 |
There are currently, 128 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
The Faraday Induction Dynamo Revisited!
Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 @ 20:22:00 UTC by vlad
|
|
Archer writes: Dear Vlad & Co.:
I am very pleased to announce the posting to our company website of a unique and rigorous engineering design study of the two principal Faraday unipolar generator variants, and, even though we’re not quite ready to post the statorless ("N-machine") variant section yet, the induction dynamo analysis is complete – and may just point the way toward development of the first small-scale self-sustaining over-unity AC power plant!
We present definitive and exciting evidence which clearly shows that the Faraday induction dynamo in fact has inherent over-unity potential that’s never been properly investigated, and could – according to our best theoretical model – be made self-sustaining with the proper solid-state DC-DC current converter regime (for voltage pre-amplification ahead of a standard inverter)!
While the simple Faraday disk machines’ method of operation is not terribly relevant to that of our own electrostatic-induction Faraday (EDF Generator) variant, it is fascinating in a way and may perhaps be much easier for most to understand. [Besides, Vlad, it will give your old pal John L. something to chew on for a while!]
In any event, please visit our new over-unity engineering report webpage at www.stardrivedevice.com/over-unity.html, and any serious comments and questions you’d like to share with us about it are certainly welcome.
Best regards,
Mark Tomion
Archer Enterprises
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 3
Votes: 1
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Well Mark, since you asked (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 @ 13:25:15 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | There is something I've been wondering about since the last article you posted. Is the Dr Robert Langgoons you are working with the same one who worked with John Juncal as the corporate compliance officer for Red Rock Dragons?
Also, I notice that you've taken down the endorsement from the diploma mill huckster John Tulip. |
Re: Well Mark, since you asked (Score: 1)
by Archer on Thursday, March 04, 2004 @ 06:48:42 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | John:
It wouldn't be proper for me to comment on Dr. Langgons' business associations (and please note the proper spelling of his name). However, I am hoping to have an update very soon regarding our new joint business venture, and will certainly have an authorized curriculum vitae for release at that time.
As it turns out, John Tulip did me no favors, and in fact gravely jeopardized our primary Prototype Project. One day he and I are going to discuss that.
Mark T.
Archer Enterprises |
]
Langgons and Tulip (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Thursday, March 04, 2004 @ 18:27:04 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | Mark,
I am not asking you to comment on Red Rock Dragons or Juncal, I am asking you to clarrify which Dr Robert Langgons you are talking about. With Tulip, you provided enough information so that anyone could tell it was the American diploma mill huckster Tulip you were talking about, not the Canadian professor. Why give "no comment" about which Langgons you are talking about?
A Google search for "Robert Langgons" finds three hits, two from your site, and one RRD related. People can do their own Google search for
"Langgons" "Red Rock Dragons"
and then make up their own minds if it's important to know if your friend is the same guy.
No surprise about Tulip. |
]
Re:genesis (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Thursday, March 04, 2004 @ 20:46:28 UTC | | john, any word on genesis? |
]
Nope. (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Thursday, March 04, 2004 @ 21:37:06 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | They have been hunkered down for a few months not updating the public part of the website in any way. I have a limited ability to make news happen. If they want to sit still and ride things out, all I can do is comment once every few months about the deadlines they have missed. Remember that dividend they postponed last year for tax purposes? Didn't happen. Remember the 2003 Angel scholarships? Didn't happen. Remember the research grant announcements for February 28 2004? Didn't happen. Remember the demonstration for the press promised for spring 2003? Didn't happen. How about the video for the licensee candidates? Didn't happen. Remember that they went into production on August 19 2003. Wonder why you've not seen the inventory? It's because it didn't happen.
They've got a whole lot of nothing to accomplish till their supporters finally take off the blinders. |
]
Re: Langgons and Tulip (Score: 1)
by Archer on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 @ 08:33:00 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Don't you people think that the nature and quality of the work being done, to which our announcement pertained, is more important than who exactly might be helping us with funding? It seems none of you have the ability to actually evaluate the material disclosed or make intelligent comments thereon. Why is that?!
Although the disclosure of the new Faraday dynamo material is too "full and fair" to suit some of my own business associates, the demonstrated non-reception of that material supports my own view that we've nothing much to worry about, and that sometimes the best place to hide something valuable is still in plain sight.
Mark T.
Archer Enterprises |
]
work and funding source (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 @ 10:09:21 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | Mark, I have no idea how much of you time and your investors' money it's going to take for you to learn Lenz's law. I have no idea how much it is worth to you or your investors for you to learn it. At first glance it seems like you have found a rather expensive and indirect method to teach yourself EM, but I am sure that pointing you to elementary discussions on generators has been tried, and hasn't worked. So knock yourself out.
But I don't know why you object to questions to help to clarify the identity of supporters you mention. Of course, why would you mention them if you didn't want us to know who they are? You were kind enough to make clear that the John Tulip you were working with was the diploma mill huckster, not the guy from Alberta. So Langgons, is he the one from Red Rock Dragons?
You have to admit Mark, you have a knack for listing as your supporters people with uncommon names and colorful pasts. You should go into some business where that's an asset. Have you thought about a career in fight promotion, hip hop development, or as a radio shock jock? |
]
Re: work and funding source (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 @ 10:47:18 UTC | | You truly are, then, one dumb sonofabitch and pathetic self-agrandizing loser. |
]
Another natural shock jock (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 @ 11:27:14 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | Mark, is this you? I hope Vlad doesn't delete the post.
You truly are, then, one dumb sonofabitch and pathetic self-agrandizing loser.
All you need is a kid with quick fingers to follow you around with a bleeper and you could make a good living helping out all those people who can't listen to Howard anymore. It's your true calling. You could do an act with Tulip, it's not like he's got anything better to do. |
]
|
|
A challenge to Mark Tomion (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 @ 08:37:28 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | Mark,
The single most wrong ^d^d^d^d^d unconventional idea fundamental to your design is that Lenz's law is incorrect. I am sure you hear that a lot. Yet your experiments never touch on Lenz's law. It is difficult to understand why you spend no time testing your Lenz's law skepticism. For this reason, I fond your published work to be incoherent and frankly evasive.
Now when you were spending your own money tinkering in your garage, that's one thing. But if you are spending other people's money, tinkering around with side issues, and avoiding the central question, that's irresponsible. It's ironic that you are getting help in funding from someone who helped Juncal rent things that Juncal knew he didn't own.
So, Mark, why not take Lenz's law on directly? Show that it's wrong. Now. Stop tinkering around with side issues. Otherwise, make sure you and Langgons mention clearly to all your investors that you are a Lenz's law skeptic, just in case that's not obvious to them, and so they have a fair chance to research just how sound a premise that is. |
Re: A challenge to Mark Tomion (Score: 1)
by Archer on Thursday, March 11, 2004 @ 17:01:59 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | What's really wrong, dude, is YOU - on nearly all counts. I suggest that you yourself don't even really understand what Lenz's law is or represents. I'm not a Lenz's law "skeptic" or non-believer at all. I'm a professional electric motor/generator tech, as was my father.
If you took the time to review the new over-unity page on my site, the simple announcement of which instigated this nonsense, you'd realize that I understand full well all about the nature of Lenz losses. I've even quoted the full traditional statement of Lenz's law in that new page! Guess you haven't done your homework.
You obviously don't realize that Lenz's law operates through magnetism, and the whole thrust of my work is to produce voltage and current by electrostatic induction and stimulated thermionic emission - so that Lenz's law does not even apply because magnetism plays no primary role in the power generation process!
Magnetic induction plays only an ancillary role the EDF Generator's method of operation, in the preferred embodiment of the propulsive variant. In fact, we can build one to operate without any use of magnetic induction at all, simply by using a solid-state DC power supply instead of permanent magnets and field coils to energize the electrostatic induction rings. You'll note I said 'electrostatic', and not 'electromagnetic'.
You shouldn't even say you find my published work this way or that way, since I know damn well you've never read my book. But if you think my website's attempts at "full and fair disclosure" are incoherent and/or evasive, I suggest you simply haven't the intellect to understand the material - and I can't see where my book would help you. |
]
A challenge to Mark Tomion (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Thursday, March 11, 2004 @ 19:02:12 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com | Mark, this shows a misunderstanding.
You obviously don't realize that Lenz's law operates through magnetism, and the whole thrust of my work is to produce voltage and current by electrostatic induction and stimulated thermionic emission - so that Lenz's law does not even apply because magnetism plays no primary role in the power generation process!
The distinction you are trying to draw between electrostatic and magnetic forces is oversimplified. It doesn't matter that instead of turning your disk through a magnetic field, you are doing X, Lenz's law says the more current you want to draw, the harder you are going to have to X. Don't take my word. Just plot current produced (y) by amount of power spent to get it (x). When you see the linear response, you are seeing Lenz's law in action, weather or not you understand why it applies or argue that it doesn't.
I look for this plot in your research updates, and it's its absence I find evasive.
|
]
|
|
|
|
