Holcomb Energy Systems:Breakthrough technology to the world

[bistander]

F.Y.I.

In this patent Holcomb describes some of his ideas regarding
"SOLID STATE MULTI-POLE AND UNI-POLE ELECTRIC GENERATOR ROTOR FOR AC/DC ELECTRIC GENERATORS"
US2019/0238011 A1 published Aug 1, 2019

This submission focuses primarily on Rotors (recall - his early approach was to replace the rotors of "rotating generators"
with a "fixed stationary rotor") to increase generator efficiencies. Contains some good background on rotor types, etc.. 
...
SL
-------- The above patent is helpful in understanding; and aids in the design process ---------

NOTE the "LAP WINDING" in the "LinGen" illustrates " [0089] Geometric Isolation."

"[0089] Geometric Isolation: Each stator armature induction coil may be located in two seperate rotor cavaties, such
that only one side of a stator coil is in close proximity to a first magnetizing rotor, while the opposite side of the coil is in
close proximity to a second magnetizing rotor. Both rotors are outside of a closed induction loop.
...
----------------

At [0125] the Description of the Figures begins.

Hi SL,
At risk of being petty, that document is a patent application, not a patent.
And I disagree about its helpfulness. It is loaded with errors and outlandish statements. I see no mention of LinGen or anything remotely similar. [0089] launches into describing an impossible rotor (meant to rotate, attributed to use of slip rings) having but one pole around its 360° periphery, or unipolar, alternating between N & S 60 times per second driven from a stationary excitator. An absolutely ridiculous concept of no practical use even if it could be built. The drawings of its laminations and windings are a solid indication of the designer's disconnect from reality. If it is not a joke, it is just too sad, IMO of course.
bi

[SolarLab]

Hi SL,
At risk of being petty, that document is a patent application, not a patent.
And I disagree about its helpfulness. It is loaded with errors and outlandish statements. I see no mention of LinGen or anything remotely similar. [0089] launches into describing an impossible rotor (meant to rotate, attributed to use of slip rings) having but one pole around its 360° periphery, or unipolar, alternating between N & S 60 times per second driven from a stationary excitator. An absolutely ridiculous concept of no practical use even if it could be built. The drawings of its laminations and windings are a solid indication of the designer's disconnect from reality. If it is not a joke, it is just too sad, IMO of course.
bi

Hi bi,

Yea, pretty sure we all know the difference between a Patent Application and an actual Granted Patent, but thanks.
You should know by now that sucking me into some stupid argument about crossed "t's" and dotted "i's" is a silly
quest and a waist of everyones reading time.

"LinGen" was a psuedo name I adopted for the unrolled (flat) development of HES devices. It helps in destinguishing
between the variations.

As you should know, typically many patent applications explore every possible implementation, and some that
may even apprear impossible, in order to cover any work-arounds and any angles that might null in a challenge.
This is very common.

Be aware that patent submissions and grants are NOT "Paint by Number" documents by their nature but they are intended
to provide enough information that "One Skilled in the Art" can construct a device from the information, techniques and
methods contained within.

Your opinion is appreciated but your assertions and conclusions show that you may not be that skilled or have much
of a clue of how things work in the intellectual, engineering or real world. But, as you say, they are just your disconnected
opinions.

BTW, you Do Not have to reference Holcomb's patent information for any reason, it's simply out there, but no requirement
to use or follow any of it. Others have found Holcomb's stuff very helpful and very well done, especially considering it's
only patent material and NOT a Heathkit instruction manual.

The Course Material is in-process, maybe your best bet is to wait for that. Might even be a "Reviewer Reward" if you
qualify for one of the "Grammar and Spelling Police Squad" positions!

So, ask yourself this: Did your petty post and comments above add anything of value to the topic? I don't see anything of
value; just a bunch of dribble from someone who is not up to the task of detailed engineering analysis and study.

But, hey, keep up the fair work, you never know, someday you might luck out and come up with an "on topic" comment
of some value!

SL

[SolarLab]

F.Y.I.

In this patent Holcomb describes some of his ideas regarding
"SOLID STATE MULTI-POLE AND UNI-POLE ELECTRIC GENERATOR ROTOR FOR AC/DC ELECTRIC GENERATORS"
US2019/0238011 A1 published Aug 1, 2019

This submission focuses primarily on Rotors (recall - his early approach was to replace the rotors of "rotating generators"
with a "fixed stationary rotor") to increase generator efficiencies. Contains some good background on rotor types, etc..

Thought you might find it interesting as related material. Can't find the Notes file for this one right now.

SL
-------- The above patent is helpful in understanding; and aids in the design process ---------

NOTE the "LAP WINDING" in the "LinGen" illustrates " [0089] Geometric Isolation."

"[0089] Geometric Isolation: Each stator armature induction coil may be located in two seperate rotor cavaties, such
that only one side of a stator coil is in close proximity to a first magnetizing rotor, while the opposite side of the coil is in
close proximity to a second magnetizing rotor. Both rotors are outside of a closed induction loop.

Reverse torque of a conventional generator may be formed when a single rotor excites both sides of a stator coil, one bing
at least one north pole and the other at least one south pole.

Based on Lenz's Law, there is an induced current in a closed loop if the magnetizing flux through the loop is changing. The
direction of the induced current is such that the induced magnetic field opposes a change in flux.

In the case of the present disclosure, the magnetic field of the rotor is geometrically removed and isolated from a magnetic
axis or center line of a stator magnetic pole. Therefore, reverse torque does not occur to any significant extent due to this
geometric seperation of the would-be opposing magnetic poles."

Also consider these other design features that can mitigate 'reverse torque" -  [0090] Singular Stator Winding Pattern,
[0091] Shielding, and [0092] Unique Rotor Design; as explained in this patent.

----------------

At [0125] the Description of the Figures begins.

bi,

FWIW - clipping the referenced post - [0089] - in your petty reply is at best disingenuous; so I have included the
complete post, in full, that you referenced above.

It's easily seen your concluded narrative is completely wrong and original post was truncated to bolster your
false assertions. Hey, this isn't MSM or farcebook!

This is a common trick and practice in use today - only select a few chosen words that will suit your narritive while
leaving out the complete article.

What does that tell you about the quality of your reply?  No need to say more!

SL

[rakarskiy]

There is one essential detail. Generators - Power System Holcomb, work as advertised! Yes, the doctor agreed to the conditions when obtaining patents. But most importantly, he started production, the 200 kW converter did not accidentally light up.
Today I have already found material where it is written in plain text how synchronous machines work in terms of EMF guidance, everything coincided with my "discoveries". It turned out that the assigned specialists are taught correctly. That's what I got for myself, that double standards are not an illusion.
If Holcomb did not indicate how the EMF is actually induced in his machines, then he did not consider it necessary and adheres to the paradigm of two branches of education. This is his right.

[bistander]

bi,

FWIW - clipping the referenced post - [0089] - in your petty reply is at best disingenuous; so I have included the
complete post, in full, that you referenced above.

It's easily seen your concluded narrative is completely wrong and original post was truncated to bolster your
false assertions. Hey, this isn't MSM or farcebook!

This is a common trick and practice in use today - only select a few chosen words that will suit your narritive while
leaving out the complete article.

What does that tell you about the quality of your reply?  No need to say more!

SL

Hi SL,
I clipped, yes. But not to fool or deceive anyone. And using the quote feature, the reader simply needs to click to see your original message complete. I did it to shorten my reply and reference the specific subject I was about address, ie. that beginning at [0089]. You had truncated* the original to the point of eliminating the main subject of that section, which is the unipole rotor. And that is a totally ridiculous idea and certainly not helpful or of any value, especially to a LinGen design.

The point of my post was that the patent application is not helpful, as you said. For the record, by law, a patent must be non-obvious, new, and useful. I await to see anything useful to come from trash like that document.
So please show me what is helpful. Or insult me further. And those skilled in science and technology can easily see that the author of that patent application is functionally ignorant on the subject. The things which you call petty are indicators that the author doesn't know what he's talking about. There are numerous examples in that and other documents from Holcomb.
bi

* You did provide link to the original document. Thanks. It had been awhile since I'd read it. It is truly remarkable, in a bad way.