PDi Regenerative Acceleration and BiTT Principles

[THANE HEINS]

I am an old man, studied in old school of physics where I was taught that overall efficiency of any system is the ratio of overall output to overall input.  As per your above description,  no generator in this world would have overall efficiency more than 50%.   If you tell the same thing to a generator manufacturer,  he may also fire you with bad words.

http://www.powerelectricalblog.com/2007/03/generator-efficiency.html

WELL SIR PERHAPS THEY SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS IN YOUR SCHOOL BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T SEE THE TRUE FACT THAT THE INPUT IS NOT THE "OVERALL INPUT" AS YOU SAY BUT RATHER THE OUTPUT OF THE DRIVING ENGINE IN MECHANICAL WATTS NOT THE "OVERALL" INPUT POWER CONSUMPTION OF THE DRIVING ENGINE... 

AS I SAID BACK IN 2008 - AND REPEATED AGAIN IN 2013...

A GENERATOR IS A DEVICE WHICH CONVERTS MECHANICAL POWER TO ELECTRICAL POWER AND THEREFORE THE INPUT TO A GENERATOR IS THE MECHANICAL POWER IN THE DRIVE SHAFT DRIVING THE GENERATOR AND HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EFFICIENCY OR INPUT TO THE MECHANICAL DRIVING ENGINE BUT RATHER THE OUTPUT OF THE MECHANICAL DRIVING ENGINE IN DRIVE SHAFT MECHANICAL WATTS... 

THANK YOU FOR HELPING CLEAR THAT UP.

NOW IF WE USE THE TRUTH ABOVE AND APPLY IT TO THIS VIDEOS HERE:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkH1zLdXy1SypPD7inxAYi8MjkQk91syC

WE WILL CONCLUDE THAT A GENERATOR THAT HAS A DRIVESHAFT THAT IS ALREADY DECELERATING ON NO-LOAD HAS ABSOLUTELY NO POWER IN IT TO DRIVE A GENERATOR AND CERTAINLY NO ABILITY TO ACCELERATE A GENERATOR AND SUPPLY INCREASING POWER TO A LOAD BECAUSE;

MECHANICAL DRIVE SHAFT POWER = TORQUE x SPEED

AND A DRIVE SHAFT THAT IS DECELERATING HAS NEGATIVE TORQUE (LESS THAN ZERO).

SO WHEN THE ReGenX GENERATOR ACCELERATES ITSELF AS SHOWN IN THE VIDEO AND SUPPLIES INCREASING AMOUNTS OF POWER TO THE LOAD - IT'S STARTING WITH A DRIVE SHAFT THAT HAS ZERO WATTS OF MECHANICAL POWER IN IT AND IS OPERATING WITH INFINITE EFFICIENCY.

REGARDS
T

[Farmhand]

Writing posts in all Capitol letters is like yelling at people, which is rude. I refuse to read posts that are all capitols.
If you don't want me to read your post's Thane then write in all capitol letters.

Short circuiting the grid output or a battery is a whole lot different from short circuiting a generator which drops significant voltage while powering
less than 100 Watts, they are very different supplies. Like comparing watermelons to grapes or like comparing a 1 mega Watt generator to a 50 Watt generator.
When you short circuit a high impedance coil connected a grid socket it is different to shorting a 0.5 Ohm coil connected to a grid socket. A high resistance high inductance coil
can have more DC resistance than a bulb an so therefore dissipate more energy as heat.

Fact 1. I produced a generator which accelerated under load, it was not OU or over 100 % efficient. I didn't require any high impedance coils.
Fact 2. I produced the effect of a decreased input to a transformer under load, it wasn't OU either. Adjusting the magnitude of the effect was easy I could make it so that the
input did not change, so the input increased or so the input decreased.
Fact 3. I used a Tesla transformer to generate a sine wave output which I used to input to another transformer to power loads, I could also produce the reduction of input with
load and short circuit with that arrangement, and guess what it wasn't OU or over 100 % efficient either.

All experiments reduced the load on the supply battery when a load was applied, it is the application of the load which improves the efficiency of the devices.

As I showed in my demo a small load can be powered fully and still see the acceleration, but not a larger load.

The trick is to create a generator or transformer with a very high idle input power because of increased Lenz effect at idle due to the high capacitance, inductance
of the coils and voltage produced, storing significant energy and causing significant Lenz drag, when the load is applied the energy able to be stored in the coil is
less because of the voltage drop the load imparts, hence the loaded lenz effect is less than the unloaded Lenz effect.

I think my scope shots show that.

As I said proof is in the pudding, when it comes to a vehicle there is no grid to use and say that the input to the prime mover from the grid is irrelevant.

Using the Tesla coils one as the generator supplied by a battery I could almost reduce the input to the generator to nothing, but with no input there is no output either.

Cheers

P.S. And a regular generator has a function where if the output voltage tries to drop the input power to the prime mover is increased so that the load is always
supplied with the rated power of the system 240v, 110v ect. You're regenX setups just let the voltage drop and don't power all loads at the rated voltage or thereabouts.

..

What would happen to the input power of a regular generator if it did not increase the input power to accommodate the load at the rated power ? Maybe  the rpm would drop
less fuel could be used and the input would decrease maybe to the point it could sustain the load at a lowered input voltage and power. I'm not sure I haven't tried it.

..

 

[MileHigh]

Thane:

THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY IS FALSE AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN FALSE IN ANY ELECTRICAL SYSTEM IF A BEMF MAGNETIC FIELD IS CREATED. BECAUSE THIS BEMF ENERGY CAN AND DOES DO WORK...

EVERY GENERATOR, EVERY TRANSFORMER, EVERY MOTOR OR PIECE OF WIRE THAT PRODUCES BEMF IS ALREADY AN OVER-UNITY DEVICE.

The law of conservation of energy is not false when you examine electrical systems that make use of a back-EMF spike or discharge.  I think even most people on the free energy forums realize this or eventually have come to realize this.  If you think you know better then I challenge you to make a clip of an experiment that clearly demonstrates this claim you are making with all input power or energy measurements and all output power or energy measurements clearly indicated and explained.

For your second statement above I would imagine that many readers are puzzled because in typical applications for transformers and and electrical generators there is no back-EMF spike at all.  The simplest analogy that explains the back-EMF spike is putting rotational energy into a flywheel and then suddenly applying the breaks to the flywheel.  Several experimenters around here get this.

The simple answer is that all of the energy in the back-EMF spike came from the battery that energized the coil in the first place.  So it would appear that you have to rethink your comments about back-EMF spikes in electrical systems or show an experiment that proves your claim.

SO WHEN THE ReGenX GENERATOR ACCELERATES ITSELF AS SHOWN IN THE VIDEO AND SUPPLIES INCREASING AMOUNTS OF POWER TO THE LOAD - IT'S STARTING WITH A DRIVE SHAFT THAT HAS ZERO WATTS OF MECHANICAL POWER IN IT AND IS OPERATING WITH INFINITE EFFICIENCY.

There is no way that there are zero watts of mechanical power supplied to the drive shaft of a generator when it starts to accelerate under load to eventually stabilize at a higher RPM.

There is always mechanical power being applied by the prime mover to the drive shaft of a generator to keep it turning.  And that of course means that the generator is always applying an equal and opposite mechanical load to the supplied shaft power.  You seem to be stating that when the electrical load is applied to the generator coils that the generator stops producing back-torque to counter the torque applied by the prime mover.  That makes no sense.  The generator is still producing back-torque even as the rotor is accelerating in speed.   There are seveal sources of the back torque; mechanical friction, Lenz drag, and overcoming the moment of inertia of the rotor during the acceleration phase.

Look, you apply a load to a generator and you see the generator RPM speed up to stabilize at a new higher RPM.

Some possible explanations for the speed up after you attach a load to the generator coils:

1.  The prime mover of the generator (like an external motor) applies more power to the drive shaft.
2.  The generator coils offer less resistance to the turning of the generator rotor.  That could be due to some combination of Lenz' Law back-torque effects and how much rotational resistance is caused by the sticky spots (or lack of sticky spots) interacting with, and disturbing, the bearings.
3.  The generator becomes more efficient with more of the drive shaft power going to rotate the rotor and less of the drive shaft power being lost to waste heat in the form of bearing friction and air friction.
4.  Some combination of 1, 2 and 3 above.

I suspect that what you call "regenerative acceleration" is simply point #3 above in action.

So it's not as simple as seeing "acceleration" and thinking something unique or special is going on.   There is a clip on YouTube of a "star motor" or something like that where when a guy simply sticks a few big magnets on the outside of running motor chassis the motor speeds up.  I am assuming that many people have seen this clip but I couldn't find it.  The person in the clip makes some kind of claim that something special is happening.  In this case and without doing any measurements, it appears that the motor simply becomes more efficient because the rotor is seeing stronger external magnetic flux and presumably that causes more output torque, and therefore a higher RPM.  In the clip there is no load on the motor shaft before and after the applying of the magnets.  He applies the external magnets to the motor chassis and then the motor speeds up.

So, in this case you get a more efficient motor but there is a huge trade-off for getting that extra performance.  The motor is much bigger and much heavier after the external magnets are stuck onto the motor chassis.

MileHigh

[Newton II]

WELL SIR PERHAPS THEY SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS IN YOUR SCHOOL BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T SEE THE TRUE FACT THAT THE INPUT IS NOT THE "OVERALL INPUT" AS YOU SAY BUT RATHER THE OUTPUT OF THE DRIVING ENGINE IN MECHANICAL WATTS NOT THE "OVERALL" INPUT POWER CONSUMPTION OF THE DRIVING ENGINE... 

A GENERATOR IS A DEVICE WHICH CONVERTS MECHANICAL POWER TO ELECTRICAL POWER AND THEREFORE THE INPUT TO A GENERATOR IS THE MECHANICAL POWER IN THE DRIVE SHAFT DRIVING THE GENERATOR AND HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EFFICIENCY OR INPUT TO THE MECHANICAL DRIVING ENGINE BUT RATHER THE OUTPUT OF THE MECHANICAL DRIVING ENGINE IN DRIVE SHAFT MECHANICAL WATTS... 

Dear, dearer and dearest Thane Heins Sir.


Forget about the engine and think that your AUL generator is coupled with  a DC motor.   In that case the input power to motor will be in watts.  The output of generator will also be in watts.  The overall efficiency will be the ratio of output watts to input watts.  If this ratio is more than one,  then you can feed the generator out put back to motor making the unit self running.

Your argument is  that input  is the power available at motor shaft and not the wattage supplied to motor.

Think that you are supplying 100 Watts of electric power to the motor.  It may develop 90 watts of mechanical power at the shaft after losses in armature.  This 90 watts  shaft is connected to a AUL generator.    If AUL generator produces 101 watts,   then you can transfer 100 watts back to motor and take out 1 watt perpetual energy.     

When things are so simple, why sofar you are unable to make  a self running machine?

The reason would be that when you connect 90  watts shaft to AUL generator,   it will not produce 101 watts.   Generator will have maximum efficiency only at specific speed and on specific load.  ( see the efficiency vs speed curve and efficiency vs load curve ).   When generator accelerates beyond certain speed its efficiency goes down and in addition there will be regular generator losses.
     

AND A DRIVE SHAFT THAT IS DECELERATING HAS NEGATIVE TORQUE (LESS THAN ZERO).

If you load a 8 ton capacity truck with 16 tons and start the truck, the truck will not move.  It only means that the truck doesnot have capacity to pull 16 tons and does not mean that it is developing negative energy.  When drive shaft decelerates, it only means that it is unable to overcome the load and does not mean that it is developing negative torque.  ( what do you mean by negative torque?)

AND IS OPERATING WITH INFINITE EFFICIENCY.

As a old man I would request lord Electricus ( God of electricity)  to bless your generator with infinite efficiency, infinite current, infinite voltage, infinite wattage and your bike to run with  INFINITE SPEED.

[THANE HEINS]

When you short circuit a high impedance coil connected a grid socket it is different to shorting a 0.5 Ohm coil connected to a grid socket. A high resistance high inductance coil can have more DC resistance than a bulb an so therefore dissipate more energy as heat.

GOOD SCIENCE IS GOOD OBSERVATION AND AS MY MOTOR PROF ALWAYS SAID "IF IT DOESN'T WORK THE 1ST TIME GO BACK AND FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS!"

NOTICE I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT SHORTING A HIGH IMPEDANCE COIL CONNECTED TO A GRID SCOCKET...

Fact 1. I produced a generator which accelerated under load, it was not OU or over 100 % efficient. I didn't require any high impedance coils.

YES I KNOW YOU SATURATED THE CORE... WHICH IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STORY.

Fact 2. I produced the effect of a decreased input to a transformer under load, it wasn't OU either. Adjusting the magnitude of the effect was easy I could make it so that the input did not change, so the input increased or so the input decreased.

YOU SHOULD PATENT IT.

What would happen to the input power of a regular generator if it did not increase the input power to accommodate the load at the rated power ?

THE INPUT POWER TO ANY GENERATOR IS THE MECHANICAL POWER IN THE DRIVE SHAFT.

THE COUNTER-ELECTROMOTIVE-TORQUE FROM THE REGULAR GENERATOR WOULD ROB THE DRIVESHAFT OF TORQUE AND THE SYSTEM WOULD DECELERATE.

Maybe the rpm would drop less fuel could be used and the input would decrease maybe to the point it could sustain the load at a lowered input voltage and power. I'm not sure I haven't tried it. 

IN FACT THE RPM WOULD DROP AND THE GENERATOR OUTPUT WOULD DROP AS WELL. IF THE FUEL WAS NOT INCREASED TO SUPPLY THE LOAD THE SYSTEM WOULD EVENTUALLY STALL AS PER HERE:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkH1zLdXy1SypPD7inxAYi8MjkQk91syC

IN A CORRECT ReGenX APPLICATION NO MAGNITUDE OF LOAD (AN INFINITE NUMER OF LIGHT BULBS CONNECTED IN PARALLEL)WILL NEVER CAUSE SYSTEM DECELERATION.

Thane C. Heins
President & CEO
Potential +/- Difference Inc. R & D
"Using our potential to make a difference"
Email: thaneh@potentialdifference.ca
Cell: 613.795.1602
YOUTUBE http://www.youtube.com/user/pdicanada1 
Linkedin http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=107557432&trk=tab_pro
slideshare http://www.slideshare.net/ThaneCHeins