 |
There are currently, 351 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 by Archer on Thursday, March 04, 2004 @ 06:48:42 UTC
- Langgons and Tulip by chipotle_pickle on Thursday, March 04, 2004 @ 18:27:04 UTC
- Re:genesis by Anonymous on Thursday, March 04, 2004 @ 20:46:28 UTC
- Nope. by chipotle_pickle on Thursday, March 04, 2004 @ 21:37:06 UTC
- Re: Langgons and Tulip by Archer on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 @ 08:33:00 UTC
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
