High RPM to Low RPM, Motor-Generator: Public Discolsure - The Real McCoy

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by bradagilah
I failed, and recommend closing the thread I started. If someone can please alert a moderator, I would appreciate it.

edit on 19-4-2012 by bradagilah because: (no reason given)

I am not buying it OP. Either you trolled us or you decided you did not want to put up with some of the non-sense that goes on in these threads. Or did you get threatened? Which is it? The bold statements you made in your OP do not lend themselves to "oops I made a mistake in calculations none of it works". You do not have deals with south american companies and former Naval engineers working on your project without some serious checking of calculations some serious testing and a working prototype or at least proof of concept?

So do us the courtesy of the truth for once will you? That is is if you really want to help humanity?

edit on 19-4-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

Seriously, man.

Give up the ghost. It doesn't work. Move along.

Here's a novel idea: if you don't like what is being said in a thread then don't read it, don't post in it, and especially do not tell me what threads I should participate in. Thanks.

reply to post by bradagilah


good luck with that i tried to pattent a self powered generator that actually worked i made when i was 19 and they wanted me to come up with some ungodly amount of money to put it into production money i dont have and have no way of getting

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by bradagilah
I failed, and recommend closing the thread I started. If someone can please alert a moderator, I would appreciate it.

edit on 19-4-2012 by bradagilah because: (no reason given)

I am not buying it OP. Either you trolled us or you decided you did not want to put up with some of the non-sense that goes on in these threads. Or did you get threatened? Which is it? The bold statements you made in your OP do not lend themselves to "oops I made a mistake in calculations none of it works". You do not have deals with south american companies and former Naval engineers working on your project without some serious checking of calculations some serious testing and a working prototype or at least proof of concept?

So do us the courtesy of the truth for once will you? That is is if you really want to help humanity?

edit on 19-4-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

Seriously, man.

Give up the ghost. It doesn't work. Move along.

Here's a novel idea: if you don't like what is being said in a thread then don't read it, don't post in it, and especially do not tell me what threads I should participate in. Thanks.

Great advice coming from the guy telling the OP to "tell the truth for once".

He said that it didn't work. If you want to continue to scream at your screen waiting for the OP to "tell you the truth" be my guest.

Attention please.

Let's get this thread back on topic instead of making fellow members the focus of attention. Any post that attacks a fellow poster after this notice will be removed as off topic.

Also, please alert any offending posts instead of replying to it in thread. Thank you and let's get back on topic now.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Attention please.

Let's get this thread back on topic instead of making fellow members the focus of attention. Any post that attacks a fellow poster after this notice will be removed as off topic.

Also, please alert any offending posts instead of replying to it in thread. Thank you and let's get back on topic now.

What is the topic now that the OP has said this doesn't work and wants the thread closed?

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by AshleyD
Attention please.

Let's get this thread back on topic instead of making fellow members the focus of attention. Any post that attacks a fellow poster after this notice will be removed as off topic.

Also, please alert any offending posts instead of replying to it in thread. Thank you and let's get back on topic now.

What is the topic now that the OP has said this doesn't work and wants the thread closed?

I must say that you asked a very good question. I have thought about it, and I can't come up with any answer.
Up until the revelation by the OP that it doesn't work, we could discuss why it would/wouldn't work.

reply to post by butcherguy

what kind of scientific are you to call "ignorant" a post indicating you the way you must compare the power "in "to the power" out",?
Your maths are basically ridicoulus as you compare the "per specifications" electrical power of two devices connected mechanically without taking in consideration the efficiency of the motor conversion from electrical to mechanical power and the conversion back in the generator as I have indicated in my first post. The power factor you mention is the equivalent of the cosPHI I was explaining in my second post, but the efficiency is something else it indicates what losses in heath must be removed from the electrical power " in" to get the mechanical power out (for the motor) and what losses in heat must be removed from the mechanical power transmitted to the shaft of the generator in order to calculate the final electrical power "out".
Ask to the manufacturer of the motor and generator the value of the efficiency at full load and also the efficiency of the gearbox and return to your calculations..

reply to post by DUSA922
I just want to say that the math(s) are not mine.

It would be broli's post.

I need to add further that the way you calculate it per specifications using the builders data indicating the min- max torque of the two device make no sense (altough I agree with you that the torque out of the motor take into account the efficiency) as what will be the real measured torque when the motor and the generator are connected is not known. That will obviously not be the max torque for both but rather the actual torque needed to balance the two devices when coupled.

I need to add further that the way you calculate it per specifications using the builders data indicating the min- max torque of the two device make no sense (altough I agree with you that the torque out of the motor take into account the efficiency) as what will be the real measured torque when the motor and the generator are connected is not known. That will obviously not be the max torque for both but rather the actual torque needed to balance the two devices when coupled.

Sorry Butcher not for you but for Broli.

Now looking to the specifications of the motor and the generator you linked to your answer to me, I see that the motor is a 7.5 HP triphased motor. At 100 per cent load you must calculate the power in by this formula: 460x9.49x.81 x 1.7 (square root of 3 as there are three phases) and consequently your power in is greater than the power out.

Regardless if OP trolled, lied, got threatened, or made a miscalculation, I am hoping he continues to look into this. If you have the gumption to admit you were wrong, then you are actually a human doing the right thing. Here's to your future endeavors. ::

P.S. To save some people time, please edit your OP and state that there were miscalculations.

Originally posted by mrwiffler
"I made a mistake in the calculations... None of this works.."

If this is a serious admission then it is one of the best posts I've ever seen on ATS. It's not sad, it's quite admirable. I've never seen anyone in this field of endeavour admit to a mistake.

If it was a proof of concept thread you would be correct. OP claimed to have a working device as well as large scale contracts in place. He clearly lied. Very sad.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by charlyv
That is just it. If your math shows that you have a surplus of power that cannot be accounted for, then you are obviously consuming something you are not accounting for. You cannot create more energy than you consume in any closed process, as we all know it to be a perpetual motion mechanism, and the law of thermodynamics says that is impossible.

So the law of thermodynamics says the perpetual rotation of the planets is impossible? Me thinks you should not assume something is violating the law when you fail to consider all the sources of power. The OP never said this is a perpetual motion machine.

I am afraid you don't understand the law of thermodynamics either. There is no "perpetual" rotation of the planets. Slowly, they all succumb to the forces of gravity (resistance or permutation) and change their orbits over time. Depending upon the celestial mechanics, they will wind up in the Sun, or be perturbed further out or beyond the present solar system.

Suppose you tell me what the sources of power really are? Do you think that there is some kind of power that counters the force of gravity that would keep a planet revolving around the Sun forever?

Even if the OP did not say it was a perpetual motion machine, they were describing one.

reply to post by charlyv


Soooo, Planets in orbit for BILLIONS OF YEARS are NOT perpetual enough.......

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by charlyv

 

Soooo, Planets in orbit for BILLIONS OF YEARS are NOT perpetual enough.......

Nope.

They are slowly falling towards their foci, shedding "gravitational potential energy" as their orbits get ever smaller.

seems to me that a small phase converter could be used to induce the third phase that could be used to power the house. It could only put out a single 110 volt though. They don't use that much power but cost about 800 bucks. I think it works on the same principal as what you are suggesting. If a 220 volt motor is used it automatically balances the power from the fusebox and that raises efficiencies in the monitoring by the meter. Balancing your load on a meter can itself lower your your electric bill.

There are a lot of ways to make power and it is important to note that nothing actually has to rotate except the energy itself along a conductor or within a field. Nothing mechanical has to spin to make power to run LED lights and a battery charger. If you want to make a lot of power to power big things than you need rotation. Just a little hint for you people who understand about energy creation and wish to experiment.

Originally posted by OccamAssassin

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by charlyv

 

Soooo, Planets in orbit for BILLIONS OF YEARS are NOT perpetual enough.......

Nope.

They are slowly falling towards their foci, shedding "gravitational potential energy" as their orbits get ever smaller.

You are Wrong, and so is the person who gave you a star. !!!

The Moon is moving away from the Earth at approx 1.5 inches per year....So its gonna keep orbiting for potentially many many billions of years to come, and if you don't think that's perpetual then you need help.

Originally posted by ken10

Originally posted by OccamAssassin

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by charlyv

 

Soooo, Planets in orbit for BILLIONS OF YEARS are NOT perpetual enough.......

Nope.

They are slowly falling towards their foci, shedding "gravitational potential energy" as their orbits get ever smaller.

You are Wrong, and so is the person who gave you a star. !!!

The Moon is moving away from the Earth at approx 1.5 inches per year....So its gonna keep orbiting for potentially many many billions of years to come, and if you don't think that's perpetual then you need help.

I don't think you understand what the word "perpetual" means. Here's a hint, it doesn't mean "a really long time".

Originally posted by EdSurly

Originally posted by ken10

Originally posted by OccamAssassin

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by charlyv

 

Soooo, Planets in orbit for BILLIONS OF YEARS are NOT perpetual enough.......

Nope.

They are slowly falling towards their foci, shedding "gravitational potential energy" as their orbits get ever smaller.

You are Wrong, and so is the person who gave you a star. !!!

The Moon is moving away from the Earth at approx 1.5 inches per year....So its gonna keep orbiting for potentially many many billions of years to come, and if you don't think that's perpetual then you need help.

I don't think you understand what the word "perpetual" means. Here's a hint, it doesn't mean "a really long time".

Well maybe you should look at the definitions for "perpetual"....

www.thefreedictionary.com...