside the horseshoe-Loop ), but if not all the magnetic-field can get through that particularly narrow connection, then maybe it's leaking from that big S-Pole to the N-Pole )
( How was the above device made, was it made by the same method as horshoe-magnets, or did they just glue some bar-magnets together, because those angles at which they are joined are ......... )
( Now I can't find for sure how they make horseshoe-magnets , I'm only assuming either by running massive current through it, or with coils, or other )
______________________
The above makes me wonder, if there is a specific science/theories pertaining to the above case, of Either cavities in permanent-magnet-loops , or sections where not all the magnetic-field can get through etc.
______________________
But this partly reminds me of 'numerous' reasons why I've always wanted a Proper-Donut-Shaped-Magnet( with the magnetic-field running around the circle ), to be created.
( I have a far-fetched theory, that without leakage, that the magnetic-flow constantly flowing in a Donut-Shaped-Magnet would( because it's being fed back into itself without leakage) create more and more energy , overunity.
This is something that has never happened in magnets before, because of leakage into the air, and that leakage may experience some type of friction in air( or even in a vacuum ), and that friction would equal energy loss .
One unusual way to access the magnetic-flow contained inside this Donut-Shaped-Magnet , could be to shape one small-sector of the ring, to be much-much narrower than the rest of the ring, forcing some of the magnetic-field to leak out and jump the cavity , this could be what is occurring in the Horse-Shoe-Shaped-Device above. )
But, aside from the overunity theory of a Donut-Shaped-Magnet , I also suspect unexpected results, if the Donut was hollow ( if there was an empty Tunnel running right throughout the circle ), I think that the magnetic-field which would normally be contained in the material of the Donut-Shaped-Magnet, would, because a type of equilibrium in the pipe-shaped tunnel, also flow eternally in the empty space of the Tunnel.
One way to access the eternal-magnetic-flow in the above tunnel, could be to have a slight opening into that tunnel, that opening could either be a hole, or the opening could run right around the circle of the magnet.
_________________________________________
@guest1289,
That's not a horseshoe magnet. It's a ferromagnetic core, such as iron, to confine the magnetic field between the poles of the magnets. If the core isn't saturated, then there shouldn't be any leakage of the flux.
Gravock
The Reason why that electrical-wire would rotate, is Exactly the same reason it rotates in the Faraday-Motor , and in Faraday-Motors it rotates right around, and in all the much much simpler versions
In the device you posted, I see a wire carrying DC current, rotating around one or two cylinder magnets , the same as a faraday-motor
Quote from: guest1289 on August 18, 2015, 01:32:59 PM
The Reason why that electrical-wire would rotate, is Exactly the same reason it rotates in the Faraday-Motor , and in Faraday-Motors it rotates right around, and in all the much much simpler versions
In the device you posted, I see a wire carrying DC current, rotating around one or two cylinder magnets , the same as a faraday-motor
Yes, it's similar in concept to a Faraday motor. In a conventional Faraday motor, the field isn't confined and this allows portions of the conductor to be cut twice by the field in opposite directions. By confining the field, the conductor is only cut once. This makes it much more efficient. Also, this allows for a brushless system (in theory) in the correct configuration. The brushes are a source for huge losses.
Gravock
The little rod labelled B, I assume that is not the piece emitting the electromagnetic field, causing the rotation.
The reason I'm interested in this, is because you said no one has ever found a design to achieve full rotation, by using this method, I'm seeing one potential soution............
- One overly simple solution I could see, is simply a wire carrying Dc current, causing a Donut-Shaped magnet, to spin on an axle ( this Donut could have a normal magnetic-field, not one running around the circle )
- But I can also think of one( or two ) other solutions
Quote from: guest1289 on August 18, 2015, 01:59:26 PM
The little rod labelled B, I assume that is not the piece emitting the electromagnetic field, causing the rotation.
The reason I'm interested in this, is because you said no one has ever found a design to achieve full rotation, by using this method, I'm seeing one potential soution............
- One overly simple solution I could see, is simply a wire carrying Dc current, causing a Donut-Shaped magnet, to spin on an axle ( this Donut could have a normal magnetic-field, not one running around the circle )
- But I can also think of one( or two ) other solutions
Only part CAB of electric circuit is exposed to the confined magnetic field, but only part AB on a rod is able to produce angular force momentum of a rigid electric contour. Contour is able to perform limited rotation around CA axle. When the contour is fixed, then C permanent magnet should attempt to rotate in contra direction in regards with reaction of probe to magnet. This should be an ultimate proof that M hypothesis is the valid one and that Faraday failed because he did not use a confined magnetic field. <---- this description is mostly a copy and paste from the below publication.
Here's a publication (http://www.andrijar.com/dcmachines/index.html) on DC machines within M hypotheses that describes it detail. Also, have a look at the publication titled, "N or M Hypothesis - Final Test (http://www.andrijar.com/fte/index.html)", for additional information. You'll find other proposed solutions, such as yours, within those publications which I think you'll find interesting.
Gravock
.
I think I'll paste what I have just designed ( invented ) into a provisional-patent-application I was going to send of for something else( companies often put numerous inventions into individual provisional( called utility applications in other countries ) patent applications, to save money, they're not stupid )
At a glance, I can't seem to find something identical to what I have designed, in the publications you have provided( it might be there though ), but, I just can't be the first person to have thought of it.
_____________
My initial design is simply a wire carrying Dc current, causing a Donut-Shaped magnet, to spin on an axle ( this Donut could have a normal magnetic-field, not one running around the circle, so it's easy to make ) .
( Of course that wire should probably be replaced with either a coil , or something similar to multiply the power )
______________
Quote from: guest1289 on August 18, 2015, 03:14:55 PM
.
I think I'll paste what I have just designed ( invented ) into a provisional-patent-application I was going to send of for something else( companies often put numerous inventions into individual provisional( called utility applications in other countries ) patent applications, to save money, they're not stupid )
At a glance, I can't seem to find something identical to what I have designed, in the publications you have provided( it might be there though ), but, I just can't be the first person to have thought of it.
_____________
My initial design is simply a wire carrying Dc current, causing a Donut-Shaped magnet, to spin on an axle ( this Donut could have a normal magnetic-field, not one running around the circle, so it's easy to make ) .
( Of course that wire should probably be replaced with either a coil , or something similar to multiply the power )
______________
Keep us updated on your progress! Tewari, has said he has found a way around the physical constraints placed on the designs of modern DC generators, so he may be a good source of information if you decide to take the time to study his work.
Gravock
I had a look at this smarmy bloke saying there aren't black holes out there.
It was too technical for me to follow so I had to look for something more
Understandable at my level.
Anyways there's a star S2 somewhere in the centre of our galaxy. This
thing is speeding along its elliptical orbit at some 11,000,000 miles an hour.
Two teams have confirmed this by observation and their results almost
exactly match. Surely there must be something there?
Old Tewari reminds me a bit of James Kwok, anyone heard from James lately?
John.
Here's a thread by Broli titled, "Jorge Guala-Valverde homopolar experiments (http://overunity.com/9255/jorge-guala-valverde-homopolar-experiments/msg243450/#msg243450)", which shows the potential significance of the devices within the M hypothesis. He also proposes other solutions without the physical constraints of the design that doesn't allow for a full rotation, which may work.
Gravock
There have been some big 'uns built. In the late 50's this fellow named
Oliphamt bult an elephantic homopolar gen. and it had four discs eventually
(I think) and he cranked it up to about 1.8 million amps. I think the idea
was to build up speed and then harvest a pulse.
One machine that really intrigued me was Amtrak's synchronous condenser.
It was a huge free running motor used to control reactive power, it was a
sort of QEG. type thing and they were doing it 100 years ago.
The point I'm trying to make is that a lot of this stuff must have been
researched a good few years ago.
John.
Please take into account I have never formally studied the fields in this website ( I never even saw a magnet in my physics classes ).
I will check http://overunity.com/9255/jorge-guala-valverde-homopolar-experiments/msg243450/#msg243450 , it should have something similar or the same as my new design/invention.
( But I may simply just paste my brushless invention/design, as an extra addition into my next unrelated provisional-patent-application, incase it contains something new . I send my applications via postal mail, to get around the up-front fee, then, if no one is interested in my inventions, I can theoretically forget about paying any fee to the patent-department .
Maybe it's different in the US, and youre left with a permanent debt , but I don't send them to the US . )
The image on the following webpage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Floppy_drive_spindle_motor_open.jpg , is the closest I have found to my brushless-DC-invention/design , but the wires/coils are very different to my invention, and seem to interact with the permanent-magnet in a Totally different way to my invention.
( I always think that anything I invent, has been invented before, but if I can't confirm that, I should try and do something with the invention )
Unfortunately, now I have a minimum of two ( four inventions, if I include this 'brushless-DC-invention/design', and, my 'boats floating on a magnetic-field idea' ) inventions to keep track of in terms of filing a provisional-patent-application. I would much prefer if some company would do all this for me, for free, which you'd think would be logical if I have any invention that is viable .
Here is the patent.
Its an approach/method I never seen being done or tried before.
Quote from: Nali2001 on August 25, 2015, 06:33:35 PM
Here is the patent.
Its an approach/method I never seen being done or tried before.
Yes, and the patent shows how he's using a confined field while following M-hypothesis. Thanks for posting the patent.
Gravock
what is M-hypothesis
Quote from: Nali2001 on August 28, 2015, 06:16:32 PM
what is M-hypothesis
M-hypothesis claims the magnetic field is moveable and N-hypotheses claims the magnetic field is static.
Here's solid experimental proof of M-hypothesis being valid (http://www.andrijar.com/epomh/index.html).
Gravock