top

Question for WhipMag researchers

Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | WhipMag Discussion/Development Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15  Next   Page 1 of 15

Sun Apr 27, 2008 5:48 pm PostPost subject: Question for WhipMag researchers
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

Do any of you have any physics research lab connections? University or private?

Thanks,
OC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:42 am PostPost subject: Re: Question for WhipMag researchers
maryyugo
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 114

Reply with quote

[quote="overconfident"]Do any of you have any physics research lab connections? University or private?

Thanks,
OC[/quote]I have some within a private company. However, I have no idea how I could make use of that connection and remain completely anonymous.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:38 pm PostPost subject:
sfandbv
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 47
Location: Manchester, UK

Reply with quote

I will probably be able to get in touch with a science university via a contact I have but unless I can get my rig to accelerate there is no point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:50 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

sfandbv wrote:
I will probably be able to get in touch with a science university via a contact I have but unless I can get my rig to accelerate there is no point.


I agree. Just (wishful) thinking about what we do next, when/if someone IS able to achieve acceleration like Al saw.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:53 am PostPost subject:
sfandbv
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 47
Location: Manchester, UK

Reply with quote

Indeed, if we achieve this then a lab will come in handy. My plan is to make as much as possible of those things if I can get it to work. Then give them to universities to play with. Also, sell some on ebay to pay for the machining equipment I bought. These toys will prove the concept and hopefully will attract investors which will be able to turn this thing into something useful.

sfandbv
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:10 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

We can cross that bridge when we get to it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:28 am PostPost subject:
sfandbv
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 47
Location: Manchester, UK

Reply with quote

Indeed, just wishful thinking from me too. Good fun though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:54 pm PostPost subject: Re: Question for WhipMag researchers
Ping1400
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 133
Location: EU

Reply with quote

overconfident wrote:
Do any of you have any physics research lab connections?

Yes. And they know 'the Dutch engineer' very well.

Scientists are always interested in discussing and checking weird and unexpected phenomena. Just don't bother them with stupid questions that could have been answered by reading a first graders physics book.

A machine showing the behaviour of the WhipMag in the first video would have created quite some enthousiasm in the testlab.

But ...

1) The WhipMag effect is not real, therefor it cannot be researched
2) Steorn is lying when they say Universities are not interested in unexplained phenomena (as long as it can be measured!)
3) These things have been told many times before by others (like Mary, Thicket, Ben, etc...)
4) I am not a WhipMag researcher, so I shouldn't even have reacted to the question in the first place
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:53 pm PostPost subject:
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

I agree with most of Ping's comments, but I have to differ on one point: "1) The WhipMag effect is not real, therefor it cannot be researched" (sic)
Actually, many things that are not "real" are subjects of research.
Like the whole subject matter of parapsychology, or the entire subject matter of theology.
We know about the unreality of those subjects, because lots of research has failed to show that they exist.
The "whipmag effect", which admittedly doesn't exist, hasn't been researched enough for anyone (except maybe me) to be quite sure that it doesn't exist.
Then there are issues about just how to do research on something that, a priori, doesn't exist.
Hmmm....
_________________
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:17 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

alsetalokin wrote:

The "whipmag effect", which admittedly doesn't exist, hasn't been researched enough for anyone (except maybe me) to be quite sure that it doesn't exist.
Then there are issues about just how to do research on something that, a priori, doesn't exist.
Hmmm....


Since researching things that "don't exist" is your self-proclaimed profession, how about dropping us a few clues how we might go about it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:56 pm PostPost subject:
Ping1400
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 133
Location: EU

Reply with quote

alsetalokin wrote:
I agree with most of Ping's comments, but I have to differ on one point: "1) The WhipMag effect is not real, therefor it cannot be researched" (sic)

You are correct. Rolling Eyes

According to the scientific method, there is no such thing as 'cannot be researched'.
I found this nice flow-chart which explains the process in simple terms:



In case of the OU hypothesis of the WhipMag, one could keep on designing an infinite number of experiments, that one by one lead to all the same conclusion: there is no OU. The difference between professional scientists and OU believers is the fact that the last group will continue forever, while the first prefer to use their time on other subjects after some experiments show the hypothesis to be clearly false.

So it is easily possible to research on something that, a priori, doesn't exist. But accept the fact it will be a waste of time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:07 pm PostPost subject:
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

overconfident wrote:
alsetalokin wrote:

The "whipmag effect", which admittedly doesn't exist, hasn't been researched enough for anyone (except maybe me) to be quite sure that it doesn't exist.
Then there are issues about just how to do research on something that, a priori, doesn't exist.
Hmmm....


Since researching things that "don't exist" is your self-proclaimed profession, how about dropping us a few clues how we might go about it?


First, see below: (Tesla had it as a motto above the door in CS)
_________________
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:34 pm PostPost subject:
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

Seriously though, this whipmag thing is a case in point. You are confronted with a video of a device that seems to behave in an anomalous manner. Or perhaps it is in a sealed display case in a museum in a land far far away, but hooked into the Net somehow. The presenter seems to be willing to share details of its construction and performance, to a point, but won't allow physical access to the device. How to proceed? Even though the behavior of the device seems remarkable, you give the presenter the benefit of the doubt, but attempt verification somehow.
Does one build an accurate (as far as can be determined) replica and expect it to generate ROUFE (or however it's spelled)? Does one suggest confirmatory experiments based on one's pet revision of the Standard Model? Or does one remain unencumbered by theoretical considerations, and proceed by whatever method to construct a device that does all the same things as the device one is investigating? If such a device can be constructed, violating no established principles, what does that say about the possibilities concerning the original device? On the other hand, what can be said in the event that no "replications" are "successful"?
In other words, if an organization like Steorn claims they have an Orbo, and has the temerity actually to exhibit one, could we really be expected to evaluate it, at this remove, without actually "taking a hammer" to it?
I maintain that, yes, we can do so, and the various techniques and analyses brought forth by the participants in this project illustrate just that.
_________________
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu May 01, 2008 12:32 am PostPost subject:
RunningBare
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 87

Reply with quote

alsetalokin wrote:
The WhipMag effect is not real

_________________
If it sounds too good to be true...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu May 01, 2008 1:56 am PostPost subject:
Yadaraf
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 436

Reply with quote

@OC & All

Caltech professor Houman Owhadi has studied rotating magnetic devices (e.g. Hamel), and I recentlly contacted him concerning the Whipmag. He has conveyed some inferences to me, but I would prefer that he descirbe them and so I've invited him to this forum. Please give him a couple of days to respond to the invitation.

.. Houman: http://www.acm.caltech.edu/~owhadi/

.. Hamel Magnetics: http://www.projectcamelot.net/david_hamel.pdf

.. Ballistics: http://www.acm.caltech.edu/~owhadi/BallisticTransport/

Cheers Smile
Yada..

EDIT: added Hamel magnetics
_________________
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (Clarke's law)
Changing the world, one magnet at a time. (Yada)


Last edited by Yadaraf on Thu May 01, 2008 6:04 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu May 01, 2008 4:43 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

RunningBare wrote:
http://hh0.no-ip.info


I think it would be better to focus on the fact that water splits during thermolysis and the hydrogen can then be used as fuel to keep the reactor at the necessary temperature to sustain the reaction.

In this case the water becomes the fuel and electricity is not needed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri May 02, 2008 2:35 pm PostPost subject:
munchausen
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Posts: 54

Reply with quote

alsetalokin wrote:
Does one build an accurate (as far as can be determined) replica and expect it to generate ROUFE (or however it's spelled)?

Been there.
alsetalokin wrote:
Does one suggest confirmatory experiments based on one's pet revision of the Standard Model?

Done that.

But isn't it possible that some replicators aren't expecting it to generate ROUFE (btw, I don't even know what that is: Real OverUnity Free Energy?).
alsetalokin wrote:
Or does one remain unencumbered by theoretical considerations, and proceed by whatever method to construct a device that does all the same things as the device one is investigating?

You make it sound like this is your preferred method, but how do you define "whatever method"? Are we talking about processes to build a replica (top-down, bottom-up, forwards, backwards). Or are we takling about something else. I'm really lost here. What are you saying?
alsetalokin wrote:
If such a device can be constructed, violating no established principles, what does that say about the possibilities concerning the original device?

Umm? I think I'm lost here too. Wouldn't it show that the original device is real? Wouldn't the 'possibilities' of the original device be the same as the second wroking device?
alsetalokin wrote:
On the other hand, what can be said in the event that no "replications" are "successful"?

Well, there are a few possibilities, but still nothing would be set in stone:
1. Device works, but is very difficult to reproduce (tolerances, strengths, etc.).
2. Device works on some power source unknown and/or unavaible to replicators (EMF, radiation, etc.)
3. Device doesn't work.

The most disturbing of this philosophical excercise is that the 'presenter' could have the answers to those questions but keep them from the replicators. Confused

Now on a TOTALLY different topic, completely unrelated to what we are talking about . . . Rolling Eyes

alsetalokin, you said you don't want people to trust you, but you want them to stop trusting Steorn and everyone else who says they have a free energy device. What better way to do that than to bring the facts to light? Expose the errors; reveal the truth. Is there a better method?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri May 02, 2008 11:51 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Munchhausen wrote:

alsetalokin wrote:
Or does one remain unencumbered by theoretical considerations, and proceed by whatever method to construct a device that does all the same things as the device one is investigating?

You make it sound like this is your preferred method, but how do you define "whatever method"? Are we talking about processes to build a replica (top-down, bottom-up, forwards, backwards). Or are we takling about something else. I'm really lost here. What are you saying?


I took this to mean one could create a replica (or even non-replica), non-duplicate of the original - but because it functions on the same principles it would work similarly. Chevy's, Fords & Chryslers all function on the same principles but they are not replica's or duplicates.
Cool

EDIT: My approach to this has been to start with a device that I could fabricate personally that approximated the original design. Using a method similar to a bubble sort, I picked something in the median between what I knew would not work and what Al indicated did work. The process then migrates closer to the functioning unit. If my educated guesswork had functioned, then it would have established all the differences between my unit and Al's as unessential and would have narrowed the essential components. But since it doesn't work, then some of the differences may indicate essential items. My rotor is enclosed, the magnets are N42, my spindle is different and my base is not acrylic.


Last edited by Harvey on Sat May 03, 2008 12:02 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri May 02, 2008 11:57 pm PostPost subject:
lostcauses
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 871
Location: NM

Reply with quote

Has any one made this so the field relations of the rotor magnets can be easly varied?
In other words the fields of the opposing magnets are at a distance but will still cause a field shape effect. were this seems to be minimal to the AGW effect; it may be relative to the acceleration!


I have been watching all of this for some time and yet to see a variable rotor base. Such may be practical due to there seems to be no way to verify the original magnets in this part.

As for the originator, it may be such that instant harassment, and lack of such information due to used available and not logged parts creates them a problem of telling folks how to achieve such.

At least one idea and observation has come from this. That is the AGW (LOL) effect is real. The trying of understanding of that effect is interesting in itself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat May 03, 2008 12:03 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

lostcauses wrote:
Has any one made this so the field relations of the rotor magnets can be easly varied?


If you could submit a practical design, I'm sure some of the machinists here would be happy to try it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat May 03, 2008 12:08 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

lostcauses wrote:
Has any one made this so the field relations of the rotor magnets can be easly varied?
In other words the fields of the opposing magnets are at a distance but will still cause a field shape effect. were this seems to be minimal to the AGW effect; it may be relative to the acceleration!


I have been watching all of this for some time and yet to see a variable rotor base. Such may be practical due to there seems to be no way to verify the original magnets in this part.

As for the originator, it may be such that instant harassment, and lack of such information due to used available and not logged parts creates them a problem of telling folks how to achieve such.

At least one idea and observation has come from this. That is the AGW (LOL) effect is real. The trying of understanding of that effect is interesting in itself.


Actually this is why I designed my rotor the way I did. I intended to move the magnets closer to the center to offset the higher magnetic strength.

I then realized that this changes the entire shape of the field so I never completed the modifications. Reducing the length of the magnet also has the same problem...but shrinking the diameter may work...hmmm, havn't tried that yet.

The best solution is to use the same size, same strength magnets. N35 to N38.

Edit: Actually, the best solution is to have volumetric readings of the flux density and duplicate it. Anyone have a guass meter we can send Al?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat May 03, 2008 12:36 am PostPost subject:
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

Well, thanks, but this has come up before--believe me (or not) I have access to more Gaussmeters and other assorted instrumentation than you can shake a long stick at. I work in a lab that is a cross between the post-apocalypse cache of ancient science equipment that you've always had nightmares about, and a sort of Hewlett-Packard and Varian Brothers Museum of Invention. The main problem would be in figuring out which one is easiest to get at. Is that old Bell 660 up there behind the Cockcroft-Walton stack, or is it over in the other unit hooked up to the high-vacuum megaGauss microwave gravity anisotropy experiment? No, that's the 7130, better not use that one. Let's see, here's an old 9200, but where's the probe...?
(did I mention our Tektronix and HP oscilloscope collection? Unsurpassed, and most of them actually light up.)
Sometimes it's just easier to build what I need, so I did some magnetometry using a couple of Allegro Microsystems ratiometric Hall effect sensors; they produced nice Lissajou figures on the old Philips scope that showed a bit of asymmetry in the rotor fields. Was it fun, and did I learn a lot from it? Yes, absolutely. Do I think it revealed anything about the behavior of interest? No, it did not. I don't believe my sensors were picking up the true driving fields (if such exist.) Actually, that was, in my mind, the main result of my experimentation with the gaussimetry.
To reiterate again, I don't need any equipment, but thanks anyway.

(ETA I think CLaNZeR did the most work on varying geometries, at least on the stator base. He posted most of his variations on YouTube)
_________________
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat May 03, 2008 1:20 am PostPost subject:
lostcauses
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 871
Location: NM

Reply with quote

alsetalokin
You lab would have me with my mouth open and dripping. LOL Love that old time stuf.
Also

Since most folks are ordering a specific magnet group from the company: Have you compared the rotor magnet other folks are using to yours?

Such may be worth your time dur to replication has not been found.

Such a simple thing as using the field veiw film with yours and them may help folks.

Such a simple field view of one set of magnets on your rotor without the others may help.

What I really wish I had was a working high speed camera to see were they magnets are in relation to the system. Between the inertia in relation to the rotor and stator to the opposing drag of the AGW relation, I can see that timing on this could be very critical and why this is being difficult to replicate. A shame that them old fastx cameras I have could not be used for such.

The timing on your item is what seems to be the driving force from what scope shots you posted.

Just a question: How long have you had it running know?

LOL your induction device even makes this more complex on timing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun May 04, 2008 3:01 pm PostPost subject:
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

I have done some rough strength measurements on the rotor magnets (I got them from a surplus store in downtown TO, and I think I got the last 20 they had). They are nickel-plated NdFeB's with estimated energy product 35-40 MGO. The field viewing film doesn't reveal anything obvious.
I do have several high-speed cameras available, but the strobe video that I took shows everything that a HS video would show, I think. All you have to do is mentally move the mark on the stator magnet about 5 degrees clockwise (or is it CCW, I forget) to compensate for my marking error.
I agree that the timing issue is critical for the device to work as OC intended. But I think that in my device the timing "ergibt sich natürlich", that is, proceeds naturally from the geometry, and isn't really critical to its operation.

No, I haven't done any more long runs, the seven-hour plus run already reported is the longest. Theoretical considerations predict that 9-10 hours is the maximum to be expected, before some regenerative process must take place.
_________________
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun May 04, 2008 7:07 pm PostPost subject:
lostcauses
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 871
Location: NM

Reply with quote

"I do have several high-speed cameras available, but the strobe video that I took shows everything that a HS video would show,"

No properly marked and the speed you running at; it will not. The high speed can show you were the location of an entire revolution of field and stator are at with relation to speed of both rotor and stator wich a strobe will not. These are not constant due to field interactions. It may be that even a high speed camera will not be able to show the variations.

Thanks for the measurements on the magnets as I see both the length of the strong field points as well as in between a problem with your device.

To get the second effect the rotation speed to the angles an shift of the points is critical. Agw sync is not so much, but to get it to speed up will be. to long or short it will not do your second effect. This so far is not an easy device to replicate the second effect.



Interesting device and observations you have made. It is such that I do see some value in it as a oddity. as for running all the time, the dampener may have to have some system of current ran through it to keep it going as it unsycs. Just through an idea on that one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun May 04, 2008 8:25 pm PostPost subject:
Yadaraf
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 436

Reply with quote

alsetalokin wrote:
I have done some rough strength measurements on the rotor magnets (I got them from a surplus store in downtown TO, and I think I got the last 20 they had). They are nickel-plated NdFeB's with estimated energy product 35-40 MGO. The field viewing film doesn't reveal anything obvious.

@MADRPOF, Harvey, OC

Note that we are still missing a reference standard for the rotor magnets.

.. Q: Where are you guys getting your rotor magnets? Part numbers?

Because we don't have a vetted source for the rotor magnets, it looks like we'll have to work backwards and determine first those which "don't work". In other words, in order to find the "Prince(ss) of Rotor Magnets" it looks like we'll have to kiss a lot of frogs. Laughing

I'll review the current replications to see which rotor magnets haven't worked thusfar.



Cheers Smile
Yada..
_________________
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (Clarke's law)
Changing the world, one magnet at a time. (Yada)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun May 04, 2008 10:25 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

I did a quicky test today. I removed the rotor magnets and replaced them with a much smaller diameter and slightly shorter version. I then end capped each end with a small 1/16" x 1/4" disc magnet. AFAIK all of them are N42's.

The reduced field strength is noticeable. I can get perpendicular sync relatively easy (stator rotation axis in X-plane and tangent to rotor) but upon rotating into the y-plane it loses sync at X=Y (45 degrees). Very odd. I have been able to get AGW, and it is more difficult. I can't establsih as of yet any flat line operation or acceleration. I get the 'feeling' when working with this that I am running it too slow. I may try to speed it up with air drive later and check some of the rundowns

Cheers,

Harvey
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun May 04, 2008 10:51 pm PostPost subject:
Yadaraf
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 436

Reply with quote

Harvey wrote:
I did a quicky test today. I removed the rotor magnets and replaced them with a much smaller diameter and slightly shorter version. I then end capped each end with a small 1/16" x 1/4" disc magnet. AFAIK all of them are N42's.

The reduced field strength is noticeable. I can get perpendicular sync relatively easy (stator rotation axis in X-plane and tangent to rotor) but upon rotating into the y-plane it loses sync at X=Y (45 degrees). Very odd. I have been able to get AGW, and it is more difficult. I can't establsih as of yet any flat line operation or acceleration. I get the 'feeling' when working with this that I am running it too slow. I may try to speed it up with air drive later and check some of the rundowns

Cheers,

Harvey

@Harvey,

Great job. Unfortunately, rotor-stator geometry plays a big part in all of this. In other words, IMHO your success with AGW is not only dependant upon the strengths of your stator and rotor magnets, but also upon the (vector) displacement between them.

Al positioned his stators at 5mm and aligned them below the rotor because this worked for his combination of 834DIA stator magnets and ????? rotor magnets.

True?

EDIT: I guess my point is that if we can't find an exact match for Al's mystery rotor magnets, then we might decide on a reference set of magnets and vary the stator-rotor geometry to achieve the Whipmag effect. When you think about it, that is what Al did. We already have the stator standard (i.e. 834DIA), so I suggest that we determine a rotor standard between 35 and 40 and then tweak the geometry. It's probably easier than kissing a lot of frogs. While it would be nice to identify a standard rotor magnet for Al's specific geometry, IMHO this is just wishful thinking.

Cheers Smile
Yada..
_________________
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (Clarke's law)
Changing the world, one magnet at a time. (Yada)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun May 04, 2008 11:17 pm PostPost subject:
MADPROF
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 545

Reply with quote

@Yada

For what it's worth mate, my Stators were above the rotor mags and A.G.W was no problem, close to the rotor or 8mm away. (Cock up with stator dimensions, it won't happen again) Laughing Wink

P.S will dig magnet invoice and let you know my spec.
_________________
"simplicity is the ultimate sophistication"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon May 05, 2008 9:06 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Thankfully my geometry is somewhat flexible. I've tried various vertical positions; below, even and above. Most of my runs have the top of the statormags just below the bottom of the rotormags. IIRC, this is the placement Al used. Since my stator is mobile I can place it any orientaion. I don't have any dampers, but AFAIK they are not required but are there for governing the speed. IIRC Al had an 8K stator speed without them.

These recent experiments relate to the need for reduced strength to allow shearing during the negative torque phase of the stator cycle. I think its important to mention that even if the shearing is present, the differential between positive torque and drag must show a gain below 5k stator RPM. Otherwise acceleration will not exist. Also note that the energy differential between AGW sync and max RPM is the only extractable power from the system. This is because at max rpm all power is being used to maintain system RPM and below AGW sync the stator will drop out. So we could trade some acceleration for extraction in the middle somewhere, but without scaling the system up it would not power to many things Neutral

Cheers,

Harvey
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | WhipMag Discussion/Development
View previous topic
View next topic
Display posts from previous:   




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum