Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[OilBarren]

Hi All,

Forgive my cluelessness but does the tentative efficiency of 114% on Luc's latest test mean OU? 

Cheers,
Aaron

It would BUT the operative word is "tentative". Luc's calculations do not take account of power factor (ie phase difference between current and voltage), which will have a huge impact, PB

WE ASSUME A (WORST CASE) PRIMARY POWER FACTOR OF 1.
THEREFORE NO PHASE ANGLE IMPACT AT ALL.

UNLESS OF COURSE - IF IT'S LOWER THAN 1
WHICH WOULD HAVE A HUGE IMPACT ON INCREASING THE EFFICIENCY ABOVE 114%.

PRIMARY CURRENT AND VOLTAGE MAGNITUDES NEED TO BE DOUBLE CHECKED.

Thane

[AbbaRue]

@ OilBarren:
Do you have a diagram of your latest transformer setup?
I am trying to filter through all these postings and sparing matches but can't seem to find the essence of the unit.
I would like to try replication your unit for myself.  Sorry I just spotted this posting today. 
I was all caught up with the fellow from Kitchener who build a energy converter he is now marketing.
Perhaps his unit has something in common with yours.

Anyway I would like to try and replicate your device.
Harold.

[polarbreeze]

Hi All,

Forgive my cluelessness but does the tentative efficiency of 114% on Luc's latest test mean OU?Ã, 

Cheers,
Aaron

It would BUT the operative word is "tentative". Luc's calculations do not take account of power factor (ie phase difference between current and voltage), which will have a huge impact, PB

WE ASSUME A (WORST CASE) PRIMARY POWER FACTOR OF 1.
THEREFORE NO PHASE ANGLE IMPACT AT ALL.

UNLESS OF COURSE - IF IT'S LOWER THAN 1
WHICH WOULD HAVE A HUGE IMPACT ON INCREASING THE EFFICIENCY ABOVE 114%.

PRIMARY CURRENT AND VOLTAGE MAGNITUDES NEED TO BE DOUBLE CHECKED.

Thane

<sigh> you've got it backwards, Thane. But you know that, of course. Or maybe you are unaware that the phase difference between voltage and current has to be accounted for in BOTH the input AND the output power measurements?
PB

[polarbreeze]

Thane has spoken more than once about induction motors having the property of requiring less and less power as they accelerate, so I don't think this is new.

Indeed he has, and he presents it as some kind of mystery that requires an unusual explanation.
PB

YES A REAL MYSTERY:
AS AN INDUCTION MOTOR SPEED INCREASES THE ROTOR BACK EMF INDUCED FIELD INCREASES AND COUPLES BACK TO THE STATOR COIL - INCREASING STATOR IMPEDENCE AND CAUSING STATOR CURRENT DRAW TO DECREASE.

HOW COULD TESLA KEEP THIS INFO FROM THE WORLD ALL THESE YEARS?

Thane

Exactly, Thane. It's NOT a mystery. You have demonstrated nothing at all with this contraption which isn't already very well known by people who have been building motors, generators and other electromagnetic devices for decades. You have some kind of a problem with the shaft materials/construction/mounting interfering with the experiment (which nobody else has reported by the way) so when you solve that you'll be all done.
PB

[polarbreeze]

I'll wager two pond lillies, that the "effect" is evident regardless of shaft materials, as it is related to the interaction of the external magnets and external coils, which are in a semi-open magnetic configuration in Vinces model. If Vinces rotor were non magnetic, and the coil is mounted on a non magnetic base, the effect will still occur, even though it would be a completely open magnetic system.

I completely agree, hoptoad. The "effect" happens in the contraption itself and its only interaction with the motor is to place a mechanical load on it through the shaft (which is as easily done with a mechanical brake). So the investigation now needs to be around Thane's report that he gets different results depending on the shaft material/properties. It's worth noting that nobody else on this thread has reported that effect (ie the dependence of the results on shaft material) and it's the only remaining unexplained effect of Thane's experiment. So once we've determined a reason why his setup is misbehaving when he changes the shaft materials the riddle will be solved.
PB