Electric Motor Geenerator/alternator looped

[mscoffman]

If acceleration can be considered a linear phenominon. RPM limitation has
to be accompanied by an *exponentially* increasing resistance, with the mathematical
intersection of the curves representing the final RPM limit. For example
"wind resistance" is function that is the third power of the velocity. The generator
has some efficiency at converting some mechanical resistance to an increasing
circuit voltage but will probably be more efficient than the exponential limiting function
is at limiting it, hence the RPM increases by an offset. Ultimately the exponential
mechanical exponential function still wins but at the new higher RPM.

To be self running the generator would need to produce all of the current required
to run the motor and so current from the battery should be supressed or reversed
(charging). Most likely the only effect here is to spilt the current supplied battery and
the generator so it is not an example of a self running cicuit.

Many Q-motor generators seem to use power regaugement. For example run the motor
on one 12Volt battery and see if power balance between the motor and generator is better.
You also might want to try the Oldsmobile high output 12v alternator into a Min Kota
multicircuit "alternator" battery charger which can charge all three batteries from
one 12V alternator without disconnecting them. A real good test would be to try
a very high RPM "electric leaf blower" motor through a high mechanical RPM step down.
A PMA permanent magnet alternator might be interesting with the understanding
that the motor is going to hit a "brick wall" RPM as the alternator voltage rises to the
battery charge voltage.   Caution; A system redesign will need to follow the discovery
of an OU configuration.

:S:MarkSCoffman

[forest]

I think it is much simpler then you think... DON'T KILL THE DIPOLE ! First DC motor can be used as prime mover , because it is easier, it has to maintain the same or higher RPM then generator when coupled. Power usage is not that important. Then it's all about one trick I think but I must check it.....    Very easy one in theory

[Grimer]

I know all that. But in the case of the vortex there is no string. Th coin is being forced in by the walls of the funnel.


You just can't get it can you.


But then you couldn't see the solution to the water and wine problem so it's not really surprising.

The fact a vortex does work on a  ball rolling down to the exit can be shown with an equvalent, abeit vastly more complicated system.


All a ball "sees" on its journey is a very small contact area with the vortex cone. If that changing area is always present and exerting the same force, then the rest of the cone is redundant structure. Anyone familiar with structural engineering knows what a redundant member is.
You can take it away and the structure is still stable.


So for every point in the ball's path the whole of the cone can be taken away apart from the small contact area and strut held in place by a suitable, albeit magnificently engineered, mechanism.


Think of it as a three dimensional balancing act of a ball on the end of a snooker cue.


To get the ball to its final destination the strut will do work as it pushes the ball towards the vertical axis of the vortex. This push will increase the velocity of the ball.


Push is the inverse of pull as explained at length in my publications.


Al could easily carry out an experiment to show this is true.


But of course he won't because he "knows" Jupiter has no moons.

[TinselKoala]

Push is the inverse of pull

Finally you've said something that makes some kind of sense. You really should restrict your speculations about other people, though.



Would you like to see "al's" astrophotography rig? He is perfectly aware that Jupiter has moons, having seen them for himself.

Would you like to hire someone to do the experimental work that you think "al" could do? Can you afford it? Would you accept a "null result" from "al"? Have you reviewed your Beer&Johnston yet?

[Grimer]

Finally you've said something that makes some kind of sense. You really should restrict your speculations about other people, though.[size=78%] [/size]
...
Would you like to hire someone to do the experimental work that you think "al" could do? Can you afford it? Would you accept a "null result" from "al"? Have you reviewed your Beer&Johnston yet?

Now you're talking. 
Yes.
£2000 upper limit.
I'd accept if from Al in whom I have complete confidence. 
Don't need to.