Holcomb Energy Systems Working Theory

[citfta]

But seriously, I have not yet voiced all my proposals on this topic.
One of them was, if you still spin the field faster than the speed of light, can a long-awaited miracle will be able happened ?

How do you propose to spin the field faster than the speed of light?  You obviously can't move a magnet faster than the speed of light.  And you can't make the electrons in a wire move faster than the speed of light so how can you move a magnetic field faster than the speed of light?  Do you even know how fast light moves?


Carroll

[kolbacict]

Let's say the stator (or rotor) winding is three-phase, and the phase shift between currents in adjacent phases will be 10 ns (120 degrees). In this case, we obtain the frequency of the supply current 33.333 MHz (period duration 30 ns). To obtain a superluminal speed of rotation of the field, it is necessary that the diameter of the rotor be at least 2.865 meters.

[onepower]

Did a little math on the Holcomb device...

Suppose we have three coil(s) sets and each of said coil set can operate over a given range of frequencies in order to produce X result. Let's say a frequency range of 100kHz for each coil set in large 1kHz increments and only one combination will produce the desired result. We now have 27 million possible combination and this is only if the coil windings, geometry, orientation, core material, core geometry etc... are all correct. So we could throw in maybe 100 more variables which is a major understatement and were now at only 2.7 billion possible combinations.

A person could start guessing however if we were to take one guess every minute it would take us around 85 years or a lifetime. Which may explain why most of the FE inventors who had success spent a lifetime looking for answers. This is why theory is so important to separate the wheat from the chaff and increase our odds of success.

Regards
AC

[Lunkster]

Did a little math on the Holcomb device...

Suppose we have three coil(s) sets and each of said coil set can operate over a given range of frequencies in order to produce X result. Let's say a frequency range of 100kHz for each coil set in large 1kHz increments and only one combination will produce the desired result. We now have 27 million possible combination and this is only if the coil windings, geometry, orientation, core material, core geometry etc... are all correct. So we could throw in maybe 100 more variables which is a major understatement and were now at only 2.7 billion possible
combinations.

A person could start guessing however if we were to take one guess every minute it would take us around 85 years or a lifetime. Which may explain why most of the FE inventors who had success spent a lifetime looking for answers. This is why theory is so important to separate the wheat from the chaff and increase our odds of success.

Regards
AC

In the aerospace industry, the flight envelope has an infinite flight conditions for the operation
of the products.  We would test a limited set of parameters for the qualification tests that
would cover the most critical parts of the flight envelope.

When you look up parameters of electrical devises, the parameters are displayed
usually in lines that are generated from a few data points compared to all the
possible data points for that parameter.

So, development of FE devices should be tested the same way.
Test the parameters that could cause the most changes in the devices output first.
From the graph, move to the best operating point for that parameter and then go to the next parameter.

Now this is why it is important to create as much adjustability in the physical components
in the prototype so that you do not need so many different prototype builds.

Now with that being said,  Most of the best FE concepts have taken several years to get
to a manufacturable design.  Even then a lot of them are never seen again for different reasons.

Now as you go through the prototype build, it is good to think about how you can
use as many off the shelf components as you can in the design for the final prototype.

In larger companies you have several groups working together to bring products
to the customers.

How can FE people work together to speed up the process of OU devices.
FE development the way it currently is has a lot of disadvantages to it.

How can it be improved?

Lunkster

[alan]

AC and Wesley,

You'll be happy to know you have convinced me that this whole Holcomb is a lark. No need for me to carry on with any more development. No one has even replicated it. Those tiny little magnetic domain things just can't rotate or slide, it's impossible and non of the greats in science seem to be able to explain anything either. 

Anyway, thanks for the great advice and guidance, it's helped me a lot in deciding to THROW IN THE TOWEL. To bad in a way since the simulations and all appeared to actually prove the concept at least. 

I'll check in from time to time just in case someone here has a break-through but I'm not optomistic. 

Breaks my poor little heart having put so much of my time and effort into something, just to find out it was all for not.     

Oh well - as you said - not my first (bad) rodeo!

Take care, and have a good one...

SL

Don't believe that and don't give up. Holcomb is very similar to what Figuera invented, Figuera describes the purpose of the moving field: to emulate relative MOVEMENT without movement so back-mmf from load current has no back-torque effect since it's solid state (his own explanation). The one who came up with speed of light rotation talked bogus. 

When you move a wire through an even magnetic field, nothing varies but location and charges in the wire do separate which can be defined as an EMF that has the potential to pump a current. No abstraction of changing flux through enclosed surface area, in Holcomb the flux moves, rotates, but  the rate of change of the number of  flux-lines seems cancelled because of the symmetry of the magnets.