Body
Ole,
Thanks I thought that was blocked rotor, OK that makes sense there would
be maximal slip if the rotor is held fast. It's been a mirror brain day.
On 11/17/2018 3:12 PM, [email protected] [EVGRAY] wrote:
>
>
> Locked rotor is when the rotor is prevented from rotating. This is
> also known as stalled rotor.
>
> Synchronous speed is when the rotor follows the rotating magnetic
> wave(s) of the stator. In an induction motor (asynchronous motor) this
> means no power transmission between the rotor and the stator. The
> motor is then working neither as motor or generator.
>
> Slip is the ratio between the rotor speed and the rotating field speed.
>
> Regards
> Ole
>
>
> ---In [email protected], <mkjekyll@...> wrote :
>
> Norm,
>
> I am slowly digesting this but I think my concept of locked rotor
> was/is in error. Always thought this was when the rotor is locked to
> the rotational field from stator with least amount of slip, seems like
> I am reading now it is most amount of slip.
>
> Can you provide what locked rotor means to you and any additional
> information of what you think may be occurring beyond the everyday
> accepted definition?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mick
>
> On 11/16/2018 5:55 AM, Norman Wootan nwootan@... <mailto:nwootan@...>
> [EVGRAY] wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Mick, Ole, Kone etal! I have been thinking a lot about my Locked
>> Rotor experiments and did a lot of reading to come up with a fool
>> proof Lenz free motor / generator combination which is so easy to
>> build and proof test! First of all you should read what we know
>> as facts! See the following articles:
>>
>> https://www.motioncontroltips.com/faq-what-are-dc-shunt-motors-and-where-are-they-used/
>>
>> http://www.machineryspaces.com/direct-current-motors.html
>>
>> https://www.quora.com/What-will-happen-if-the-back-EMF-of-a-DC-motor-vanishes
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-FPcKgwSzs&feature=youtu.be
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3TFALmHtMw&feature=youtu.be
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_DC_shunt_motor_is_running_at_light_load_what_happens_if_the_field_winding_gets_opened
>>
>> Kone loves to play with the very powerful Neos as found at K&G
>> Magnetics and shown in the video of the Ray's LENZ free
>> generator. What I will propose is very simple application of DC
>> motor principles as read from the cited references. First you
>> make your LENZ free motor which is in reality a LINEAR MOTOR
>> (Solenoid) which will give the necessary stroke length to drive
>> the LINEAR generator (Coil oscillating within the drag free, LENZ
>> free area of the Neo magnets). Stroke of the solenoid is
>> controlled by Hall sensor and IGBT drive switch to give an
>> excursion rate (stroke) at a frequency of 60 HZ. By using a DC
>> pulse to drive the solenoid coil it is tricked into being in
>> LOCKED ROTOR condition, thus no LENZ effect. Has the light come
>> on yet?? We know that Ray's generator puts out a sine wave
>> output (AC) with no LENZ drag. Following the DC motor principles
>> as applied to the solenoid driver, you have a motor that is LENZ
>> free also. The combo should give an Over-unity output. Now the
>> tricky part! We know as Ole will agree in that when you switch
>> the solenoid power to off state as magnetic flux is building
>> toward saturation there will be a huge voltage spike (Neutral
>> Spike) which we have to capture and not send to ground as
>> ordinary practice in solid state switch design (snubber diodes)
>> The capture of the SPIKE energy (HV) which occurs naturally will
>> be the over-unity factor here! Interesting concept! Think about
>> it! Norm Mick! (accumulator HV caps)!
>>
>> On 11/16/2018 6:23 AM, Mick mkjekyll@... <mailto:mkjekyll@...>
>> [EVGRAY] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Ole,
>>>
>>> I have had caps charge much faster in an LC tank than otherwise,
>>> but it could also have to do with noise in the core material as
>>> I was no using an air inductor.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/16/2018 1:19 AM, onielsen@... <mailto:onielsen@...>
>>> [EVGRAY] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Mick,
>>>>
>>>> "If a reactive LC tank capacitor is then disconnected from the
>>>> reactive source then discharged to a resistive load then
>>>> reconnected energized back to the standing wave modality
>>>> recharged disconnected discharged etc. If the reactive energy
>>>> is harvested in this manner are you claiming the same losses
>>>> will occur as power factor correcting the reactive back into
>>>> real power?"
>>>>
>>>> Yes that's correct.
>>>>
>>>> Common power factor correction in AC is for eliminating the
>>>> reactive power that doesn't do any work but just heats the
>>>> wires between the power plant and the reactive load. This is
>>>> expensive for the owners of the power transmission lines and
>>>> thus should be avoided. First storing the energy in a capacitor
>>>> (or inductor or battery) and then dumping it to an active load
>>>> will still make the power go in just one direction even though
>>>> it happens in pulses. The energy is then moving from the source
>>>> to the load. Reactive power has the energy moving to and from
>>>> the load and power source. The power moving between the
>>>> capacitor and inductor in an LC-tank is pure reactive except
>>>> for the loss because of the parasitic resistance in the
>>>> components and wires.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Ole
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---In [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>,
>>>> <mkjekyll@...> <mailto:mkjekyll@...> wrote :
>>>>
>>>> Ole,
>>>>
>>>> Disregarding the issue at hand with the patent terminology and
>>>> not concerning ourselves with the patent just a very high Q tank.
>>>>
>>>> If a reactive LC tank capacitor is then disconnected from the
>>>> reactive source then discharged to a resistive load then
>>>> reconnected energized back to the standing wave modality
>>>> recharged disconnected discharged etc. If the reactive energy
>>>> is harvested in this manner are you claiming the same losses
>>>> will occur as power factor correcting the reactive back into
>>>> real power?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/15/2018 5:36 PM, onielsen@... <mailto:onielsen@...>
>>>> [EVGRAY] wrote
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have only read to the following paragraph cited below. I
>>>>> wonder if the applicant knows about what he is writing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Citing paragraph 106 of the patent application
>>>>> (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/7d/29/f7b4bd0194992d/US20070296373A1.pdf):
>>>>> "[0106] There is voltage across the inductor connected in
>>>>> series to the capacitor and there is voltage across the
>>>>> inductor connected in parallel to the capacitor. Since
>>>>> Power=voltage×current, a single power input produces two
>>>>> branches of electromagnetic power output, increasing the
>>>>> power output. In the alternative, the present disclosure
>>>>> may have one electromagnetic power output with less energy
>>>>> input."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't as simple as this. If using an oscilloscope for
>>>>> measuring the current and voltage it will show some phase
>>>>> displacement between the current and voltage which means
>>>>> reactive power. Look at the following small videos to see
>>>>> how one can be misled if not knowing how the phase between
>>>>> the current and voltage is: Only the the resistive part
>>>>> consumes (transforms) energy like R in figure 8.
>>>>>
>>>>> 0:42
>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJEZMCCBV3U>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Overunity Device Cop 2,5 ? explanation part 3.
>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJEZMCCBV3U>
>>>>>
>>>>> 9.5K views5 years ago
>>>>> 1:01
>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jamj3-2w0eE>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Overunity Device Cop 2,5 ? explanation part 2.
>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jamj3-2w0eE>
>>>>>
>>>>> 10K views5 years ago
>>>>
>