Holcomb Energy Systems:Breakthrough technology to the world

[Ufopolitics]

Hello,

Since the Holcomb generators use a traveling magnetic flux wave,
can a hybrid configuration of PMs and (EMs or coils) be used in the design?
Would the usage of PMs along with the (EMs or coils) be more efficient
than a design without PMs in it?

Would not a configuration of PMs and Active EMs produce a functional PM magnet?

The drawing is just a crude first thought of what it might look like.
I am sure there would be better designs.

Lunkster

Permanent Magnets, fixed to this structure, alternated between the transitional coils plain and simple, will NOT WORK!!

Permanent Magnets fixed here all would do is ANCHOR the moving field, get it stock...period.

Comprende?

The only way a PM will work on these systems...is, IF the PM is also physically moving along with the virtual rotational field...but then, we will fall on the same exact "game" we all have been playing on, for the past 200 plus years.
Unless we use it the same way a Rotational Generator do, just to get it started (enhanced magnetic reminiscence)...and then PM will just needs to be one or two weak and small neo magnets...not any bunch of PM's!!


Ufopolitics

[SolarLab]

I am just considering issues that are considered to be unshakable, but you are at an impasse with them. I refine them and add details that the design specifically missed.

For example, there are other views with which I also partly agree!

https://www.veritasium.com/videos/2021/11/19/the-big-misconception-about-electricity


By the way, the force of magnetic attraction cannot possibly be the Lorentz force. If you look at it, this is the derivative of the Ampere force in reverse order. All magnetism is compared with electromagnetism. Yes, they have an interaction, but this dadeko is not the same. Just answer the question why does a permanent magnet have an active field, without an external source? Science has no answer to this question, for that the answer is in another, the magnetic field is more primary than the electric one.

PS If you look at Holcomb's designs, he did not reveal the secret of electromagnetic induction, he imitated a mechanical generator. Figuer's secret is not revealed by Holcomb.

Sincerely.

It appears the author of this video [The misconception is that electrons carry potential energy around a complete conducting loop, transferring their energy to the load] has not studied electromagnetics from DC through Daylight. So, my view is rather than waste time debunking this sort of stuff, you are better to spend your time learning what is already known.

By that, I mean, at low frequencies you can neglect skin effect and the Displacement Current Link between the Voltage and Current. Each can be treated and analyzed seperately with no real ill effects on the answer.

This is often refered to as "Lumped Element" design - descrete resistors, capacitors, inductors, point-to-point wiring, etc.

As frequency increases the apparent electron flow within the wire tends to move the electrons further towards the conductor's outter edge and beyond. Displacement current becomes more and more a part of the picture. This is where the voltage and current become linked through displacement currents (you've all seen the EM wave propagaation cartoons). Thats when/how electromagnetic waves become Radio Waves that can propagate through air.

This is often refered to as "Distributed Circuit" design where the circuit board traces (conductors) become an integral part of the design along with antenna design, wave guides, etc..

However even at low frequencies the phase relationship between voltage and current is important as seen, for example, in real and apparent power. Lots of other examples as well but that's a four year course plus phd stuff.

Note that the "structures physical size" also plays a critical part in the analysis approach (the wavelength (highest operating frequency/harmonics vs structure size). For example, a 1000 mile telephone line or undersea cable versus a millimeter wave interconnect trace. They both require similar methods of design. A general rule of thumb is to consider any structure over a 10th to about a 16th of a wavelength could be considered distributed for analysis purposes.

Maxwell's equations tend to adequately describe the entire electromagnetic spectrum and, importantly, do not consider a time component therefore the equations are "conservation of energy" agnostic - they do not care about over unity, and as such, are ideal when analyzing a device like Holcombs.

You put a signal in, it goes around and does a few things, and something comes out. The interactions within the device can get pretty wild and wonderful and chances are you would not be able to do an analytical solution in one or two lifetimes. But, luckily a computer and a numerical algorithm (usually in matrix form) can provide great insight in a matter of hours (or days for a complex circuit).

There might be some better theories than Maxwell's equations and better tools than EM CAE but I'm not familiar with them, plus, my old knowledge and tool set seems to still give correct answers, so - if it works, don't fix it!

We have designed and built many devices using our current knowledge already; new ideas and theories are always welcome but only if they have some value added!


SL


Edit: added a note about structure physical size versus wavelength.

[kolbacict]

The inductance of one of the phases of this stator was measured.
The inductance was measured with a stator wrapped around the
circumference with a permalloy tape, and without a tape.
With the tape, the inductance was 850 uH. No tape 250 uH.
The measurement was made with a parallel capacitor 0.22uF.
The frequencies were approximately 11 and 21 kHz. So I was right.

[rakarskiy]

SL, You won't believe it, the calculation principle of the electromagnetic design does not change, the approach to tasks changes, based on additions, missed moments, in the theory of electromagnetic induction. Therefore, the concept of Lenz's rule does not apply to magnetic forces, but only to the action vectors of electric and magnetic fields.

[onepower]

Rakarskiy

SL, You won't believe it, the calculation principle of the electromagnetic design does not change, the approach to tasks changes, based on additions, missed moments, in the theory of electromagnetic induction. Therefore, the concept of Lenz's rule does not apply to magnetic forces, but only to the action vectors of electric and magnetic fields.

Indeed, we cannot generalize and lump everything together using conventional concepts...

Lenz Law does not apply to one magnetic field acting on or inducing another magnetic field unless an induced current is present. That's the limitation of Lenz Law and it only applies to Electro-Magnetic fields. Ergo Lenz Law cannot apply to a purely magnetic motor which uses switched/displaced field phenomena with no coils or conduction currents.

Lenz Law is very specific and applies to an induced current producing a magnetic field which opposes the magnetic field which induced it, no more no less.

Here is where most make mistakes...https://byjus.com/physics/lenzs-law/

Named after Emil Lenz, Lenz's law depends on the principle of conservation of energy and Newton's third law. It is the most convenient method to determine the direction of the induced current. It states that the direction of an induced current is always such as to oppose the change in the circuit or the magnetic field that produces it.

Many make this mistake and it's called a false cause fallacy. Lenz Law does not "depend on the principle of conservation of energy and Newton's third law" that's absurd. Lenz Law tends to agree with the COE and support the concept. I agree with the COE just not the backwards way most use it. As we can see many put the cart before the horse which relates to false cause.

The author then goes on to confuse the matter even more...

Lenz's law is based on the law of conservation of energy. From the definition of Lenz's law, we know that the induced current is always opposed by the cause that produces it. Therefore, there is extra work done against the opposing force.

Again we see false cause and Lenz's law is not based on the COE it supports the concept. They then go on to confuse the issue further by claiming "the induced current is always opposed by the cause that produces it" which is false. The induced current is only opposed by the cause if said cause is a changing magnetic field.

So we can see how many start adding there own assumptions and false cause to the equation. In fact, I have found a few instances where a current can be induced in a conductor and it has little or no effect on the phenomena which induced it. Obviously it wasn't a changing magnetic field otherwise Lenz Law would apply and that's not what we want...

Regards
AC