Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: The book is dedicated to self-propelled mechanical generating devices.  (Read 83161 times)

bistander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 705
Re: The book is dedicated to self-propelled mechanical generating devices.
« Reply #105 on: November 18, 2021, 11:31:32 PM »
Quote from: rakarskiy link=topic=180 :-X02.msg561556#msg561556 date=1637258111
You have one drawback, you don't read the material you are referring to.  Everything is clearly told there, calculated for the final conclusion.

Yep, I read that. I asked the question to point out how ridiculous you are. How realistic is a 104 pole 1 kw alternator? Can you give me an example where one might be purchased?
You're out in left field with all those numbers that you stick in any equations which you can find. It makes no sense.
bi

rakarskiy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 924
    • Free Energy Systems (UA)
Re: The book is dedicated to self-propelled mechanical generating devices.
« Reply #106 on: November 19, 2021, 07:44:58 AM »
Yep, I read that. I asked the question to point out how ridiculous you are. How realistic is a 104 pole 1 kw alternator? Can you give me an example where one might be purchased?
You're out in left field with all those numbers that you stick in any equations which you can find. It makes no sense.
bi

Well, what do you think! But the electromagnetic moment is formed by induction and for the simplest generator in one turn (frame), no squares can be applied, everything is based on basic formulas.
To find a solution, it is necessary to start from the basic calculation. Yes, the generator machine will come out expensive, since to get the result, the cost of magnets will increase significantly (if something decreases, something arrives: E = B * L*V).  I was interested in another question in this task - the fulfillment of the condition of the Law of Conservation of Energy in the simplest generator, the fulfillment of the constant that the mechanical power applied to the rotation of the generator will be conditionally equal to electric, ideally.  It turned out that this is a myth, and even an absolute one. The braking torque of the generator depends on the conditions of its design. The constant of the law of conservation of energy in the generator does not work, and depends not on the physics of the process, but on the engineering solution. Just making a superunit generator is expensive, so the condition price /power =electromagnetic moment varies in the ratio of the equality of electrical power to mechanical power. This is not a constant , it is a commercial attraction for production.
You can only do it yourself, other models have been developed and calculated, not such a cosmic conversion factor, but sufficient to make yourself non-volatile. The cost of manufacturing such a machine is still very high.

Link to the article with the solution:  http://rakarskiy.narod.ru/_ld/0/40_COP_1_motot_gen.pdf

kolbacict

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1418
Re: The book is dedicated to self-propelled mechanical generating devices.
« Reply #107 on: November 19, 2021, 08:53:05 AM »
Have you seen enough Indian cinema?
Exactly. And not only Indian ones. :)

bistander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 705
Re: The book is dedicated to self-propelled mechanical generating devices.
« Reply #108 on: November 19, 2021, 12:27:29 PM »
Well, what do you think! But the electromagnetic moment is formed by induction and for the simplest generator in one turn (frame), no squares can be applied, everything is based on basic formulas.
To find a solution, it is necessary to start from the basic calculation. Yes, the generator machine will come out expensive, since to get the result, the cost of magnets will increase significantly (if something decreases, something arrives: E = B * L*V).  I was interested in another question in this task - the fulfillment of the condition of the Law of Conservation of Energy in the simplest generator, the fulfillment of the constant that the mechanical power applied to the rotation of the generator will be conditionally equal to electric, ideally.  It turned out that this is a myth, and even an absolute one. The braking torque of the generator depends on the conditions of its design. The constant of the law of conservation of energy in the generator does not work, and depends not on the physics of the process, but on the engineering solution. Just making a superunit generator is expensive, so the condition price /power =electromagnetic moment varies in the ratio of the equality of electrical power to mechanical power. This is not a constant , it is a commercial attraction for production.
You can only do it yourself, other models have been developed and calculated, not such a cosmic conversion factor, but sufficient to make yourself non-volatile. The cost of manufacturing such a machine is still very high.

Link to the article with the solution:  http://rakarskiy.narod.ru/_ld/0/40_COP_1_motot_gen.pdf

Sticking random ​values into misapplied equations and using fuzzy math proves nothing except that you lack fundamental comprehension of the science. From previous encounter between us on E.F., Ampere's force formula yields a force between the two conductors, not a moment.
Also I see little if any value in your approach to disprove conservation of energy.
I suggest you visit nearby university and seek review of book by those skilled in the field.
bi

rakarskiy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 924
    • Free Energy Systems (UA)
Re: The book is dedicated to self-propelled mechanical generating devices.
« Reply #109 on: November 19, 2021, 12:53:30 PM »
Sticking random ​values into misapplied equations and using fuzzy math proves nothing except that you lack fundamental comprehension of the science. From previous encounter between us on E.F., Ampere's force formula yields a force between the two conductors, not a moment.
Also I see little if any value in your approach to disprove conservation of energy.
I suggest you visit nearby university and seek review of book by those skilled in the field.
bi

Dear opponent! If you found an error. inaccuracy I will listen to you with pleasure. I solved the problem for the simplest generator, according to the rules of physics, the section of electromechanics.  If you can't decide and point out the inaccuracy with your opponent's decision, then the statement is nothing more than bravado, nothing more. If so, then go to the educational institution yourself.

The simplest generator

bistander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 705
Re: The book is dedicated to self-propelled mechanical generating devices.
« Reply #110 on: November 19, 2021, 01:46:22 PM »
Dear opponent! If you found an error. inaccuracy I will listen to you with pleasure. I solved the problem for the simplest generator, according to the rules of physics, the section of electromechanics.  If you can't decide and point out the inaccuracy with your opponent's decision, then the statement is nothing more than bravado, nothing more. If so, then go to the educational institution yourself.

The simplest generator

Twice, now a third. Very specific error on your part. Incorrect to apply Ampere's force law to solve for moment in a dynamo. This does not imply it is the only error.
bi


rakarskiy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 924
    • Free Energy Systems (UA)
Re: The book is dedicated to self-propelled mechanical generating devices.
« Reply #111 on: November 19, 2021, 02:15:15 PM »
Twice, now a third. Very specific error on your part. Incorrect to apply Ampere's force law to solve for moment in a dynamo. This does not imply it is the only error.
bi

Magnetic induction of an infinite conductor with a current, there is such a formula. If we apply magnetic induction from an external magnetic field, then, according to the Ampere force formula, the motor will be greater than one in accordance with the principle of reversibility. I've been testing various combinations. So think again about what you're saying.


bistander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 705
Re: The book is dedicated to self-propelled mechanical generating devices.
« Reply #112 on: November 19, 2021, 04:38:41 PM »
Magnetic induction of an infinite conductor with a current, there is such a formula. If we apply magnetic induction from an external magnetic field, then, according to the Ampere force formula, the motor will be greater than one in accordance with the principle of reversibility. I've been testing various combinations. So think again about what you're saying.

The two forces (F) are different in your graphic. One F is Laplace force, extension of Lorentz with current carrying conductor in uniform magnetic field. Other F is Ampere force, different extension of Lorentz where current in infinite wire causes force against equal current in parallel wire due to the magnetic field associated with the current in the infinite wire. Ampere's force is directed perpendicular to and between the two wires, equal and opposite direction, therefore unable to produce a moment. Laplace force is orthogonal and able to act against lever as a moment.
In the examples, the magnetic flux used in Laplace force equation is the product of the permanent magnets. In an Ampere's force calculation, the magnetic field(s) arise from the current itself.
bi

rakarskiy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 924
    • Free Energy Systems (UA)
Re: The book is dedicated to self-propelled mechanical generating devices.
« Reply #113 on: November 19, 2021, 04:57:21 PM »
The two forces (F) are different in your graphic. One F is Laplace force, extension of Lorentz with current carrying conductor in uniform magnetic field. Other F is Ampere force, different extension of Lorentz where current in infinite wire causes force against equal current in parallel wire due to the magnetic field associated with the current in the infinite wire. Ampere's force is directed perpendicular to and between the two wires, equal and opposite direction, therefore unable to produce a moment. Laplace force is orthogonal and able to act against lever as a moment.
In the examples, the magnetic flux used in Laplace force equation is the product of the permanent magnets. In an Ampere's force calculation, the magnetic field(s) arise from the current itself.
bi

Really?

I turned over a bunch of material, and never found the calculation of the electromagnetic moment of the simplest generator.  All that is offered is to count with an iron core.   And there it makes sense to take into account the cross-section of the poles. In the simplest generator, the conductor moves in a magnetic static field.

The second is the power of Laplace? I wonder how an integral indirect calculation can negate a rectilinear arithmetic one?

The third in the problem is not considered at all, sliding force changes, but only the frontal maximum for simplicity. 

Fourth, everything must always be compared with the reversibility of the motor-generator machines.

Fifth, if you want to convince me of something, I ask for your justification and calculations in examples.

Otherwise, a windbag.

bistander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 705
Re: The book is dedicated to self-propelled mechanical generating devices.
« Reply #114 on: November 19, 2021, 07:01:27 PM »
Really?

I turned over a bunch of material, and never found the calculation of the electromagnetic moment of the simplest generator.  All that is offered is to count with an iron core.   And there it makes sense to take into account the cross-section of the poles. In the simplest generator, the conductor moves in a magnetic static field.

The second is the power of Laplace? I wonder how an integral indirect calculation can negate a rectilinear arithmetic one?

The third in the problem is not considered at all, sliding force changes, but only the frontal maximum for simplicity. 

Fourth, everything must always be compared with the reversibility of the motor-generator machines.

Fifth, if you want to convince me of something, I ask for your justification and calculations in examples.

Otherwise, a windbag.

I don't need to convince you of anything. I am simply alerting you and the readers that I find your derivation, or "book", based on a misapplication of Ampere's force law and confusing, to say the least. I feel it shows a lack of comprehension of fundamentals on your part. I've stated my view and you and the readers can research and come to their own conclusions. I feel no need to argue.
bi

rakarskiy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 924
    • Free Energy Systems (UA)
Re: The book is dedicated to self-propelled mechanical generating devices.
« Reply #115 on: November 19, 2021, 08:46:11 PM »
I don't need to convince you of anything. I am simply alerting you and the readers that I find your derivation, or "book", based on a misapplication of Ampere's force law and confusing, to say the least. I feel it shows a lack of comprehension of fundamentals on your part. I've stated my view and you and the readers can research and come to their own conclusions. I feel no need to argue.
bi

Dear, you claim the incorrect application of Ampere's Law, without giving a single argument, in the form of a calculation that, in your opinion, is correct. Therefore, your warnings are nothing more than bravado. I invite everyone to point out the mistakes, giving proof according to the opinion of the one proving the correct calculation, but all by the bushes. Therefore, you are not convincing.

My solution of the problem by the link: http://rakarskiy.narod.ru/_ld/0/40_COP_1_motot_gen.pdf


bistander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 705
Re: The book is dedicated to self-propelled mechanical generating devices.
« Reply #116 on: November 20, 2021, 05:34:01 AM »
Dear, you claim the incorrect application of Ampere's Law, without giving a single argument, in the form of a calculation that, in your opinion, is correct. Therefore, your warnings are nothing more than bravado. I invite everyone to point out the mistakes, giving proof according to the opinion of the one proving the correct calculation, but all by the bushes. Therefore, you are not convincing.

My solution of the problem by the link: http://rakarskiy.narod.ru/_ld/0/40_COP_1_motot_gen.pdf

It was Ampere's "Force Law" which I said was improperly used, not to be confused with that which is generally termed as Ampere's Law.  I did supply reference explaining that and a brief statement.
I read your paper again and tell you it is terrible. You design a generator with an output of 1.0 kw and input of 14 watts. It has 104 poles and a rotor diameter of 350mm by 500mm long. 7140% efficiency, thereby claiming to prove conservation of energy wrong. You even say "Such a generator is possible".
I don't think so.
bi

rakarskiy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 924
    • Free Energy Systems (UA)
Re: The book is dedicated to self-propelled mechanical generating devices.
« Reply #117 on: November 20, 2021, 07:50:13 AM »
It was Ampere's "Force Law" which I said was improperly used, not to be confused with that which is generally termed as Ampere's Law.  I did supply reference explaining that and a brief statement.
I read your paper again and tell you it is terrible. You design a generator with an output of 1.0 kw and input of 14 watts. It has 104 poles and a rotor diameter of 350mm by 500mm long. 7140% efficiency, thereby claiming to prove conservation of energy wrong. You even say "Such a generator is possible".
I don't think so.
bi

Can't you calculate the electromagnetic moment yourself, the simplest generator?  For load: P =1 kW/220V ? Provided that the angular velocity is -650 rpm, and the distance between the active faces of the frame or the diameter relative to the axis of rotation d is 0.35 meters! The condition must be one frame or one coil turn!

I have no words, consider the execution of such a calculation a test of aptitude.  I hope your employer reads your nonsense (your posts are above).

rakarskiy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 924
    • Free Energy Systems (UA)

bistander

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 705
Re: The book is dedicated to self-propelled mechanical generating devices.
« Reply #119 on: November 20, 2021, 01:00:31 PM »
Can't you calculate the electromagnetic moment yourself, the simplest generator?  For load: P =1 kW/220V ? Provided that the angular velocity is -650 rpm, and the distance between the active faces of the frame or the diameter relative to the axis of rotation d is 0.35 meters! The condition must be one frame or one coil turn!

I have no words, consider the execution of such a calculation a test of aptitude.  I hope your employer reads your nonsense (your posts are above).

"I hope your employer reads your nonsense" says the fellow who has made the calculation to be 0.163Nm. That is about 23 oz.in. Similar to the rated torque of the motor shown here: https://www.ricmotor.com/details/rs-997ph
bi