Re: Build your own Over Unity Motor

On Mar 16, 2:32 am, Frank Raffaeli <SNIPrf_man_frT...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Mar 16, 3:42 am, The Flavored Coffee Guy <elgers...@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:





John Popelish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz's_lawAs I said, it will move as
the result of an induced current.  Lenz's law doesn't say it won't
work.

The law is a physical interpretation of Faraday's law of induction,
which indicates that the induced emf and the change in flux have
opposite signs. Heinrich Lenz formulated the law in 1834.

Which is the same as this issue of Scientific American.http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11498/11498-h/11498-h.htm#4

{I had to click on that link twice to make it work.  Once after the
web page loaded.

With the exception that one is a statement and Lenz's Law, and the
other is a physical example of that said statement.

Tom Bruhns,

I know that you think the world owes you an explaination on a silver
platter, or that anyone and everyone should be spending money like
they don't need to live.  So, frankly, you can *** yourself.  There
are too many people that know too much more than you and your wishes
would have.  Plenty of Engineers Design Electric Motors, and have the
modeling software.  There are companies out there with engineers that
can understand it and don't need the demonstration.  *** yourself.

Well, as a dreamer, the least you can do is be polite. John spent a
lot more time than I would have, trying to have a discussion. Having
taught motor theory in college, I see a lot of holes in the theories
and documents you cited, starting with "Over unity". An squirrel-cage
induction motor can't do that, no matter how much you cuss at John.

Frank- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Strong Claim. But, the Motor Design is simple, but you keep locking
out the series tuned circuit.

Instead of the short circuit seen in the 1887 July Issue of Scientific
American, which you must not have really read, this circuit is
applied:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/serres.html#c2

Instead of an inductor a 1:1 transformer is used:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/magnetic/transf.html

And you all keep erasing the fact that the primary is an inductor and
the secondary is an inductor. But, in Spice, they don't.
http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~jan/spice/spice.overview.html#Mutual

And what's left of that. Well, Lp=Ls=Lm when the transformer is a 1:1
transformer and L does not change as a result of a change in the
load. With a step up or step down transformer the value of Lp does
change when the load changes. But, never with a 1:1 turns ratio, or
isolation transformer. Lp is stable and Q of Lp changes.

For a proper definition of Q
http://www.electronics-tutorials.com/basics/q.htm

I don't need to be polite to somebody who keeps pretending to know it
all and is rude by it via the level of conciet expressed through his
demanding insistance to his claim of understanding the full extent of
the Universe and every law of physics in play. Still, this man has
not built an anti-gravity machine or put one object in orbit. So, I'm
not willing to place that kind of faith in his declarations or
statements.
.

Quantcast