Tesla Secret

That will work when your water is flowing, but then you have to pay for the water being dumped down the drain.

Yup. With Neodymium (rare Earth) magnets, motors & gens. are on steroids.

Interesting discussion.

Here is my million dollar idea. Whoever gets it going can just give me a nod while I watch you receive the Nobel Prize.

What about putting billions of these things¹ everywhere? They¹ can line all of the highway surfaces in all the big cities. They¹ can be placed on every walking surface in high traffic areas (stadiums, airports, bars (dance floor!), even on all the sidewalks near Times Square in NYC!

They¹ will be able to {partially?} power all the surrounding devices. On highways, They¹ will power the streetlights, taking full advantage of charging all day when the lights are off. In an airport They¹ can power the fluorescent lighting. In a stadium, They¹ can power the Jumbo-Tron monitor.

They¹ are basically going to be reclaiming wasted energy. Have you ever been pulled over on the side of a busy highway and got out to change a tire? You can 'feel' the enormous amount of energy passing all around you, vehicles weighing

3k-6k lbs. are zipping by at 80 MPH. It's a scary feeling, knowing you're defenseless against all that kinetic energy only feet away.

Thanks for reading this far. I will tell you what They¹ are some other time.

Just joking.

Here are They¹:

What is the consensus? Will They¹ work? Does this solve the energy crisis?

Yes. It was barely enough power to charge my cell phone...so it does work.

Jim Rojas

Piezo crystal generators.

Yup. With Neodymium (rare Earth) magnets, motors & gens. are on steroids.

---------------------------------------------------- I don't know where Jim got his idea that stronger magnets increase the current rating of an alternator. That is nonsense.

The "minor modifications" would involve, at a minimum, a complete rewinding of the machine. There would also be problems with saturation in the stator steel as well as no control of voltage as load changes. Simply modifying the rotor to use permanent magnets won't do much except waste time, money and effort.

Don Kelly cross out to reply

That's not exactly how they are constructed. Plus the "digital" motor gets 84% efficiency compared to 40% efficiency of a brush & stator.

Gonna change the world.

A quad redundant response?

You're an idiot. Go away, and do not return until AFTER you look up and LEARN about USENET!

You are an idiot. Car alternators are specifically designed to operate at LOWER rpms than the generators they replaced, and drive ratios solve any small differences from the target value.

Stop top posting, you Usenet total retard.

But it is still power in equals power out, so more torque is required to push that 300 Amps. The device is just more capable of doing it, and should/could/would get there at presumably a lower rpm.

But yeah, that is for generators and motors, not alternators.

One supposes that slight additional gains could be wrested from making a more precise surface quality and gap match between the rotor core 'faces', and the stator (magnet core) 'faces'.

They are probably pretty close already though. Something like

0.015" with a 5 thou plus or minus tolerance, allowing the mass production mills to spin 'em off in bigger lots between inspections, and requiring less matching at assembly time.

Clearly you need to check facts before opening your mouth and insulting people.

Many years ago I replaced the dynamo on my car with an alternator. It came with a new /smaller/ pulley to /increase/ the rpm over that required by the dynamo.

You are an idiot. Cars are designed with more than one pulley, and if it was designed for a generator, the generator will have a slow rate because they cannot be driven too fast. They suffer on output, however, when driven below certain rates, and that window is too small.

So, car makers (probably GM and Delco) decided to design an alternator that could handle the full gamut of rotational velocity, while still putting out, even at idle.

So, it wasn't just the alternator's pulley that differed, it was the drive pulley as well to get to the final ratio, which you are clearly clueless about.

They are made to put out at low rpm, yet not over-voltage at higher rates either by way of saturated core structures (by limiting their mass), or by limiting the max current at those higher rates of rotation. Generators fail at lower engine speeds, and only put out at higher speeds and get dangerous at even higher rates, which engine designs climbed to back then. Another point you are clueless about.

'Many years ago" is where your head is at, and that ain't even all great, boy.

Many DECADES ago, I placed a generator on my go cart, and powered it with a battery, and rode up and down my streets with it. That was

1971, at age 11, and I knew even then why they were replaced. It is obvious that you do not.

The mass of the rotor is so much higher that it slowed engine rpm rate climb times as engines became more powerful. Alternators are designed with lower mass rotors, and can handle the higher rpms compared to generators. The rest would be in the support electronics after that.

You lose. Maybe you should check *your* facts, "Dynamo Boy".

In 1971 I was driving, messing about with and fixing cars not playing with go-carts - so grow up sonny.

Actually Chrysler was the first manufacturer to start fitting alternators on cars intended for the mass market. and I am well aware of the physics and engineering involved in alternator design and production.

You're a goddamned retard. I was building drag race engines with my brother, and my father worked at Cinti. Milacron. I know more about machined parts and assemblies than you ever will, and I did so at that time as well, idiot. I also worked in a machine shop, rebuilding engines 12 years after that year. You are out of your league, idiot.

Apparently not, since you are 100% unaware as to why they began using them. You are a clueless dork, at best.

That's not exactly how they are constructed. Plus the "digital" motor gets

84% efficiency compared to 40% efficiency of a brush & stator.

That's not exactly how they are constructed. Plus the "digital" motor gets

84% efficiency compared to 40% efficiency of a brush & stator.

Thanks for reminding this worldwide newsgroup about our function at St John's Church Hall in July. It was supposed to be a surprise, now you've ruined everything!

MEOW!!!