Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
On Mar 17, 12:14 pm, "Phil Kangas" wrote:
Yah, this guy claims to have invented a new form of generator and claims it is not a perpetual motion device! I'm a skeptic but here is the link so you can decide for yourself. I'm going to keep my wallet in my pocket......phil http://www.nullgrav.com/index.htm -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This one sentence from the web site is enough, it's a perpetual motion machine. "which may produce far more energy than it consumes." Carl Boyd (not Karl, Carl, the other Carl, or the other Carl's brother Carl) |
#2
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
Yah, this guy claims to have invented a new form of
generator and claims it is not a perpetual motion device! I'm a skeptic but here is the link so you can decide for yourself. I'm going to keep my wallet in my pocket......phil http://www.nullgrav.com/index.htm -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. |
#3
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
On 2008-03-17, Phil Kangas wrote:
Yah, this guy claims to have invented a new form of generator and claims it is not a perpetual motion device! I'm a skeptic but here is the link so you can decide for yourself. I'm going to keep my wallet in my pocket......phil http://www.nullgrav.com/index.htm They say it produces more energy that it consumes. i |
#4
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:30:58 -0700 (PDT), Carl
wrote: On Mar 17, 12:14 pm, "Phil Kangas" wrote: Yah, this guy claims to have invented a new form of generator and claims it is not a perpetual motion device! I'm a skeptic but here is the link so you can decide for yourself. I'm going to keep my wallet in my pocket......phil http://www.nullgrav.com/index.htm This one sentence from the web site is enough, it's a perpetual motion machine. "which may produce far more energy than it consumes." Nah, it only claims it *may* be a perpetual motion machine. Sounds like the inventor figures if he makes his claims vague enough he *may* get away with all his investors' money. g -- Ned Simmons |
#5
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
I have a system that you can build yourself, and it works just as well. You
hoist a series of rocks up a column, and then drop them, extracting energy from them as they fall. Use materials you have available. The only thing you will have to buy is the gravitational shield that I have for sale. www.sucker?.com |
#6
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:42:37 -0600, Ignoramus22030
wrote: On 2008-03-17, Phil Kangas wrote: Yah, this guy claims to have invented a new form of generator and claims it is not a perpetual motion device! I'm a skeptic but here is the link so you can decide for yourself. I'm going to keep my wallet in my pocket......phil http://www.nullgrav.com/index.htm They say it produces more energy that it consumes. i Not exactly. "A very small motor keeps the generator spinning continually, which may produce far more energy than it consumes." This statement is somewhat ambiguous. However, the underlying premise is either flawed or utter bull****. "Current generators have inherent opposing forces when put under electrical load. This limits the amount of power that can be extracted from magnets. By eliminating the factors that cause these opposing forces, the NullGrav generator may extract far more energy from the same magnets." Horsepuckey! Power is extracted from the mechanical force turning the genny, not from the magnets. Also, "Current generators have inherent opposing foces. When placed under electrical load, the forces limit efficiency to a maximum of 85 percent." Horsepuckey! There is no such theoretical limit of efficiency. There is no way the large turbine-driving generators enclosed in helium are anywhere near as low as 85% efficient. They'd melt in minutes. See http://www.springfield.il.us/Generator.htm At 85% efficiency, this 200-megawatt generator would be dissipating 35.3 megawatts as heat. That's about 120 million BTU/hr. |
#7
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
Hmm, Toshiba. Sure ain't no laptop....
http://www.springfield.il.us/NewGraphics/Generator2.jpg Robert Swinney wrote: Don sez: "However, the underlying premise is either flawed or utter bull****", I vote both. Bob Swinney . "Don Foreman" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:42:37 -0600, Ignoramus22030 wrote: On 2008-03-17, Phil Kangas wrote: Yah, this guy claims to have invented a new form of generator and claims it is not a perpetual motion device! I'm a skeptic but here is the link so you can decide for yourself. I'm going to keep my wallet in my pocket......phil http://www.nullgrav.com/index.htm They say it produces more energy that it consumes. i Not exactly. "A very small motor keeps the generator spinning continually, which may produce far more energy than it consumes." This statement is somewhat ambiguous. "Current generators have inherent opposing forces when put under electrical load. This limits the amount of power that can be extracted from magnets. By eliminating the factors that cause these opposing forces, the NullGrav generator may extract far more energy from the same magnets." Horsepuckey! Power is extracted from the mechanical force turning the genny, not from the magnets. Also, "Current generators have inherent opposing foces. When placed under electrical load, the forces limit efficiency to a maximum of 85 percent." Horsepuckey! There is no such theoretical limit of efficiency. There is no way the large turbine-driving generators enclosed in helium are anywhere near as low as 85% efficient. They'd melt in minutes. See http://www.springfield.il.us/Generator.htm At 85% efficiency, this 200-megawatt generator would be dissipating 35.3 megawatts as heat. That's about 120 million BTU/hr. |
#8
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
CWLP is in the process of constructing a new pulverized coal power
plant that, when completed in 2010, will be one of the cleanest coal-fired generating units in the nation. http://www.cwlp.com/electric_division/generation/new_plant_under_construction1.htm Louis Ohland wrote: Hmm, Toshiba. Sure ain't no laptop.... http://www.springfield.il.us/NewGraphics/Generator2.jpg Robert Swinney wrote: Don sez: "However, the underlying premise is either flawed or utter bull****", I vote both. Bob Swinney . "Don Foreman" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:42:37 -0600, Ignoramus22030 wrote: On 2008-03-17, Phil Kangas wrote: Yah, this guy claims to have invented a new form of generator and claims it is not a perpetual motion device! I'm a skeptic but here is the link so you can decide for yourself. I'm going to keep my wallet in my pocket......phil http://www.nullgrav.com/index.htm They say it produces more energy that it consumes. i Not exactly. "A very small motor keeps the generator spinning continually, which may produce far more energy than it consumes." This statement is somewhat ambiguous. "Current generators have inherent opposing forces when put under electrical load. This limits the amount of power that can be extracted from magnets. By eliminating the factors that cause these opposing forces, the NullGrav generator may extract far more energy from the same magnets." Horsepuckey! Power is extracted from the mechanical force turning the genny, not from the magnets. Also, "Current generators have inherent opposing foces. When placed under electrical load, the forces limit efficiency to a maximum of 85 percent." Horsepuckey! There is no such theoretical limit of efficiency. There is no way the large turbine-driving generators enclosed in helium are anywhere near as low as 85% efficient. They'd melt in minutes. See http://www.springfield.il.us/Generator.htm At 85% efficiency, this 200-megawatt generator would be dissipating 35.3 megawatts as heat. That's about 120 million BTU/hr. |
#9
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
"Phil Kangas" wrote in message ... Yah, this guy claims to have invented a new form of generator and claims it is not a perpetual motion device! I'm a skeptic but here is the link so you can decide for yourself. I'm going to keep my wallet in my pocket......phil http://www.nullgrav.com/index.htm -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The patent is he http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=E...2007090712&F=0 Interestingly, the patent doesn't seem to quote efficiencies and summary 0004 mentions that devices covered by the patent may have all, some or none of the claimed advantages, which sounds like lawyer speak for it doesn't do what we claim it does. Martin -- martindot herewhybrowat herentlworlddot herecom |
#10
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
Louis Ohland wrote in
: Hmm, Toshiba. Sure ain't no laptop.... http://www.springfield.il.us/NewGraphics/Generator2.jpg snip That is they euphemistically call a 'luggable' in the biz. Bill |
#11
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:40:24 -0500, Bill wrote:
Louis Ohland wrote in : Hmm, Toshiba. Sure ain't no laptop.... http://www.springfield.il.us/NewGraphics/Generator2.jpg snip That is they euphemistically call a 'luggable' in the biz. Bill Springfield, eh? Did Monty order this for his nuclear plant? Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com |
#12
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
Phil Kangas wrote:
Yah, this guy claims to have invented a new form of generator and claims it is not a perpetual motion device! I'm a skeptic but here is the link so you can decide for yourself. I'm going to keep my wallet in my pocket......phil http://www.nullgrav.com/index.htm I went to the link and clipped this, "Suppose you could harness the physics of magnetism to allow a generator to continually spin with a net output of free electricity?" A few days ago I was reading (really scanning) Popular Science ( ? April 2008) and noted the 2015 (?) Volvo is to have individual electric motors at each wheel. It also mentioned permanent magnets in the hub/stator of such motors. It also seems they were to reverse the magnetism as part of the braking process. They *could* be on to something. -- Don't know. My wallet is in my pocket also! ;-) |
#13
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
Don Foreman wrote: Horsepuckey! There is no such theoretical limit of efficiency. There is no way the large turbine-driving generators enclosed in helium are anywhere near as low as 85% efficient. They'd melt in minutes. I think most are cooled by hydrogen, not helium. H is a better heat conductor than He, although that is pretty good, too. The excitation in a typical power house alternator is something like 1000 A at 100 V across two strips of copper bar about 50 feet long, total. They are usually something like 1/4" x 2" bar hammered into a pair of spiral grooves cut into the solid steel rotor. So, the rotor has bars in it that dissipate 100 KW anytime the alternator is excited. Now, these numbers seem extreme util you compare them to the output of the alternator, which can run to 1 GW, but something around 750 - 850 MW is typical. Suddenly, that massive exciter dissipation is a tiny .01% of the rated output! I don't have a good figure handy for iron and copper losses in the stator of these machines, but it is definitely no more than a couple % of full output. Windage would be substantial if they weren't hydrogen-cooled, as the air gap is an amazing ,002" or so, even though the rotors are HUGE! Jon |
#14
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
Robert Swinney wrote: Don sez: "However, the underlying premise is either flawed or utter bull****", I vote both. No, his bull is actually pretty good. Of course, as pure bull, all you need is a little engineering or Physics knowledge, and the cracks start to open pretty wide in his arguments. Jon |
#15
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
Al Patrick wrote: Phil Kangas wrote: Yah, this guy claims to have invented a new form of generator and claims it is not a perpetual motion device! I'm a skeptic but here is the link so you can decide for yourself. I'm going to keep my wallet in my pocket......phil http://www.nullgrav.com/index.htm I went to the link and clipped this, "Suppose you could harness the physics of magnetism to allow a generator to continually spin with a net output of free electricity?" A few days ago I was reading (really scanning) Popular Science ( ? April 2008) and noted the 2015 (?) Volvo is to have individual electric motors at each wheel. It also mentioned permanent magnets in the hub/stator of such motors. It also seems they were to reverse the magnetism as part of the braking process. They *could* be on to something. -- Don't know. My wallet is in my pocket also! ;-) This is typical hybrid tech, and will be out on other makes probably well before 2015. Jon |
#16
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
"Jon Elson" wrote in message ... Don Foreman wrote: Horsepuckey! There is no such theoretical limit of efficiency. There is no way the large turbine-driving generators enclosed in helium are anywhere near as low as 85% efficient. They'd melt in minutes. I think most are cooled by hydrogen, not helium. H is a better heat conductor than He, although that is pretty good, too. The excitation in a typical power house alternator is something like 1000 A at 100 V across two strips of copper bar about 50 feet long, total. They are usually something like 1/4" x 2" bar hammered into a pair of spiral grooves cut into the solid steel rotor. So, the rotor has bars in it that dissipate 100 KW anytime the alternator is excited. Now, these numbers seem extreme util you compare them to the output of the alternator, which can run to 1 GW, but something around 750 - 850 MW is typical. Suddenly, that massive exciter dissipation is a tiny .01% of the rated output! I don't have a good figure handy for iron and copper losses in the stator of these machines, but it is definitely no more than a couple % of full output. Windage would be substantial if they weren't hydrogen-cooled, as the air gap is an amazing ,002" or so, even though the rotors are HUGE! Efficiency of large power-plant generators runs around 98%, shaft input power to electrical output. -- Ed Huntress |
#17
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Jon Elson" wrote in message ... Don Foreman wrote: Horsepuckey! There is no such theoretical limit of efficiency. There is no way the large turbine-driving generators enclosed in helium are anywhere near as low as 85% efficient. They'd melt in minutes. I think most are cooled by hydrogen, not helium. H is a better heat conductor than He, although that is pretty good, too. The excitation in a typical power house alternator is something like 1000 A at 100 V across two strips of copper bar about 50 feet long, total. They are usually something like 1/4" x 2" bar hammered into a pair of spiral grooves cut into the solid steel rotor. So, the rotor has bars in it that dissipate 100 KW anytime the alternator is excited. Now, these numbers seem extreme util you compare them to the output of the alternator, which can run to 1 GW, but something around 750 - 850 MW is typical. Suddenly, that massive exciter dissipation is a tiny .01% of the rated output! I don't have a good figure handy for iron and copper losses in the stator of these machines, but it is definitely no more than a couple % of full output. Windage would be substantial if they weren't hydrogen-cooled, as the air gap is an amazing ,002" or so, even though the rotors are HUGE! Efficiency of large power-plant generators runs around 98%, shaft input power to electrical output. That might not count the exciter, then. The exciter is generally a HUGE transformer-rectifier set connected through slip rings, although some systems use brushless excitation. Our local utility uses all slip-ring coupled excitation for some reason, maybe corporate inertia. But, I think all of them use ono-rotary exciters, however they are coupled. Jon |
#18
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
"Ed Huntress" wrote: Efficiency of large power-plant generators runs around 98%, shaft input power to electrical output. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Do you have any kind of ballpark figure of the efficiency of the distributionn grid, from the generator terminals to the average consumer? I would like to know this, because when people talk about the cleanliness of electric cars, they frequently forget that there is CO2 coming out the stacks at the power plant. Steam generation plants run MUCH cleaner than automotive IC engines, but how much of that advantage do we lose in the grid? |
#19
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote: Efficiency of large power-plant generators runs around 98%, shaft input power to electrical output. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Do you have any kind of ballpark figure of the efficiency of the distributionn grid, from the generator terminals to the average consumer? I would like to know this, because when people talk about the cleanliness of electric cars, they frequently forget that there is CO2 coming out the stacks at the power plant. Steam generation plants run MUCH cleaner than automotive IC engines, but how much of that advantage do we lose in the grid? Nope, I don't have it, but I've seen it all other the place on the Web. I'd have to go looking but you probably can find it yourself. There's quite a range, depending on where you are in relation to a generating station and how the network operates, but you probably can find some average figures. Let me know if you draw a blank. I've been bouncing all over the Web on energy related issues lately but I think I can come up with it. -- Ed Huntress |
#20
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
On 2008-03-18, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message ... "Ed Huntress" wrote: Efficiency of large power-plant generators runs around 98%, shaft input power to electrical output. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Do you have any kind of ballpark figure of the efficiency of the distributionn grid, from the generator terminals to the average consumer? I would like to know this, because when people talk about the cleanliness of electric cars, they frequently forget that there is CO2 coming out the stacks at the power plant. Steam generation plants run MUCH cleaner than automotive IC engines, but how much of that advantage do we lose in the grid? Nope, I don't have it, but I've seen it all other the place on the Web. I'd have to go looking but you probably can find it yourself. There's quite a range, depending on where you are in relation to a generating station and how the network operates, but you probably can find some average figures. Let me know if you draw a blank. I've been bouncing all over the Web on energy related issues lately but I think I can come up with it. Wikipedia has a good "power transmission" article. i |
#21
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 05:25:23 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote: Efficiency of large power-plant generators runs around 98%, shaft input power to electrical output. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Do you have any kind of ballpark figure of the efficiency of the distributionn grid, from the generator terminals to the average consumer? I would like to know this, because when people talk about the cleanliness of electric cars, they frequently forget that there is CO2 coming out the stacks at the power plant. Steam generation plants run MUCH cleaner than automotive IC engines, but how much of that advantage do we lose in the grid? I've seen figures thrown around in the 40% to 50% range to get the energy from the burning coal or oil or gas in the powerplant to your wall socket. The generator at the power plant might be 98% by itself (2% loss), but the prime mover is a huge loss. The excess heat going up the stack and out the cooling towers, and all the little motors and fans keeping the big motor running that do all the pumping and blowing and cooling and lubricating and stack filtering... Then you have the transmission lines, with little bits siphoned off in resistive loss and flash-over of insulators and dielectric losses in underground cables. And every transformer along the way taking a small bite, whether it's stepping voltage up or down. A nibble here, a bite there, and suddenly it's half gone. The only real exception is hydroelectric, wind turbines, geothermal, and the like. There are still losses, but gravity and wind and magma are free (in limited quantities). And building the facilities to exploit them safely (Hoover Dam) costs quite a bit, and has to be figured into the 'cost' of that power. (Versus the cost of exploiting them *un*safely - St. Francis Dam, Saugus CA, built 1926 failed 1928, killed thousands when it did...) This is why when you need bulk heat for hot water or cooking or space heat, you buy the fuel (coal, oil, propane, natural gas, wood) and burn it yourself on site. You have to deal with the equipment, sure, but you also cut out that 50% loss middleman that is always involved with electric heat. -- Bruce -- |
#22
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in message ... On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 05:25:23 GMT, "Leo Lichtman" wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote: Efficiency of large power-plant generators runs around 98%, shaft input power to electrical output. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Do you have any kind of ballpark figure of the efficiency of the distributionn grid, from the generator terminals to the average consumer? I would like to know this, because when people talk about the cleanliness of electric cars, they frequently forget that there is CO2 coming out the stacks at the power plant. Steam generation plants run MUCH cleaner than automotive IC engines, but how much of that advantage do we lose in the grid? I've seen figures thrown around in the 40% to 50% range to get the energy from the burning coal or oil or gas in the powerplant to your wall socket. The generator at the power plant might be 98% by itself (2% loss), but the prime mover is a huge loss. The simplex prime movers, steam or gas turbine, typically run from 37% up to 45% or so efficiency. The newer, "combined cycle" turbines run around 56% - 58%. GE has one that has topped 60%. These are gas turbines that use the turbine's exhaust to heat a steam boiler, then a steam turbine operating as the second stage. So the overall efficiency of these systems run around 0.98 x 0.56, or 55%. Slightly higher is possible. I see that Wikipedia claims that the overall US distribution/transmission efficiency, as of 1995, was 92.8% (they report it as a loss of 7.2%). (BTW, on a related topic, a solar Stirling at Sandia (I think) just topped 31% efficiency, which is a new record. That's twice the efficiency of the best photovoltaic cells.) -- Ed Huntress |
#23
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
On Mar 17, 11:14*am, "Phil Kangas" wrote:
Yah, this guy claims to have invented a new form of generator and claims it is not a perpetual motion device! I'm a skeptic but here is the link so you can decide for yourself. I'm going to keep my wallet in my pocket......phil http://www.nullgrav.com/index.htm -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This looks to be a variation of the Farady Disk generator. This was discovered, and promptly ignored, about 150 years ago. It is a very strange phenomenon, and easy to really get tangled up in the implications of it. Basically, all common generators, and motors, use a rotor and a stator. The electrical load currents will create an opposing magnetic force between the rotor and the stator. That is why a genreator takes more power as you load it heavier. The Farady Disk, aka homopolar generator, aka acyclical generator, aka space machine etc. does not have a rotor, and a stator. Only a rotor. That's right, only a rotor. The whole things works "sideways" to how you always thought a generator should work. It is Very confusing to think about, since adding a load to the generator cannot create a torque reaction in the conventional way we all understand generators to work. Note 1. So, many experimentors start thinking, that if we build it, and spin it up, we can add a load to it, and it won't take power to keep it spinning, since it won't react against the motor driving it. Experiments show anomolous results, and building a model to play with is truely trivial. I challenge any of you to build a model to prove that it IS confusing to think about. Here is a simple experiment to try.. http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/farhom.htm Here is a test result of the Sunburst Machine. http://www.rexresearch.com/kinchelo/kinche~1.htm This nullgrav machine looks very much like a variation of the Farady disk experiment. And to illustrate just how confusing this sort of thing can be... Here is a lab demonstration from MIT, that WILL blow your mind, if you follow it, and all of it's implication. It blows Kirchoff right out of the water. .. http://youtube.com/watch?v=eqjl-qRy71w Watch both parts of this demo. Prof. Levin is really amazing.... Look for the rest of his lectures. Have Fun. !! Note 1. The operation of the device can lead you to believe that a magnet cannot "produce" a magnetic field, but can only distort the magnetic field lines inherent on space itself. If a magnet did produced a magnetic field, than rotating a magnet, and a conductor together could not produce any net electrical generation. However, if the magnet is distorting the feild lines of the surrounding space, then a moving conductor (which is not moving relative to the magnet) can produce an electric field. I don't beleive in "Perpetual Commotion" But, here is a wonderful trap for the unwary to fall in to, and in all honesty be completley befuddled. Be sure and wathc the MIT video. It's is one of the greatest electrical demonstrations I've ever seen. |
#24
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
"Half-Nutz" wrote in messageOn Mar 17, 11:14 am, "Phil Kangas" wrote: Yah, this guy claims to have invented a new form of generator and claims it is not a perpetual motion device! I'm a skeptic but here is the link so you can decide for yourself. I'm going to keep my wallet in my pocket......phil http://www.nullgrav.com/index.htm -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This looks to be a variation of the Farady Disk generator. This was discovered, and promptly ignored, about 150 years ago. It is a very strange phenomenon, and easy to really get tangled up in the implications of it. Basically, all common generators, and motors, use a rotor and a stator. The electrical load currents will create an opposing magnetic force between the rotor and the stator. That is why a genreator takes more power as you load it heavier. The Farady Disk, aka homopolar generator, aka acyclical generator, aka space machine etc. does not have a rotor, and a stator. Only a rotor. That's right, only a rotor. The whole things works "sideways" to how you always thought a generator should work. It is Very confusing to think about, since adding a load to the generator cannot create a torque reaction in the conventional way we all understand generators to work. Note 1. So, many experimentors start thinking, that if we build it, and spin it up, we can add a load to it, and it won't take power to keep it spinning, since it won't react against the motor driving it. Experiments show anomolous results, and building a model to play with is truely trivial. I challenge any of you to build a model to prove that it IS confusing to think about. Here is a simple experiment to try.. http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/farhom.htm Here is a test result of the Sunburst Machine. http://www.rexresearch.com/kinchelo/kinche~1.htm This nullgrav machine looks very much like a variation of the Farady disk experiment. And to illustrate just how confusing this sort of thing can be... Here is a lab demonstration from MIT, that WILL blow your mind, if you follow it, and all of it's implication. It blows Kirchoff right out of the water. .. http://youtube.com/watch?v=eqjl-qRy71w Watch both parts of this demo. Prof. Levin is really amazing.... Look for the rest of his lectures. Have Fun. !! Note 1. The operation of the device can lead you to believe that a magnet cannot "produce" a magnetic field, but can only distort the magnetic field lines inherent on space itself. If a magnet did produced a magnetic field, than rotating a magnet, and a conductor together could not produce any net electrical generation. However, if the magnet is distorting the feild lines of the surrounding space, then a moving conductor (which is not moving relative to the magnet) can produce an electric field. I don't beleive in "Perpetual Commotion" But, here is a wonderful trap for the unwary to fall in to, and in all honesty be completley befuddled. Be sure and wathc the MIT video. It's is one of the greatest electrical demonstrations I've ever seen. -------------------------- Thanks for the explanation, half-nutz. I'll bet the dude in question fell into that trap........and we learned something too! phil |
#25
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
On Mar 18, 10:28*pm, "Phil Kangas" wrote:
"Half-Nutz" wrote in messageOn Mar 17, 11:14 am, *"Phil Kangas" wrote: Yah, this guy claims to have invented a new form of generator and claims it is not a perpetual motion device! I'm a skeptic but here is the link so you can decide for yourself. I'm going to keep my wallet in my pocket......phil http://www.nullgrav.com/index.htm -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This looks to be a variation of the Farady Disk generator. This was discovered, and promptly ignored, about 150 years ago. It is a very strange phenomenon, and easy to really get tangled up in the implications of it. Basically, all common generators, and motors, use a rotor and a stator. The electrical load currents will create an opposing magnetic force between the rotor and the stator. That is why a genreator takes more power as you load it heavier. The Farady Disk, aka homopolar generator, aka acyclical generator, aka space machine etc. does not have a rotor, and a stator. Only a rotor. That's right, only a rotor. The whole things works "sideways" to how you always thought a generator should work. It is Very confusing to think about, since adding a load to the generator cannot create a torque reaction in the conventional way we all understand generators to work. Note 1. So, many experimentors start thinking, that if we build it, and spin it up, we can add a load to it, and it won't take power to keep it spinning, since it won't react against the motor driving it. Experiments show anomolous results, and building a model to play with is truely trivial. I challenge any of you to build a model to prove that it IS confusing to think about. Here is a simple experiment to try..http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/farhom.htm Here is a test result of the Sunburst Machine. http://www.rexresearch.com/kinchelo/kinche~1.htm This nullgrav machine looks very much like a variation of the Farady disk experiment. And to illustrate just how confusing this sort of thing can be... Here is a lab demonstration from MIT, that *WILL blow your mind, if you follow it, and all of it's implication. It blows Kirchoff right out of the water. .. http://youtube.com/watch?v=eqjl-qRy71w Watch both parts of this demo. Prof. Levin is really amazing.... Look for the rest of his lectures. Have Fun. !! Note 1. The operation of the device can lead you to believe that a magnet cannot "produce" a magnetic field, but can only distort the magnetic field lines inherent on space itself. If a magnet did produced a magnetic field, than rotating a magnet, and a conductor together could not produce any net electrical generation. However, if the magnet is distorting the feild lines of the surrounding space, then a moving conductor (which is not moving relative to the magnet) can produce an electric field. I don't beleive in "Perpetual Commotion" But, here is a wonderful trap for the unwary to fall in to, and in all honesty be completley befuddled. Be sure and wathc the MIT video. It's is one of the greatest electrical demonstrations I've ever seen. -------------------------- Thanks for the explanation, half-nutz. I'll bet the dude in question fell into that trap........and we learned something too! phil Phil, It is not clear what is going on with that type of device. The evaluation of the Sunburst machine did have some faily confusing results, as to weather or not they were measuring excessive power compared to the input. - IF - this is some sort of way to harness some sort of overlooked source of energy, then the controversy surrounding it keeps anybody from looking into it, and not getting thrown out of the mainstream community. Bruce DePalma was a prof. at MIT, and left after he got controversial results from his experiments with gyroscopes. Eric Laithwaite, who invented the Maglev train, was thown out of the scientific community once he started doing experiments on gyroscopes, along a similar line. I once met the machinist that built the machine for Bruce DePalma. He was Convinced that Bruce was killed for working on it. This whole line of experiments might yield some interesting results, but since the results are "anomolous" to mainstream thinking, no one dares to look into it. I am reminded of the Hall effect, Hall himself dismised it as being of no interest, since the effect was so weak. And here we are, many years later, using millions of Hall Effect switches and sensors. The enabler to utilize what seemed like a discovery of little consequence, was the later invention of electronic op amps, many years later. So, sometimes we get important results from something that mainstream thinking will throw away. It is not always immediately usefull, but any crazy phenomonon should be looked into a little farther, typically. So, this controversial "sideways" motor/generator might be revealing something very important to us, but no one dares to look into it. A shame, really. |
#26
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:13:13 -0700 (PDT), Half-Nutz
wrote: On Mar 17, 11:14*am, "Phil Kangas" wrote: Yah, this guy claims to have invented a new form of generator and claims it is not a perpetual motion device! I'm a skeptic but here is the link so you can decide for yourself. I'm going to keep my wallet in my pocket......phil http://www.nullgrav.com/index.htm -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This looks to be a variation of the Farady Disk generator. This was discovered, and promptly ignored, about 150 years ago. It is a very strange phenomenon, and easy to really get tangled up in the implications of it. Basically, all common generators, and motors, use a rotor and a stator. The electrical load currents will create an opposing magnetic force between the rotor and the stator. That is why a genreator takes more power as you load it heavier. The Farady Disk, aka homopolar generator, aka acyclical generator, aka space machine etc. does not have a rotor, and a stator. Only a rotor. That's right, only a rotor. The whole things works "sideways" to how you always thought a generator should work. It is Very confusing to think about, since adding a load to the generator cannot create a torque reaction in the conventional way we all understand generators to work. Note 1. I won't presume to know how we all "conventionally understand" generators to work... but if you examine Faraday's sketch thoughtfully, you will see that radial current in the disc (in the presence of the axial B-field) will indeed produce countertorque, and an opposite torque will act upon the radial lead to the center. The confusion arises because these torques are so small compared to the residual losses in such systems that they are easily overlooked. In the Sunburst experiment, residual losses were relatively enormous when the thing was generating no power at all, and losses did increase when power was drawn. |
#27
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:13:13 -0700 (PDT), Half-Nutz
wrote: And to illustrate just how confusing this sort of thing can be... Here is a lab demonstration from MIT, that WILL blow your mind, if you follow it, and all of it's implication. It blows Kirchoff right out of the water. .. http://youtube.com/watch?v=eqjl-qRy71w Watch both parts of this demo. Prof. Levin is really amazing.... Look for the rest of his lectures. This guy is more performer than docent. Kirchoff's law does not presume lumped sources of EMF, it states merely that EMF's and drops in a closed circuit or mesh sum to zero. It is true that many engineering texts present circuits (and Kirchoff's law) with lumped EMFs, because in real circuits that is most often the dominant case. At one point in his lecture he leads (or at least allows with a bit of nudge) his "audience" to think that the induced EMF should be thought of as being lumped at the location where the battery was, which of course is false. Later he shows a line integral suggesting that the EMF is indeed distributed, but he still prefers to discredit Kirchoff in favor of Faraday. The line integral of induced EMF around the circuit or mesh would and does indeed equal the former battery EMF. He may be a great mentor for academists, perhaps not for engineers. |
#28
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:28:04 -0500, "Phil Kangas"
wrote: So, many experimentors start thinking, that if we build it, and spin it up, we can add a load to it, and it won't take power to keep it spinning, since it won't react against the motor driving it. Experiments show anomolous results, and building a model to play with is truely trivial. I challenge any of you to build a model to prove that it IS confusing to think about. Here is a simple experiment to try.. http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/farhom.htm The cited experiment sez it generates 0.5 volts, 1.5 mA or 0.75 mW at 2600 RPM. This power level at this speed represents a torque of about ..0004 ozf-in (.00275 Newton-mm to y'all unit purists) regardless of how the current was generated. It ain't zero, but it's easy to see why an observer might think so. Compared to countertorque due to parasitic losses like windage, bearing losses and brush drag it's a fleafart at a rock concert. I suggest the following modification to the experiment: Rather than continuously powering rotation with an electric drill, use a flywheel. With brushes in place but external wires disconnected, spin up the flywheel (perhaps with a tangential air jet), then release it and note the time it takes to slow to a given rate as measured with a photo tachometer. Could use a hole in the disc, LED and photosensor from surplus store or discarded mouse and oscilloscope -- or perhaps just a pattern of radial lines on the disc viewed with fluorescent or neon light and watch for the "strobe stop". Now repeat the experiment with external leads connected. Parasitic losses are the same in both cases if both experiments start at the same speed. If the flywheel slows more quickly when the external leads are connected, there is clearly countertorque due to the rather small generated current. |
#29
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:28:04 -0500, "Phil Kangas"
wrote: This nullgrav machine looks very much like a variation of the Farady disk experiment. I don't think it does. The Faraday disc experiment has constant flux while the nullgrav device uses commutated flux reversals thru coils. It is functionally very similar to an automotive alternator. The geometry is different, but they both rely on flux commutation to make an essentially-constant MMF (magnetomotive force) produce time-variant flux linking fixed coils. |
#30
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
New electrical generator
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:28:04 -0500, "Phil Kangas"
wrote: "Half-Nutz" wrote in messageOn Mar 17, 11:14 am, "Phil Kangas" wrote: Yah, this guy claims to have invented a new form of generator and claims it is not a perpetual motion device! I'm a skeptic but here is the link so you can decide for yourself. I'm going to keep my wallet in my pocket......phil http://www.nullgrav.com/index.htm -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This looks to be a variation of the Farady Disk generator. This was discovered, and promptly ignored, about 150 years ago. If opportunity presents, I highly recommend a visit to Faraday's laboratory in London. It's in the basement of a building near the A&E, British Science Museum and others. Same tube stop. This guy was a no-**** researcher and an artful artificer as well, no doubt with the help of a skilled technician who is now forgotten but shouldn't be. The discoveries he made are most impressive when one sees what he had to work with and what he was able to do with it. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Electrical connection for generator (in fuse box) - info, docs or links wanted | Home Repair | |||
Electrical putty vs. silicone for sealing exterior electrical holes? | Home Repair | |||
Onan DJE generator update (electrical panel) | Metalworking | |||
Electrical/Generator question | Home Repair |