Holcomb Energy Systems:Breakthrough technology to the world

[bistander]

Maybe Holcomb is fake after all, and just another investment fraud... Time will tell.

A court did publish such a conclusion about Holcomb years ago. Could it be a repeat performance?

... Other proof, but certainly not the only other proof, includes: (1) Dr. Holcomb's hasty attempt to transfer assets to Isle of Man entities, (2) his entangled web of business entities, (3) his instructions to Ms. Hubbard in paying and accounting for transactions, (4) his outright fraud in directing the involuntary bankruptcy filing, and (5) his continued deceptions to the Members of HHCS.
...
https://casetext.com/case/in-re-holcomb-health-care-services 

[nix85]

 

Just look at that sleazy sentence

"Who told you that you need Over Unity's secret technology?"

When did i say you need "Over Unity's secret technology?" and who is "Over Unity" anyway. Your are writting nonsense as usual.

I don't need to develop technical project of Holcomb device for i am not trying to replicate his device, i got my own ideas (solid state and mechanical) to work on. It is you and your "colleagues" who are supposedly trying to replicate it that need to develop it and before all be 100% transparent and clear about everything about it. And so far all about it was secrecy, confusion, drama, 100% mess. That is NOT how you approach developing overunity.

"Motley physics" is not motley, all is part of the one and all those principles are essential Knowledge, but some parts are more relevant than others to particular problems. For example the mentioned key principle of induction, which you (and probably your colleagues neither) do not understand. How many days have you attacked me about Hooper-Monstein experiment because of your not-understanding of induction, just to finally admit you were wrong (for induction happens normally there in TWO ways).

You also claim there is no flux-cutting in grooves of the stator of synchronous generator which is wrong, there is both flux linking and cutting.

Now, what to expect from someone who does not understand induction nor how flux behaves in SG, whether it is rotating mechanically or solid state. Rhetorical question.

Synchronous electromechanical generator is the first and simplest of all generators, magnet rotating near a coil is a synchronous electromechanical generator, every DC motor/generator is a synchronous electromechanical generator if not rectified. Cut a hole in a transformer core and spin a magnet inside it and there is your synchronous electromechanical generator, etc.

I have disassembled the operation of the synchronous generator "by the bones" and understood it in all its forms for a very long time, i suggest you to do the same. Whether rotor is brushed-DC excited (excited from outside or self-excited as ones Mecc Alte makes) or brushless using permanent magnets, whether salient pole rotor or non-salient pole rotor is used, whether stator windings are concentrated or distributed etc.

Start here, watch and learn how smooth, uniform RMF is produced in many-slot stator of 3-phase induction motor for it is the exact same RMF used by Holcomb.

"You take away the element of mechanical force, you overcome the magnetic attraction of the rotor/stator, you get what you are looking for."

No you do NOT overcome the magnetic attraction simply by eliminating the physical rotation. It makes not the least difference if there are physical magnets/electromagnets rotating or RMF is produced artificially, flux is still attracted to the steel, there is still normal cogging and lenz.

Now, unlike you (you and "colleagues") who muddies the waters and confuses the issue, i prefer to make things CRYSTAL CLEAR. And from now on that is going to be the house rule for this thread.

No more muddying the waters, clear, sincere posts or no posts.

It must be CLEARLY stated how EXACTLY is Holcomb supposedly reducing/diverting/bypassing/delaying lenz

He says in the patent he is using a shield, so first question that must be answered clearly is which type of shield (presumably mumetal or alike) and what, where and how much exactly is shielded. Shielding is a common overunity element, i already mentioned Alexander Mikhalych etc.

Also, question is what is the inner stator doing, in his video inner stator does not appear to be doing anything but in the diagrams i see 4 poles designated, so it is presumably generating the same RMF as the outer stator and middle stator which might be called a secondary in this case is being sandwiched between the two opposing fields. This makes sense since N to N is a common overunity scheme (Figuera..).

Further on, his animation is misleading, actual rotating flux is not animated.

In the patent he says.

"In the case of the generators of the present disclosure, the rotors do not rotate; instead, the flux from the magnetic poles, in one embodiment, rotates and in another embodiment, transgresses laterally across the stationary "rotor' armature. Additionally, in one design, the rotors are outside of the coil loop and, therefore, do not interact with the induced pole. This induced pole is induced by current flow and is not responsible for a current flow, as is evidenced by the fact that the generator reaches full voltage prior to current going to an electrical load."

Question is how, in animation rotating flux clearly penetrates the coils altho strangly in only partial way (animation is definitely not realistic), in any case, rotating flux must link with the coils and if it does that is an interaction. Now, there are various possible ways how lenz might be reduced but he does not reveal how he's doing it.

Also the last bolded part. God knows what is he really saying but to me it sounds like possible delayed lenz ala Heins - altho not likely since he uses very low frequency. He mentions MOSFET switching which is maybe only used to create a rotating magnetic field, but maybe he also uses switching to reduce lenz - shorting at the peak and interupting at high frequency ala Aviso, or uses switching ala InfinitySAV (question remains if his death was an accident or not), combining geometry and timing to reduce lenz.

There is much unknown and to be cleared up here and this burden is on those who claim to "know" what exactly is H doing.

[nix85]

...

[Cadman]

It must be CLEARLY stated how EXACTLY is Holcomb supposedly reducing/diverting/bypassing/delaying lenz

Sincere question; where does Holcomb state that they are doing this? If I recall correctly it's only mentioned that lenz is not an issue as far as having to be overcome by external motive power because the rotor does not rotate. I'm Paraphrasing here.

[nix85]

He says it clearly in the patent. And he relates it to Faraday's homoplar generator.

"The back EMF or reverse torque of rotary generators in use today can best be described by reference to "Lenz's Law." It, in summary, states that when an EMF is generated by a change in magnetic flux according to Faraday's Law, the polarity of the induced EMF is such that it produces a current whose magnetic field opposes the magnetic flux which produces it. The induced magnetic field inside any loop of wire always acts to keep the magnetic flux in the loop constant. If the magnetic field B is increasing, the induced magnetic field acts in equal and opposite direction to it; if it is decreasing, the induced magnetic field acts in the direction of the applied field with equal force. In conventional generators, the rotor is stationed inside the coil loops of the stator and, thus, the rotor generates a current which in turn generates a magnetic field which is equal in force and opposite in polarity. Therefore, reverse torque is a product of the design.

In the case of the generators of the present disclosure, the rotors do not rotate; instead, the flux from the magnetic poles, in one embodiment, rotates and in another embodiment, transgresses laterally across the stationary "rotor' armature. Additionally, in one design, the rotors are outside of the coil loop and, therefore, do not interact with the induced pole. This induced pole is induced by current flow and is not responsible for a current flow, as is evidenced by the fact that the generator reaches full voltage prior to current going to an electrical load."

"Systems and methods for generation of direct current (DC) with reduced electromagnetic drag, commonly referred to as reverse torque, thereby improving the operating efficiency of a  generator"

"Removal of reverse torque from generators associated with converting mechanical energy into electrical power can provide an opportunity for an electrically powered power generator for a multitude of sizes and applications. Removal of the reverse torque allows a generator to operate with 400-500% increase in efficiency. This permits the opportunity to drive the generator with a smaller electric driver and, therefore, greatly improve the generator' s efficiency as well as allow for miniaturizing of a generator."

BTW Chris from Aboveunity claims Holcomb is a copy of Father Antonio D'Angelo's generator