Quote from: LarryC on May 07, 2008, 09:24:52 AM

The comparison that the magnet sliding thru a copper tube is the same as a magnet moving in sync with the tube is so laughable. If OUman really didn't understand the difference, there is no one here that could actual explain that obvious difference. I think even some 5 year old may know the difference.
Larry

I didn't say it was the same thing. I said that "the same forces are at work". This is a fact. Move an electron (or any charge for that matter) perpendicular to a magnetic field and it will experience a force in a third direction, perpendicular to both the electron's velocity vector and the magnetic field vector. Basic stuff. It's counter-intuitive when you see it in, for example, the Faraday's Disk experiment, or in the copper tube example RCH mentioned. Because it appears counter-intuitive and paradoxical, teachers sometimes use it as a teaser to get the students thinking. But all these phenomena follow the various EM laws and have been consistently observed to follow them. If you think there's an exception, maybe you could detail it for us.

@JustMe
It looks like you have done a considerable amount of work in your setup posted, few people would have the determination to put this much time and effort into proving a "theory". It's funny how very close you and the others are but there is still a reluctance to see past the the wires and iron cores and understand the "nature" of what you are dealing with, the qualities and properties of energy and the components this energy moves through.
In your setup you have some permanent magnets on a rotor, a high current coil of few windings, a high voltage coil of many fine windings--- you have all the components necessary to succeed but cannot see them from the right perspective. So I have a patent to show you that does something right for a change, there is a picture below and the patent and write-up can be found here-----
http://www.rexresearch.com/alxandr/alexandr.htm
Forget the orientation of the DC commutator in the patent, it is incorrect and I would imagine this was done on purpose . In regards to this patent there is one thing you need to understand which is stated in the patent-----

Quote" whereby transformed and generated power are synchronously combined as increased output power"

Maybe some of the experts here could explain how one would do such a thing?

Quote from: allcanadian on May 07, 2008, 12:05:31 PM
@JustMe
It looks like you have done a considerable amount of work in your setup posted

Thank you!  I work hard...I work hard.

Thane, it's your name on the thread.  Try to keep up, k?

 

@All
When considering Robert Alexanders patent some things should be known that are not readily apparent, for one in the diagram both permanent magnets have the north pole facing inward. Another is that this motor/generator could easily be tuned inside/out, that is a permanent magnet rotor could be utilized with the north poles facing outward and the motor/generator windings wound on a immobile stator so there is no need for a commutator or brushes as I have done with a permanent magnet three phase brushless motor.
So what would this "brushless" PM motor/generator look like? Well, it would have a rotor composed of many permanent magnets with the north poles facing outward, it would have both coarse high current windings and many fine high voltage windings on a common core------ It would probably look very similar to John Bedini's north pole motor or Robert Adams motors or the Lutec motor
We have always percieved the input and output as being distinct and seperate but this does not need to be the case, there is much more to this patent than meets the eye, it should be raising questions as to what role the permanent magnets really play in this motor if the core is in fact a transformer.
Best Regards

Quote from: allcanadian on May 07, 2008, 04:46:17 PM
@All
When considering Robert Alexanders patent some things should be known that are not readily apparent, for one in the diagram both permanent magnets have the north pole facing inward. Another is that this motor/generator could easily be tuned inside/out, that is a permanent magnet rotor could be utilized with the north poles facing outward and the motor/generator windings wound on a immobile stator so there is no need for a commutator or brushes as I have done with a permanent magnet three phase brushless motor.
So what would this "brushless" PM motor/generator look like? Well, it would have a rotor composed of many permanent magnets with the north poles facing outward, it would have both coarse high current windings and many fine high voltage windings on a common core------ It would probably look very similar to John Bedini's north pole motor or Robert Adams motors or the Lutec motor
We have always percieved the input and output as being distinct and seperate but this does not need to be the case, there is much more to this patent than meets the eye, it should be raising questions as to what role the permanent magnets really play in this motor if the core is in fact a transformer.
Best Regards

Very interesting. Haven't gotten thru the original patent yet. Do you have input/output statistics on your motor. Does the AC load change the rpms?

Thanks,
Larry