Body
Just a suggestion that's all ..
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018, Norman Wootan [email protected] [EVGRAY] <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> NO!!!! James, I am not selling information and will put out my files free
> gratis to anyone to use as they see fit. If you don"t like things that I
> post, your keyboard has the very same delete key as my board. Like it,
> keep it to use later or in retrospect to some project you may be trying.
> Take the info in the spirit it was given, FREE. They can't erase it if
> you have it safe on your own HD. As does Hector knows,,Yes! there are SHIT
> Birds out there.
> On 12/11/2018 12:30 PM, James Glinski [email protected] [EVGRAY] wrote:
>
>
>
> Norm you know it might be good to put the info on thum drive and sell it
> to everyone keeping the information off the net in some way .both ways are
> good but things on the net just disappear like someone is going around
> erasing tec .that would really archive things .and could be put back on the
> net at anytime in the future .there are some real shit birds out there
> .I've seen things in the past that I can't begin to find anymore .Hector
> you too !.
>
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018, Norman Wootan [email protected] [EVGRAY] <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> DSC01708
>
> I sold this big 40 HP RV to Luther down in Houston, but had gone out and
> got several very powerful speaker magnets to stand motor on end and use
> repulsion magbets to suspend weight of rotor so that there was no rolling
> friction. Two round Neos (1.5 Tesla) on end of shaft would do same job!
> Just food for thought! Ha!
>
> On 12/11/2018 11:02 AM, Warren Keillor [email protected]
> [EVGRAY] wrote:
>
>
>
> NHiorman
> That is great fun as a historical document, now that we are familiar with
> Rotorverter operation.
> How careful you were, not to wax enthusiastic about the results, pending
> more study.
> Yet, it demonstrates the serious professional researcher in you, to be
> cautious, as your credibility rested in your good sense, and care.
> We likely can do a lot more with Rotoverters. Too bad you are not sporting
> one on the bench these days.
> I can hardly wait to throw mine up on the table of the warm radiant heated
> stone barn workshop.
> I have two complete 3 hp identical units, except one has naked bearings
> devoid of grease and seals, which I will not do again, as it is not needed
> to be so fussy.
> I would rather they be completely reliable machines. I might send away for
> some exotic ceramic bearings for that naked unit if I can find some cheap.
> Both units work great, and I need to play with driving some DC motors, I
> have, as it would be intriguing to try to use the rotating power of the
> Rotoverter, to overunity.
> I have only used the capacitor circuit method, which works very well.
> John Bedini told me one has to has 3X over unity, to loop, so I hadn't
> tried to loop a rotoverter directly, making the assumption John had tried a
> Hecter Rotoverter. I am unsure he ever did.
> Cheers Warren
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>
>
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 10:56 AM, Norman Wootan [email protected] [EVGRAY]
> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Hector, here is one that you will remember along with Kone from 2004. I
> would have to go back and find the party that posted it to the EVGRAY site.
>
> hi
>
>
>
> i did an archive search on Keelynet because I remember Norman Wootan
>
> last year posting his rotorverter results and details there, with
>
> Hector comments too Ken Carrigan is there as the original skeptic
>
> too...here it all is for history..some gret information here for
>
> aspiring rotoheads...
>
>
>
> Norman writes:
>
>
>
> Hi! Ken: Thanks for the thought provocative message. I have 4 two
>
> channel scopes, 3 Tecktronics and one Leader so have no problem
>
> accurately measuring AC input to the motor. I just cannot find my
>
> current probe for the scope to look at the current to voltage
>
> relationship.. I agree with your assessment about who cares about
>
> the
>
> power factor anyway . If my power factor was anything other than
>
> unity
>
> then this thing would be more over unity. The input voltage is very
>
> stable 120VAC line with nothing unusual and no noise or spikes to be
>
> seen. The only clue that you may find interesting is the fact that
>
> when
>
> the the motor is fine tuned by adjusting the capacitance between motor
>
> terminals L2 and L3 to give the lowest possible input current then the
>
> scope pictures of the AC voltage at terminal L2 and terminal L3 are
>
> identical in amplitude and are exactly in-phase, actually superimposed
>
> on one another. ????? I always though that to run a 3 phase motor on
>
> single phase you had to use a capacitor to establish the third phase
>
> angle so the motor would run. This is really interesting. First,
>
> this
>
> set up is quite different, for you have one terminal L1 of the motor
>
> at
>
> ground reference (line neutral). L2 is at line potential (120VAC) and
>
> L3
>
> has the tuning cap value between it and L3. The one thing that
>
> really
>
> bugs me is the fact that the 3 phase motor has excellent torque and
>
> does not get warm when you load it. I believe I mentioned that I
>
> have a
>
> 32 HP, 480V, 3450 RPM, 60 HZ motor that I want to set up and do some
>
> experiments that may shed some more light on this obvious phenomenon.
>
> I agree about the lack of interest on the net regards this rotoverter
>
> test. I guess most folks are dropping in for entertainment value and
>
> not serious researchers who really question something so glaring .
>
> Thanks a million for your sincere interest. Norm
>
>
>
> Carrigan, Ken wrote:
>
>
>
> Norm, et al,
>
> I am shocked that I have not heard anyone comment on your apparent
>
> experimental overunity readings. I find nothing wrong or that
>
> could be wrong with your initial readings, but I question that
>
> your really getting something for nothing. Sure wish you had
>
> an oscope to see exactly what your reading are vice Fluke voltmeter.
>
> As for the power factor going into your motor, who cares if
>
> it is less then unity, it is the useable output that is most
>
> important, and as you stated, it is 'pure' dc? Tracing back
>
> from the DC generator to see where this apparent overunity is
>
> coming from, it must be coming from the AC motor. This because
>
> the DC generator is nothing special - efficiency is less
>
> then 100%. So the answer is really in the capacitive input
>
> to the 3-phase AC motor - running it at 25% voltage (120v vice
>
> 480v) and single phase - with caps to resonate the inductive
>
> portion out - leaving pure resistance. I am shocked that it
>
> runs at all, being non 3-phase and 1/4 volts.
>
>
>
> Any further readings your getting? I'd sure like to see
>
> your system in operation and get my scope out, spectrum
>
> analyzer, and RF current probes then take it into a PC
>
> and find out exactly what the power in and out would be
>
> taking into account all distortion, harmonics, complex
>
> wave patterns.
>
> v/r
>
> Ken Carrigan
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Norman Wootan [*mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>*]
>
>
>
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 8:09 AM
>
> To: Keelynet
>
> Subject: [Keelynet] Rotoverter
>
>
>
>
>
> Hector, down in Australia has been experimenting with
>
> ferroresonance transformers and rotary 3 phase converters
>
> with interesting results. Go to:
>
> *http://www.nuenergy.org/energy_amplification.htm
> <http://www.nuenergy.org/energy_amplification.htm>*
>
>
>
>
>
> I built Hectors phase rotoverter with the following
>
> results. This is a very easy experiment for all to try.
>
> I'm sure Ken Carrigan will have fun with this one.
>
> Quote:
>
> Well said Hector:: Here is the verification that you have
>
> been waiting for. Per our off line dialog here is the set
>
> up for my rotaryverter so others may duplicate what we have
>
> seen.
>
> Motor is 3HP, 3 Phase, 60HZ, 1725 RPM, wired for operation
>
> on 480V.
>
> Motor free running, tuned to minimum current draw from 120V
>
> line input required 20mfd
>
> 370V oil filled cap resulting with a current draw of .66
>
> amps @ 120VAC input.
>
> Motor loaded with belt drive stepup 6:1 ratio to drive a PMI
>
>
>
> disk PM, DC motor acting as a generator. (generator
>
> unloaded) required 30 mfd, 370V oil filled cap with a
>
> resulting
>
> current draw of .50 amps @ 120VAC input.
>
> Now I loaded the DC generator with 160 watt incandescent
>
> lamp load.
>
> Now things get more interesting. Since I have two
>
> independent systems here, one being driven with 120VAC line
>
> input and the other system a belt driven DC generator being
>
> loaded with pure resistive load. Well here are the
>
> numbers: Motor was retuned for minimum current draw which
>
> required 45 mfd, 370V oil filled cap with a resulting
>
> current draw of .15 amps @ 120VAC input. The independent
>
> generator put out .75 amps @ 74 VDC into a resistive load.
>
> The only thing that needs to be looked at on the input side
>
> of the equation is the power factor of the AC input. I need
>
>
>
> to find my tectronics current probe for my scope to look at
>
> the current/ voltage phase relationship. I'm satisfied with
>
> the figures that I calculate which shows roughly 18 watts AC
>
>
>
> input with a DC output of 55.5 watts. What I find most
>
> interesting is the fact that the more load you put on the 3
>
> phase motor the lower the input current draw and the motor
>
> gets colder. The belt driven DC generator gets quite hot
>
> after about 30 minutes of running time. Go figure it out.
>
> I believe there is a lot to be learned about revolving
>
> magnetic fields in 3 phase motors and tunning the output via
>
>
>
> capacitors. This experiment is so easy to do everyone
>
> should seriously look at this phenomenon. My next step is
>
> to document PF on input and improve the DC side of the
>
> circuit to provide more loading.
>
> By the way, all measurements were made with four each Fluke
>
>
>
> 87E meters which I believe to be fairly reliable on 60HZ and
>
>
>
> DC measurements. Nothing exotic here. Only PF to be
>
> determined.
>
> Norm
>
>
> On 12/11/2018 9:33 AM, Norman Wootan wrote:
>
> To design the Implosion Vortex Reactor, IVR, I had to understand the
> VORTEX and how heat and ionization really worked. Thus What is Heat?
> You may ask about Barry, Counterbarry, Anti-Gravity along about here.
>
> Since we are finally "boiling down" our fundamental understanding of thing
> in nature being directly related to "vortex", a little "101" is needed!
> After carefully reading this document and going back to 'mark' the very
> interesting revelations, we can approach the Hilsch Implosion Vortex with a
> better understanding as to how the 'counter rotating' vortex actions
> produce a charge separation effect and yield a "cold" core output and a
> "Hot' exhaust outer envelope. All is based on my document "What is
> Heat' written back in the 90s. "Heat is positive ionization" and "cold is
> negative ionization". Since electrons have mass (see Charged Cluster work
> by Kenneth Shoulders) we see how negative ionized gases (extra electrons)
> are heavier than positive ionized gases ( stripped electrons) therefore in
> an implosion vortex the heavier cold gas will spiral to the center with the
> lighter gases spiraling to the outer envelope. The interchange and charge
> separation occurs at the shear lines of the counter-rotating gas flows just
> the same as found in the vortex of a well formed tornado in nature. The
> result in nature produces a lot of ice, hail and huge electrical
> discharges. Just passing along some thought on how things really
> work! Norm
>
> ANATOMY OF A VORTEX
> by
> Rhetta Jacobson
> A vortex is Nature’s primary form or shape of
> energy movement. A vortex is a cyclic energy
> movement. It is a manifestation of two opposing
> forces, which were created simultaneously
> and which exist constantly in our Universe.
> All the electro-magnetic phenomena which
> we observe are results of the interplay of this
> motion body, whether we observe waves, particles
> or galaxies. We see it manifest in all states
> of matter, gases, liquids, solids and plasmas.
> All the studies of Science, whether it be light
> refraction and reflection, heat convection,
> sound propagation, magnetism and electricity,
> chemistry, biology, atomic structure or cosmologic
> observations have confronted this motion
> body.
> When we attempt to understand, control,
> copy and work with these phenomena we need
> to know more thoroughly the mechanics of the
> one expression they all have in common--the
> vortex, the form of motion that brings their manifestation.
> In this article I hope to give the anatomy of
> a vortex, a diagram of the geometric structure,
> a map of the movements and forces and list
> some results a vortex has upon the matter within
> it. First, I will consider the group of particles
> rotating about a common center; but the latter
> list of results will consider a single particle of the
> medium rotating about its own axis and the central
> axis of a vortex motion.
> Scientists have observed different types of
> vortexes and given them separate names.
> There can be a concentric vortex, an assymetrical
> vortex, a cylindrical vortex where the paths
> are the same, closed and perpendicular in
> every plane normal to the rotation axis. Then
> there is a spatial vortex where the paths are not
> perpendicular, nor closed. The spiral vortex is
> again separated and typed according to the
> shape it assumes and by a ratio of diameter to
> length of axis. A planar like vortex or disk vortex
> has a large diameter compared to its height.
> A columnar vortex has a small diameter compared
> to its height.
> Hydrologists tend to mimic vortexes in fluids
> by stirring liquids in a cylinder with a central rod,
> giving the fluid “vorticity”, or angular velocity at
> a given point in space. Here we should note
> that all vortexes have vorticity, but all fluids with
> vorticity are not a vortex. For instance, a parallel
> flow has vorticity. By stirring thusly they create
> a parabolic rotational movement and call it
> a vortex.
> They say every rotating body is a vortex.
> Then they notice two basic types of velocities.
> With the latter “solid body” such as a disk rotating
> about an axis at its center, the velocity
> increases linearly with the distance from the
> center toward the periphery. In a fluid stirred in
> a cylinder the velocity decreases in inverse proportion
> to the distance from the stir rod. They
> call a “potential” vortex one where the fluid may
> have no vorticity except at the center. This is all
> very confusing and unnecessary if vortex
> motion can be observed correctly.
> A vortex is not the matter, solid or liquid; the
> vortex is a background energy movement
> which controls, conditions and shapes the matter.
> The matter does not create the vortex, the
> matter is subject to it. In the solid disk rotating
> about an axis, each atomic particle making it up
> has a vortex motion body as a field acting upon
> it. The observation that velocity increases with
> distance from the center is but a rule of centrifugal
> force which they are applying to a solid
> body. They are imitating Nature’s braking of
> velocity, and one-half of a cyclic process of
> energy movement. They would do more good
> considering what effect that centrifugal force
> has upon each atomic vortex in the solid. This
> is not creating a vortex, it is using one force
> which is a part in a vortex flow. When Nature
> sticks solids on a solid stem or rod core and
> rotates it, it too is used as a brake. The the
> example of a dandelion seed where this construction
> and rotation slows its descent. In a
> fluid stirred by a rod, the same centrifugal
> action is observed; turbulence is caused by
> action from the center outward.
> The standard definition of a vortex is very
> vague. One definition of a vortex will include a
> few characteristics of this motion body and
> another written definition will include other characteristics.
> Generally, we find some common
> included characteristics are: a whirling mass,
> endowed with a rapid rotary motion around an
> axis, forming a vacuum at the center, into which
> anything caught in the motion is drawn.
> Definitions are usually always accompanied
> with comparisons to whirlpools and whirlwinds,
> of which very little is known.
> I will define a vortex thusly: A vortex is the
> primordial pattern of motion. It is a changing,
> resultant motion form of two opposing forces, a
> cyclic process with a birth, youth, maturity,
> aging and death segments of its time duration.
> It is a cyclic process of motion which takes varying
> shapes from a series of laminar rings, rotating
> about a common center to a conical shape
> and back to planar rings again as one force
> gains preponderance, then the other force, and
> takes the process from stillness to maximum
> motion and then back to stillness.
> Most observations of the vortex pattern are
> incomplete are are illustrated as a whirling
> cone. This represents one phase of an overall
> appearance in a medium. It does not show the
> motion interaction occurring inside the motion
> body and does not entirely illustrate a vortex
> body, just as a still, two dimensional illustration
> of a wave drawn as a wavy line does not do justice
> to the description of a wave.
> FORMATION OF VORTEX MOTION
> To picture the birth of a vortex motion body
> of two opposing forces, picture from a point of
> stillness a motion or movement radiating out in
> all directions, simultaneously meeting resistance
> as an opposing movement attempting to
> restore the stillness. The expansive force travels
> in a radiative spiral outward from a common
> center. Its movement is called centrifugal. The
> opposing, compressive force travels in a concentrating
> spiral toward a common center. Its
> movement is called centripetal. Both paths of
> travel are always curved and spiral because of
> the others’ resistance, continuously.
> Resistance to movement from inertia causes
> curvature; all motion is curved forever afterward.
> Polarity is established as soon as there
> is a motion, for to have motion from stillness
> there is a division and with division there is
> polarity.
> Another mind picture: Picture the point being
> acted upon by the two opposing forces in the
> horizontal, planar dimension. Motion plus
> resistance gives the sphere a rotation resulting
> in ring waves set up periodically, rotating about
> the center point. The ring waves extend to a
> maximum distance until the resistance
> becomes predominant and pushes them back
> toward the center.
> Each rotating ring meets resistance which
> compresses its dissipation and attempts to
> restore an evacuated space. These rings are
> observed as “vortex rings” and vortex rings
> exist even in irrotational fluids such as helium,
> an “inert” gas which is defined as being
>
>