Rotating stator and rotating rotor

[gotoluc]

Interesting find justawatt

Thanks for sharing

Luc

[antijon]

Justawatt, this is an amazing find https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBWKi5k1zCQ

The rotor and stator are attached to the same pulley. When the motor is powered, the rotor drags the stator in the same direction.

This proves that the back torque against the stator is not the same as the torque on the rotor. If the rotor torque and stator back torque were equal, the rotor and stator would try to turn in opposite directions. No matter what pulleys were put between, the forces would be equal and the motor would not turn. This shows the opposite, the rotor torque is higher than the stator, and therefore, the rotor must be applying torque against something other than the stator.

If I had to guess, I'd say the torque is being directly applied to the magnetic field of the stator, but the field doesn't translate that completely into torque on the physical coils of the stator. Of course it's not OU because the magnetic field is proportional to the electrical power input, but it makes me question something else...

Does something like a Hatem generator actually produce OU? The magnetic cogs have intrinsic magnetic fields and don't require any external energy to maintain. If the above motor demo hypothesis is true, the mechanical energy out of a Hatem should be greater than the mechanical energy in. http://www.rexresearch.com/hatem/hatem.htm

Mindfreer repro: https://youtu.be/c4FEba4kQb0  https://youtu.be/PzIfowus-HY

[Bertoa]

@ this OU forum we have to admit that Russians are very interested (and also very skilled) in building electromechanical devices.
The Quest for OverUnity is going fast in that country and also in it's former USSR satellite states. They have exellent engineers and
scientists using more and more YouTube as their publishing platform.   
I don't know Russian but Google does. This is one of the YT reactions at the contra rotating rotor and stator motor.

"If you are a physicist, RESPOND TO IT.
Experiments are what happens in practice.
I argue with physicists that the rotor has more power than the stator. The rotor and stator have the same torque moments, but the revolutions are different.
That's multiplying the speed at the moment of force and we get different power from the rotor and stator. Physicists on the forum are proving to me
hat there is no such thing in physics, the rotor and stator have different power. And I say to them that the rotor and stator have different power
if we consider the power formula F * s / t. I argue with the physicists at the forum, there is Newton's law, the smaller the rotor is relative to the stator,
the more will have speed. What is the difference in mass and radius of the rotor from the stator in so many will differ their speed. All physicists agree with this.
The moment of force of the rotor and stator is also the same according to Newton's law. Now we multiply the moment of force on the rotor and stator revolutions and see different power.
Everything is still correct according to the laws of physics. Physicists do not like that the rotor and stator have different power.
Why. Yes, because there is Newton's third law, "The force of action is equal to the force of opposition." The question is asked, different capacities may have the same strength of action.
This is a serious topic. Physicists are in a deadlock situation and can not give me an answer. If physicists tell me that different powers have different strengths of action,
this means that Newton's third law is not correct."

[Bertoa]

Hi Webby, I'm not a physicist either but I like to know more about the theory of mass.
Here again a (part of) a comment made from the same person where he takes an example of a bullet and a gun
to explain the relation between innertia, mass and acceleration.


"Let's imagine an example:
The bullet strikes the body at 3.6 kg with a force F = 102244.9.
The gun strikes the body at 3.6 kg with a force F = 4924.8.
And the gun and the bullet will give the same bodies the same impulses.

What have you come to? I came to this, the body of 3,6 kg resists the change in speed of 20 times more when a bullet hits, than when it strikes a gun.
This proves that the greater the acceleration of the body, the greater the inertia of the body.
In short, Newton's second law through this formula m * a = F confirms that the inertia of the body varies in proportion to the acceleration. This is confirmed by practice.
The bullet had 20 times more resistance to changes in speed than the shotgun, when they brake into metal. This means that inertia-mass has grown 20-fold.
Fact is a fact, you can not argue with that.

Physicists are looking for an explanation of what a mass is. Acceleration is a change in the speed resistance. A change in the resistance of the speed is inertia.
And inertia is a mass. All this is written in the first and second law of Newton. The mass increases with acceleration.

There is no law of conservation of mass in nature.

If the inertia and mass of the body change, then there will be a flutter and a perpetual motion machine.

Physics is confusing. Newton's laws assert that inertia and mass vary with the body during acceleration. The law of conservation of mass, not true.
The law of conservation of mass is in contradiction with the laws of Newton".

[antijon]

Webby, I see what you mean by a planetary gear. In the first part of the video he turns the rotor by hand, and the stator also moves at a lower RPM. That's true when turned by an external force. I also understand that the stator would try to turn opposite the direction of the rotor, and if allowed to the RPM of each would come to total the RPM of one if the other were stationary.

But I still don't see how a gear reduction would cause the rotor to drag the stator in the same direction. This can only be possible if the stator induces more torque on the rotor than the rotor induces on the stator. Or I could be mistaken and just seeing diamonds in dirt.

I think a good test would be to see if a motor with a locked rotor would still produce a torque when powered. I'll have to add that to my list.