The book is dedicated to self-propelled mechanical generating devices.

[rakarskiy]

I don't need to convince you of anything. I am simply alerting you and the readers that I find your derivation, or "book", based on a misapplication of Ampere's force law and confusing, to say the least. I feel it shows a lack of comprehension of fundamentals on your part. I've stated my view and you and the readers can research and come to their own conclusions. I feel no need to argue.
bi

Dear, you claim the incorrect application of Ampere's Law, without giving a single argument, in the form of a calculation that, in your opinion, is correct. Therefore, your warnings are nothing more than bravado. I invite everyone to point out the mistakes, giving proof according to the opinion of the one proving the correct calculation, but all by the bushes. Therefore, you are not convincing.

My solution of the problem by the link: http://rakarskiy.narod.ru/_ld/0/40_COP_1_motot_gen.pdf

[bistander]

Dear, you claim the incorrect application of Ampere's Law, without giving a single argument, in the form of a calculation that, in your opinion, is correct. Therefore, your warnings are nothing more than bravado. I invite everyone to point out the mistakes, giving proof according to the opinion of the one proving the correct calculation, but all by the bushes. Therefore, you are not convincing.

My solution of the problem by the link: http://rakarskiy.narod.ru/_ld/0/40_COP_1_motot_gen.pdf

It was Ampere's "Force Law" which I said was improperly used, not to be confused with that which is generally termed as Ampere's Law.  I did supply reference explaining that and a brief statement.
I read your paper again and tell you it is terrible. You design a generator with an output of 1.0 kw and input of 14 watts. It has 104 poles and a rotor diameter of 350mm by 500mm long. 7140% efficiency, thereby claiming to prove conservation of energy wrong. You even say "Such a generator is possible".
I don't think so.
bi

[rakarskiy]

It was Ampere's "Force Law" which I said was improperly used, not to be confused with that which is generally termed as Ampere's Law.  I did supply reference explaining that and a brief statement.
I read your paper again and tell you it is terrible. You design a generator with an output of 1.0 kw and input of 14 watts. It has 104 poles and a rotor diameter of 350mm by 500mm long. 7140% efficiency, thereby claiming to prove conservation of energy wrong. You even say "Such a generator is possible".
I don't think so.
bi

Can't you calculate the electromagnetic moment yourself, the simplest generator?  For load: P =1 kW/220V ? Provided that the angular velocity is -650 rpm, and the distance between the active faces of the frame or the diameter relative to the axis of rotation d is 0.35 meters! The condition must be one frame or one coil turn!

I have no words, consider the execution of such a calculation a test of aptitude.  I hope your employer reads your nonsense (your posts are above).

[rakarskiy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY

[bistander]

Can't you calculate the electromagnetic moment yourself, the simplest generator?  For load: P =1 kW/220V ? Provided that the angular velocity is -650 rpm, and the distance between the active faces of the frame or the diameter relative to the axis of rotation d is 0.35 meters! The condition must be one frame or one coil turn!

I have no words, consider the execution of such a calculation a test of aptitude.  I hope your employer reads your nonsense (your posts are above).

"I hope your employer reads your nonsense" says the fellow who has made the calculation to be 0.163Nm. That is about 23 oz.in. Similar to the rated torque of the motor shown here: https://www.ricmotor.com/details/rs-997ph
bi