The ambition stays big.
The evidence stays traceable.
Wegawomb explores magnetic transfer of mechanical energy into electricity. Start with what other researchers actually reported, then explore the separate facility-scale design study. Published measurements belong to the devices tested—not automatically to Wegawomb.
Wegawomb output is not established
No Wegawomb hardware dataset has been supplied. Its efficiency, cooling load, durable output and battery surplus therefore remain unknown, not zero and not demonstrated positive. The earlier 1 MW settings are retained as hypotheses, outside this evidence page. No paper result here is multiplied into a facility rating.
Evidence review: 25 September 2026 · Same device evidence for all three regional scenarios · No sign-in
A permanent-magnet generator with a measured input/output table
Hsiao et al. tested an externally driven, three-phase wave-generator prototype at 100–300 rpm into 3.6 Ω per phase. These are Table 6’s measured rows, not its simulation rows. The boundary is mechanical shaft input to generator electrical output; it does not establish a grid inverter, battery system or Wegawomb efficiency.
| Speed rpm | Input torque N·m | Mechanical input W | Electrical output W | Reported efficiency % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 114.82 | 1,202.39 | 1,013.28 | 84.27 |
| 150 | 172.23 | 2,705.38 | 2,279.67 | 84.26 |
| 200 | 218.19 | 4,569.76 | 3,920.26 | 85.79 |
| 250 | 258.35 | 6,763.59 | 6,006.95 | 88.81 |
| 300 | 295.02 | 9,268.33 | 8,000.64 | 86.32 |
The highest output in this table occurs at 300 rpm; its highest efficiency occurs at 250 rpm. Faster did not mean more efficient. The table is not a continuous performance curve or a scaling law.
Hsiao et al. (2021), Design and Implement of Three-Phase Permanent-Magnet Synchronous Wave Generator using Taguchi Approach · Energies 14, 2010 · §4.2 and Table 6.
Rotating magnets and a piezoelectric beam
2.85 μW piezoelectric result
Chen, Li and Lv report this maximum at 120 rpm into 1 MΩ. A powered stepping motor supplies rotation. Their electromagnetic module is reported separately as 182 mW—not a combined regulated output.
The electromagnetic calculation uses 2.1 V and 24.2 Ω internal resistance. The external-load and voltage convention are insufficiently clear to treat it as verified usable bus power. Mechanical-input power and complete-system efficiency are not established by those results.
Chen et al. (2023), An Array Magnetic Coupling Piezoelectric and Electromagnetic Energy Harvester for Rotary Excitation · Micromachines 14, 1527 · §4, Figs. 6, 8–10; §5.
What the high-power paper actually tested
870 kW at 2,800 rpm
Ye et al. describe a load test on a permanent-magnet generator designed for 2.5 MW at 7,000 rpm. The quoted 97.46% optimized rated efficiency is a model result, not a measured rated-efficiency result.
This supports studying large magnetic generators, not a 1 MW magnetic–piezo Wegawomb claim. We do not turn its differing loss-accounting results into an assumed Wegawomb efficiency.
Ye et al. (2024), Multi-operating characteristic analysis and loss optimization of novel large capacity high-speed permanent magnet generator · IET Electric Power Applications 18, 1518–1529 · §5.3, Tables 3 and 6.
What changes in the engineering approach
| Issue | Decision for Wegawomb | Status |
|---|---|---|
| More speed or stronger magnets | Compare loaded operating points at matched input; do not award an automatic output bonus. | Method, not a measured improvement |
| Piezo + generator output | Keep branch measurements and their input allocation separate; do not add incompatible peaks. | Combined useful output unknown |
| 301.41 kW “unrecovered” | Keep local machine rejection separate from network loss. A balance remainder is not a measured chamber heat load. | Earlier scenario arithmetic, not hardware data |
| Cooling and durability | Require component-specific loss, temperature, stress and fatigue evidence before assigning cooling capacity or a safe rating. | Unresolved for this design |
| Facility size and battery surplus | Calculate requirements separately from an available external source. Enlargement cannot create that source. | Preserved hypothetical study only |
These are our design decisions and evidence requirements, not new experimental findings. Published comparisons do not certify Wegawomb for construction, building supply or grid connection.
55–100% electricity target
Explore the required size and external energy for a few large parallel units, including maintenance. Targets are not demonstrated supply.
Your 3D creation is still here
Explore the original magnetic–piezo architecture, generator-led alternative, 1 MW facility target and storage calculations. Their editable efficiencies, mechanical resources and operating schedules are assumptions—not published Wegawomb measurements. Literature values are not silently inserted into those controls.
Old links ending in #power-3d-view arrive here so the evidence boundary stays visible before opening the concept. The original simulation remains preserved.
Evidence rules going forward
New engineering claims require a primary published paper, the original device, test conditions, measurement boundary and a distinction between experiment and simulation. Unreported quantities stay unknown. Proposed adaptations are labeled as hypotheses; scaling is not validation. The archived calculators retain their older assumptions and reference material for comparison.
Mechanical papers: useful ideas, no assigned electrical gain
RodOri spring metamaterials and Elastic Rod Origami motivate research into reconfigurable mechanical response. Porous liquid-crystal elastomers concern tunable acoustic behavior. None establishes an electrical gain for Wegawomb; no efficiency bonus is assigned.