Holcomb Energy Systems:Breakthrough technology to the world

[Cadman]

 

No we do not agree, it seems you are intentionally trying to confuse to issue. Removing the drive motor does nothing to lenz. Relative motion of the magnetic field and coils is the same as in mechanical generator. Lenz is still 100% present.

His "implication" that lenz is reduced cause there is no mechanical rotation is as ridiculous as his claim that electrical steel magnifies the magnetic field "4-5 times" when it is 4-5 thousand times, as well as the claim that iron atom is a source of energy (lol).

He does not say how he reduces lenz, he only vaguely hints at it with

"In accordance with another aspect of the power generation, systems and methods are disclosed for reducing drag in an electric generator that includes a geometric design of the stator, placement of a unique series of "uni-polar" solid-state rotors in relation to the stator coils along with magnetic shielding which results in minimal destructive interaction of the rotor magnetic fields with the magnetic fields of the stator when the generator is connected to an electric load."

I knew you would disagree that we agree.
Everything you post can be looked at from the perspective of reducing the _effects_ of lenz. Of course lenz is still 100% present. To ignore the reduction of input power required for generation by removing the drive motor is just putting blinders on yourself.
How do _you_ know that the methods in your bold text do not assist in the reduction of lenz _effects_ in his generator? Can you demonstrate it? No.

[kolbacict]

Making an electromagnetic device from scrap metal is like making a Tesla out of a bicycle.

Probably it is so.

[bistander]

...
He[Holcomb] does not say how he reduces lenz, he only vaguely hints at it with

"In accordance with another aspect of the power generation, systems and methods are disclosed for reducing drag in an electric generator that includes a geometric design of the stator, placement of a unique series of "uni-polar" solid-state rotors in relation to the stator coils along with magnetic shielding which results in minimal destructive interaction of the rotor magnetic fields with the magnetic fields of the stator when the generator is connected to an electric load."

The quote is complete gibberish. Attempting to agree on the author's intent or find something meaningful is futile.
bi

[Cadman]

The quote is complete gibberish. Attempting to agree on the author's intent or find something meaningful is futile.
bi

Take it for what it really is, a claim attempting to satisfy a patent examiner.

[nix85]

I knew you would disagree that we agree.
Everything you post can be looked at from the perspective of reducing the _effects_ of lenz. Of course lenz is still 100% present. To ignore the reduction of input power required for generation by removing the drive motor is just putting blinders on yourself.
How do _you_ know that the methods in your bold text does not assist in the reduction of lenz _effects_ in his generator? Can you demonstrate it? No.

I knew you would say that you knew i would disagree that we agree.

You keep playing sleazy word games, grabbing on my words in last post "he reduces lenz" as if i am claiming he is reducing lenz itself not the effect, altho i wrote clearly in post before "he is reducing lenz drag" aka "reverse (lenz) torque" as he says in the patent.

Obviously lenz is still 100% present, did i ever say or imply it is not, no i did not. Lenz is obviously always present, it is a natural reaction to change.

You first claimed reducing the reverse torque is not the same as reducing the effects of lenz altho Holcomb himself says it clearly. And now you play sleazy word games lenz vs lenz effect. You just keep desperately trying to confuse the issue.

To believe the reduction of input power required for generation is result of removing the drive motor is just putting blinders on yourself.

And your last sentence is just as ridiculous as your previous ones. You now claim that i claim his hinted at methods in bolded text do not assist in the reduction of lenz "effects" in his generator, altho i said the EXACT OPPOSITE.

i clearly wrote....He does not say how he reduces lenz, he only vaguely hints at it with

"In accordance with another aspect of the power generation, systems and methods are disclosed for reducing drag in an electric generator that includes a geometric design of the stator, placement of a unique series of "uni-polar" solid-state rotors in relation to the stator coils along with magnetic shielding which results in minimal destructive interaction of the rotor magnetic fields with the magnetic fields of the stator when the generator is connected to an electric load."

You are in vain desperately trying to confuse the issue, everything is perfectly clear, he says himself he is reducing the reverse lenz torque and this allows him to achieve 400-500% efficiency. Exactly how he does it he does not reveal, he only vaguely hints at it in bolded text i quoted.

Can you stop distracting with sleazly, useless, word-games. Can you demonstrate anything? No, you can't.