Holcomb Energy Systems:Breakthrough technology to the world

[onepower]

Ufopolitics

The Phrase of the day...
Quote
It is "so easy" to write here, showing to be an "Authority" on any given subject...
But, without any, absolutely any proof...

This was always the case regarding everything we have not seen first hand or proven for ourselves. I would suspect the majority of everything we were taught or read on any subject is accepted on good faith.

It's obviously a slippery slope because we can be judged in the same way and measure we judge others. Thus I could discard all scientific knowledge I have not seen first hand proof of in the same way my work could be judged. Some could argue thousands of people have proven something over decades. However I don't know all of them, I have not seen any proof first hand so I can discard there beliefs using the same kind of reasoning they have.

So we should be clear any supposed authority anyone believes they may have is for the most part imaginary. We are free to believe whatever we want... as it should be.

The way forward is to make a compelling argument based on logic, reason and justification. The better we can justify something the more credibility it has and then it's up to the readers to decide.

Regards
AC

[bistander]

@Rakarskiy,


The worst example about generation of Energy in a typical Rotary Generator...is to cite a "Car Alternator"...

These things require so much torque, that only being attached to a car Engine will function properly...

Besides its arrangement of the Exciter is a waste of flux galore!!

I mean, look at it again!!...the Field is Static, however Poles are REDIRECTED to each upper-lower Solid Steel Rotor with tooth design...

Even the shaft of the Alternator gets magnetized!!

If it produces 1500 Watts is due all about Amperage...it needs around 200  to even 600 Amps torefil the battery after a few attempts to start the car...just because the Starter Motor requires around that much!!

It only produces from 12-14V Max...the rest is amperage to reach the 1500W...
...
It is a waste!!...only good to keep the 12V battery charged...

Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,
The Lundell (claw rotor) alternator has served the automotive industry and market well over a long span of years. You, and others, often bad-mouth the common 12V alternator found under the hood of practically every car for decades and decades, and for some valid reasons, primarily due to the competitive industry beating every last penny out of it, sacrificing energy efficiency and other attributes which you deem important. But the reasons which you mentioned above are not valid.

The claw rotor topology appears to be your main gripe. It is commonly called a Lundell rotor, and considered an MPM (Modulated Pole Machine) or transverse flux machine. Modern versions of this topology are used to design some excellent efficiency and power dense motors and generators. And recently, past decade or two, the automotive alternator design has been rethought in terms of costs of materials and process so they would require no more "engine torque" than another type of generator of similar specifications.

Manufacturing tolerance and cheap materials may in fact contribute to flux leakage, but I don't think the shaft is magnetized, and even if it was, a non(or slowly) changing flux is not a loss mechanism, so what's the big deal? We already mentioned efficiency and size.

The alternator doesn't need "around 200  to even 600 Amps torefil the battery after a few attempts to start the car." It is limited to the rating of the alternator, like 60 or 90A and takes a while longer to recharge the battery.

And it isn't uncommon to see experimenters repurpose standard old car or truck alternators to put out 100+ volts.

It is far from a "waste". It was a tremendous improvement over the commutator generator which it replaced.

I hope you can't delete this post. But it is off topic, but a valid reply to the nonsense which you posted.
Regards,
bi

[rakarskiy]

And by the way, post above was not directed to you, but the guy who posted it originally did ask you to "analyze" the Holcomb Design...

Design? Everything is simple there, these are two generators in one product. If we consider the "hardware" with grooves for the winding of the generator, then we will see the groove outside and inside. There is such an analogy in the system of generators, see the slide. The question is whether the availability of information on the network prevents someone from getting it. I was looking for an axial similar design and found a direct analogy with electromechanical.
Everything else according to the traditional algorithm, friends. There are no secrets, the design is only an engineering solution. What is not indicated is the electrical steel materials used, with which the maximum magnetic induction is achieved.

https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/9/1761 For the engine, and why  "NO" for the generator. By the way, now I know what Figuera wanted to say in the 1908 patent. The system did not give, published but corrected, and everything came to a standstill. Holcomb came up with the only correct solution for such a design.

As for the car generator, in order to move one electromagnet relative to another, which is installed statically, overcoming their mutual attraction, mechanical force is needed. The cause of EMF is the magnetic flux of the rotor, which has its own power consumption. When compared with the output power of a generator, explain the reason for the transformation under the action of a mechanical driving force in order to overcome the magnetic blocking of the electromagnets. All this can be organized by the electromagnet current control system, or by a combined electromagnet on/off system.

The alternator in the car's on-board circuit powers the loads and recharges the battery. After starting the car engine, you can generally remove the battery from the circuit. The approximate peak value of the generator current is up to 100 amperes. If it is at a speed of 100 km / h, the cost of mechanical drive force will be less. than at 40 km/h. The excitation current is changed to form the corresponding EMF. The current is the resultant force of the vortex magnetic field from another opera. When designing a particular device, engineers take into account the performance of tasks in various conditions. Designing a car generator is quite difficult.

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,
The Lundell (claw rotor) alternator has served the automotive industry and market well over a long span of years. You, and others, often bad-mouth the common 12V alternator found under the hood of practically every car for decades and decades, and for some valid reasons, primarily due to the competitive industry beating every last penny out of it, sacrificing energy efficiency and other attributes which you deem important. But the reasons which you mentioned above are not valid.

The claw rotor topology appears to be your main gripe. It is commonly called a Lundell rotor, and considered an MPM (Modulated Pole Machine) or transverse flux machine. Modern versions of this topology are used to design some excellent efficiency and power dense motors and generators. And recently, past decade or two, the automotive alternator design has been rethought in terms of costs of materials and process so they would require no more "engine torque" than another type of generator of similar specifications.

Not valid?...hahahahaha

A Car Alternator is designed to put out more Amperage than Voltage...is that a wrong statement?

A Car Alternator waste a lot of Magnetic Strenght due to the simple fact, known to everyone skilled in the Arts...and that is by using the "Claw" solid steel rotor, which redirects and fraction into "multiple poles" in a 90º (a portion) of the main magnetic strenght-volume of flux, which emanates specifically from both poles...and yes, of course main shaft gets most of this flux...that is the reason why, they have to build the rotor with such huge mass of steel on both claws caps, in order to ¨take away¨some more from the shaft...is this ¨not valid¨??!!

Manufacturing tolerance and cheap materials may in fact contribute to flux leakage, but I don't think the shaft is magnetized, and even if it was, a non(or slowly) changing flux is not a loss mechanism, so what's the big deal? We already mentioned efficiency and size.

The "big deal" or better called "bad efficiency" is precisely that...the way flux is redirected and angled at 90º and fractured into smaller, multiple poles...a waste.

If this design method would be ¨so efficient¨ then why it is not applied in ALL the High Voltage, High Amperage, Industrial and Home Generators?
Nope, ALL Rotary Generators Home and Industrial, use the DIRECT, STRAIGHT ANGLE, MAGNETIC POLE FACE TO STATOR FACE OPERATION, period!!
...Then I wonder why not using the Lundell "Design Technique"?...

The alternator doesn't need "around 200  to even 600 Amps torefil the battery after a few attempts to start the car." It is limited to the rating of the alternator, like 60 or 90A and takes a while longer to recharge the battery.

What you have written above is SO WRONG, so NON SENSICAL!!...it just shows your TOTAL IGNORANCE on these fields.
just search, do your job...search online and you will see that Alternators for a typical 8 Cylinder car (not talking about a Toyota Corolla, or a Hyundai 4 Cylinders) REQUIRE FROM 170- 200 Amps!!

As a matter of fact, in order to get the right Battery for your car...besides the size to fit in the battery housing, the most important requirement to get the right battery is to know the right CRANKING AMPS...And "Cranking Amps" are NEVER, but NEVER RATED at 60-90 Amps!!

Cranking Amps starts at around 200A (for a very small vehicle, four cylinders)...and a Six Cylinders you are looking at 400-600 Cranking Amps.

And that is due to the other "Monster of Motor" utilized, to be able to Crank the Pistons with compression so the Farting Machines could start farting...the Starter Motor, which is also "designed" to consume so much Amperage to convert it in High Torque required to turn the Crankshaft.

After each successfull start (not failed) the battery amperage drops considerably, so the Alternator must refill it again during the drive...voltage-amperage regulator systems controls that operation.

Basically, after the start stage, during the vehicle normal operation, not so much amperage is required, except to run the AC Compressor Magnetic Clutch.
Ignition does not consume much, since it is operated thanks to Tesla design applied to the Ignition Coil, which utilizes low amperage and 12V to amplify into High Voltage to the spark plugs...and the rest are just the Electronics, the Entertainment System and Lights, etc,etc...

And it isn't uncommon to see experimenters repurpose standard old car or truck alternators to put out 100+ volts.

Same way it isn't uncommon to see experimenters use bicycle wheels as Generators...

It is far from a "waste". It was a tremendous improvement over the commutator generator which it replaced.

From an ISOLATED point of view ANALYSIS (not looking at it as an accessory to the High Torque requirements of the Farting Machines) it is a bad design, a waste, just built to do what it must do...crank the high compressed pistons on every ICE.

I hope you can't delete this post. But it is off topic, but a valid reply to the nonsense which you posted.
Regards,
bi

Unfortunately, here I can not delete your post... I must admit that I love to do that...hahahaha

"A valid reply" to the nonsense I POSTED??!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...Your point is just to find a spot to argue AGAINST whatever I write, no matter what it is about...

But it is OK...I am used to it....as a matter of fact, I find it very funny...


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Not valid?...hahahahaha

A Car Alternator is designed to put out more Amperage than Voltage...is that a wrong statement?

A Car Alternator waste a lot of Magnetic Strenght due to the simple fact, known to everyone skilled in the Arts...and that is by using the "Claw" solid steel rotor, which redirects and fraction into "multiple poles" in a 90º (a portion) of the main magnetic strenght-volume of flux, which emanates specifically from both poles...and yes, of course main shaft gets most of this flux...that is the reason why, they have to build the rotor with such huge mass of steel on both claws caps, in order to ¨take away¨some more from the shaft...is this ¨not valid¨??!!

The "big deal" or better called "bad efficiency" is precisely that...the way flux is redirected and angled at 90º and fractured into smaller, multiple poles...a waste.

If this design method would be ¨so efficient¨ then why it is not applied in ALL the High Voltage, High Amperage, Industrial and Home Generators?
Nope, ALL Rotary Generators Home and Industrial, use the DIRECT, STRAIGHT ANGLE, MAGNETIC POLE FACE TO STATOR FACE OPERATION, period!!
...Then I wonder why not using the Lundell "Design Technique"?...

What you have written above is SO WRONG, so NON SENSICAL!!...it just shows your TOTAL IGNORANCE on these fields.
just search, do your job...search online and you will see that Alternators for a typical 8 Cylinder car (not talking about a Toyota Corolla, or a Hyundai 4 Cylinders) REQUIRE FROM 170- 200 Amps!!

As a matter of fact, in order to get the right Battery for your car...besides the size to fit in the battery housing, the most important requirement to get the right battery is to know the right CRANKING AMPS...And "Cranking Amps" are NEVER, but NEVER RATED at 60-90 Amps!!

Cranking Amps starts at around 200A (for a very small vehicle, four cylinders)...and a Six Cylinders you are looking at 400-600 Cranking Amps.

And that is due to the other "Monster of Motor" utilized, to be able to Crank the Pistons with compression so the Farting Machines could start farting...the Starter Motor, which is also "designed" to consume so much Amperage to convert it in High Torque required to turn the Crankshaft.

After each successfull start (not failed) the battery amperage drops considerably, so the Alternator must refill it again during the drive...voltage-amperage regulator systems controls that operation.

Basically, after the start stage, during the vehicle normal operation, not so much amperage is required, except to run the AC Compressor Magnetic Clutch.
Ignition does not consume much, since it is operated thanks to Tesla design applied to the Ignition Coil, which utilizes low amperage and 12V to amplify into High Voltage to the spark plugs...and the rest are just the Electronics, the Entertainment System and Lights, etc,etc...

Same way it isn't uncommon to see experimenters use bicycle wheels as Generators...

From an ISOLATED point of view ANALYSIS (not looking at it as an accessory to the High Torque requirements of the Farting Machines) it is a bad design, a waste, just built to do what it must do...crank the high compressed pistons on every ICE.

Unfortunately, here I can not delete your post... I must admit that I love to do that...hahahaha

"A valid reply" to the nonsense I POSTED??!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...Your point is just to find a spot to argue AGAINST whatever I write, no matter what it is about...

But it is OK...I am used to it....as a matter of fact, I find it very funny...


Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,
You say "A Car Alternator is designed to put out more Amperage than Voltage...is that a wrong statement?"
A wrong statement? I don't know. It is a stupid statement. More Amperage than Voltage?  Electric potential difference and current are quite different quantities with completely different units. What sense does it make to compare the numerical values of the two? Are you saying that the automotive alternator is a high current low voltage device? Then the answer needs qualification like "compared to what?" Compared to the cranking motor, then not particularly. Compared to the wiper motor, yes.

What I can tell from your reply is that you think it is inefficient, meaning wasteful of power (watts) to have magnetic flux 'bend' at 90° and divide into multiple paths. Tell us how much power in watts is used to redirect 0.5 Telsa 90° in the core of a transformer, or solenoid core, or Lundell rotor, or the loss, in watts, encountered using an E-I transformer core, or a 12-pole Lundell rotor. Tell us the power (watts) lost in a magnetized shaft of a machine when the flux therein is essentially constant. You'll find these are not loss mechanisms.

Tell us why you think the alternator must produce the current level that the cranking motor requires? Doesn't the battery load level and provide peak currents well in excess of that which is drawn from the alternator?

You have many misconceptions. You preach these and would block any objections or challenges when you can. I find this particularly distasteful.

I am just pointing out issues with that post from you. To the reader: Don't simply believe me, LOOK IT UP. Research the issues and use the "scientific knowledge" available at your fingertips.
bi