Holcomb Energy Systems:Breakthrough technology to the world

[bistander]

If one considers the individually wound rotor poles and how Holcomb generates say a moving North pole relative to the stator windings, it would be required that the adjacent poles in the rotor would be bucking each other.  It is only with this condition that a moving pole could be generated at the very ends of the rotor poles by sequential switching.  If this is the case, then the rotor poles would be capable of very high flux densities without saturating.

Pm

Hi Pm,
Saturation occurs at a specific level of "flux density" so the following statement is confusing.

then the rotor poles would be capable of very high flux densities without saturating.

Did you mean this?

then the rotor poles would be capable of very high flux without saturating.

I've gone through this rotor layout in detail. You can find the exchange/discussion with Ufopolitics earlier in this thread.** I'll attach a patent drawing which I marked up for reference.

In a standard motor or generator, the stator is the primary (connected to the 3-phase mains)*, so it determines the pole count, which is 4 (2 pole pairs, N,S,N,S around the rotor) indicated by shading on the diagram. Each pole encompasses 4 rotor teeth. When applying Faraday's equation, the average flux per pole, or the integration of flux density over the area of the pole cross section at the air gap is used. This value of flux/pole is consistent throughout the magnetic circuit at all times except for leakage flux (typically small percentage). The section of the magnetic circuit having the least cross sectional area will saturate soonest with increasing excitation. The cross sectional area of 4 teeth below (towards the shaft) or area around/adjacent possibly including the shaft is substantially smaller than the area of 4 tooth tips or the pole at air gap. That is where saturation will occur. That was the basis or logic of my comment regarding saturation. That area, compared to similar feature of an ordinary rotor (as found in a NEMA induction motor) is so reduced as to appear ridiculous, IMO. Not to mention structural integrity and fabrication difficulty.

And then there is the whole winding scheme where over half of the conductors in the slots cancel out. Refer to earlier discussion.

I hope that clears it up.
bi

*It appeared from the patent text that stator was of conventional design.

** See reply 285, https://overunity.com/19069/holcomb-energy-systemsbreakthrough-technology-to-the-world/285/

[bistander]

I had a conversation with one designer of electromechanical machines. He then told me that those engineers who come to them are being retrained. Not everyone stays. The problem is that engineering formulas are not always explained by physicists. The fact is, but how it happens is unknown. This is the case with a synchronous generator, where the winding is laid in a groove. You talk a lot about a rotating field, but what does it look like and do you know its structure? Earlier I posted a simple task, did you register it? Designing generators is the pinnacle of electrical engineering.

Hi rakarskiy,

Current technology, state of art science/physics and modern material engineering work extremely well for electric machine design. Reference this article.

ABB recently set the world record for electrical synchronous motor efficiency. During factory acceptance tests (FATs) carried out with the customer present, we recorded a result of 99.05% full load efficiency on a 44 megawatt, 6-pole, synchronous motor. The motor was included in a contract for six motors of the same design and they all had test results above 99% efficiency. The contract had guaranteed an efficiency of 98.80%, meaning that the efficiency on this motor is 0.25% greater than anticipated.

https://www.abb-conversations.com/2017/07/abb-motor-sets-world-record-in-energy-efficiency/

The engineers at ABB know what they're doing.
You can find the structure of RMF from the same sources, literature and schools they used. When I return to my desk I'll paste/edit the textbook & chapter # that I used. I think it is still available, later edition, no doubt.
As for your question about simple task registration, if directed to me, then, no. I don't know what you're talking about.
See, I answer your questions. Please return the favor. Go back a few posts and give answers to what I ask you. Thanks in advance.
bi

[onepower]

bistander

So AC says Energy is motion. I wonder if he claims Power to be acceleration. 

I only mentioned "Energy is Motion" as a different perspective.
Every credible physicist accepts that the universe is energy. They accept this because there is no example of anything in the universe which is not moving or changing in some way. It is a universal law with no exceptions that we know of.

Here's a cool video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo232kyTsO0   , "The Real Meaning of E=mc²"
As we can see mass and energy are directly related to kinetic energy which is the motion of something. Motion simply refers to the velocity of something and it's kinetic energy. Which begs the question how so many could get confused about something so simple?. How could anyone not understand motion means velocity relating to kinetic energy?.

In fact this concept relates directly to the Holcomb device. First and foremost we are speaking about energy and an energy device. Maybe this is why so few seem to understand what there doing?. There trying to build an energy device without first understanding what energy is.

AC

[SolarLab]

Hi Onepower and Bistander, and any others,

You fellows are intelligent and technically savy guys so let me ask you:

What makes you think or believe the Holcomb devices, and in particular the LinGen,
does not or will not work?

Regards,

SL

[bistander]

Hi Onepower and Bistander, and any others,

You fellows are intelligent and technically savy guys so let me ask you:

What makes you think or believe the Holcomb devices, and in particular the LinGen,
does not or will not work?

Regards,

SL

Hi SL,

I have mentioned a number of times: Holcomb presents nothing out of the ordinary and claims this "extra or free" energy comes from electrical grade steel. Reading everything I can about this, I see numerous red flags. Smudge summed it up well here:

Hello Chet K,
I like Smudge's previous post.

quote;


Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1557
I have looked carefully at that latest patent application (it is not a patent) WO 2018/134233.  Like other Holcombe applications it is weird in that it is trying to teach the patent examiner some basic EM history with references to Faraday, Watt, Gramme, Lenz and Tesla.  Perhaps he thinks that will help in getting the patent granted.  He is wrong with regard to Tesla's modification to the Faraday disc, it did not cancel the reverse torque.  In fact he is wrong about many of his claims which come from someone who has only a naive understanding of magnetic phenomena.  He states that his rotor as static hence reverse torque is not an issue, but then later on goes into detail on how his wonderful system cancels reverse torque.  He mentions graphene several times and thinks it has high permeability.  In fact it is highly diamagnetic and has permeability near zero.  His view on fields emanating from pole faces is naive to the extreme.  He talks about field lines running parallel to the surface of the rotor (this is not a moving/ rotating field although his rotor coil sequencing attempts to do that to field lines emanating normal to those surfaces) and that is just nonsense.  He talks about unipole rotors and such things can''t exist (field lines can't just appear from nowhere, there has to be a reverse pole somewhere like along the drive shaft of the rotor that doesn't exist in his machine).  He does show rotors with N and S poles but then doesn't use them in his battery replacement system which needs unipole rotors.  So all in all a pretty useless patent application in my view.

Smudge

unquote:

From the same thread which Chet linked. Note the sentence which I bolded. Sumdge sums up my observations nicely with that statement.
bi

So SL,
I am skeptical. Holcomb doesn't have OU or FE. I hope I'm wrong. I keep looking for some real transparent repeatable evidence which can be replicated or revelation of discovery explaining the real source of his newfound energy. But nothing even remotely encouraging happens.

Look at the resources put into fusion. Just recently news of laboratory measured OU. And reports we're just 10 years and ?$billions away from actual implementation. Compared to that, we could start using Holcomb's "technology" next week for nickels and dimes, if it wasn't just fantasy. Someone prove me wrong, please.
bi

edit:
I hit the post button instead of preview.
Re: LinGen.
Ever wonder why Holcomb himself stopped development? He appeared to be winding and wiring a physical model months ago. I see real problems from the practical EM design point of view. One is the "moving magnetic field" which encounters periodic discontinuities, unlike the RMF. Another big one is the lack of reasonable magnetic circuit. I wish you had shown a 2D cross section FEMM of it. And then the same issues I see with the round version, like the nonexistent energy.