Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

One of Four Solutions Unique

Expand Messages
  • Harvey D Norris
    I grow weary of working on these things, because it boggles the mind. I last concluded that because one of the stator lines contains excess amperage, if a load
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 9, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I grow weary of working on these things, because it boggles the mind. I last concluded that because one of the stator lines contains excess amperage, if a load were placed on that line, exclusive and exterior to the actual delta loads, perhaps this might succeed in showing excess overall energy for all loads involved. A day was spent trying various schemes to do that, all resulting in dismal failures. And in fact the idea was spurious to say the least. Every external load placed on the outside will so influence that line to cut out far more amperage then is desired to exhibit itself on that line. Thus my "Theory for free energy" is full of shit. But wait, things don't stop there. I also said that if the series circle of windings around a common axis inherent in the 666 machine were truly made opposite to the phase rotation, then an entirely different result should happen. This turned out to be true, however that result did not oppositely expand time instead of contract it as I had hoped. Instead it opened up another can of worms that would drive one to become delerious if you spend too much time thinking about it. Originally I had thought that laborious wire changes through all three phases can accomplish that objective,(of reversing the series spiral connections vs the phase rotation) Now I see that also must be done to thouroughly study the subject. This was because of later experiments done to accomplish the same objective be making very simple wire changes, now described inherent with this riddle. If we reverse one of the three stator lines to the loads, this will reverse the phase rotation. In fact this is a common practice with three phase motors which results in the motor then turning in the opposite direction. Duh! I thought, why didn't I think of that before! So I reversed one of the three connections, and sure enough a totally different result comes out. Now in the first result which turns out to be somewhat desirable since two greater interphasal voltage rises occur, and one barely shows any difference, we also see that in that condition that one of the stator lines is lacking in amperage, so we designate that as the weak line. When we first reverse the phase rotation by this method, we find that now this weak stator line has moved to a different line, but the results are not the same at all. Now we have only one stronger interphasal voltage instead of two. Now it stands to reason then that at this point if I reversed another of the three stator lines, besides the one I just reversed, then this should restore the process to its original action, since a reversal anywhere on the circle should accomplish the same objective. However this does not happen. Instead that reversal yields a result whereby the weak stator line moves to a different corner. So essentially two opposite strategies to reverse the phase rotation each deliver different results! An opposite of a condition of phase roation is no longer so easily defined. Ordinarily the opposite of an opposite is a double negative and the way we changed this phase rotation was the same, except for the fact that we used different corners to accomplish that change. So now we need to step back and look at things.

      There seems to be three resultant combinations, two of which are not desirable. Only one combination seems to generate two stronger voltage rises in the opposite direction of time. The others do not. But there are actually three of those combinations going in the direction of exhibiting the reverse phase rotation, as regards the initial correct wiring. Unless I have made some kind of mistake here, which could very well be possible,(where these things also demand thinking time) this then means that when the correct combination is made, from that point reversing the direction from all three sides will then deliver the inferior performance. This then gives a total of four combinations. The question I have for myself is, why did I first arrive at the correct combination in the first place??? I could have arbitrarily arrived on the wrong combination to begin with, and the matter would not be persued to this length, because those results would have never showed themselves. Is this simple chance, or does some madness of quantum mechanics enter the picture.

      Can the detractors, (which are many) say that because the alternator itself is not perfect, and one phase will always BE STRONGER THEN THE OTHER WITH CONSTRUCTION OF CAR ALTERNATORS; this is the reason that you are seeing unbalanced loads. A small inherent inbalance from the 3 phase generator gets greater more inbalanced upon load applications. If that is the case, shouldnt we expect that the weak line should always remain the weak line, no matter how we change those loads around from the stator lines?

      As we can see the subject is mind boggling, and I need to take a little break. If things are as I have outlined this also means that two different opposites from the original exist, but by definition of stator line reversals on three corners, this also means that three different opposites exist against the original, so two of those opposites should be similar, since the weak stator line can only be in three different places, and when it is in the corect position the desired results are obtained. Thus at this point in time I consider that only one out of four positions work in the desired manner in which I desire to exploit.

      So I will take some time out to work with Neil Zaza.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.