Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[polarbreeze]

Your graph doesn't cover a motor accelerating from a stabilized RPM, just an uniterrupted normal starting sequence.

The graph (it's not mine, by the way, it's from a standard induction motor datasheet) shows the relationship between rpm, torque and current. You are wrong in your assumption that it "doesn't cover ... etc" - it applies to ALL situations, whether you're starting from zero, from some arbitrary rpm or whatever. I suggest you re-read the paper. The results that Thane has reported are fully consistent with a motor characteristic of this kind. Yet he speaks of a discovery of unexpected results which could lead to great advances in motors/generators. The results, though, are NOT unexpected: they are exactly as predicted by theory and prior empirical evidence.

... I fail to see how it's "now resolved" unless I've missed something, and I don't miss much.  As I understand the various braking hypotheses, Vince's setup and observations in particular leave questions about this wide open and deserving of further analysis...

I did make the point (which you omitted to quote) that there are TWO parts to this:

1. The relationship between rpm, torque and current - for which, yes, I think it is fully justified to say is resolved, since the device's behaviour is as predicted by theory - see http://polk-burnett.apogee.net/pd/dmcs.asp

AND (the part you didn't quote):

2. Thane's observation that this behaviour is modified, in his setup, depending on whether the shaft piece is steel or brass. This part, I agree is still open and can use further investigation. In fact, I've made several suggestions about it, including:

- Since Thane's hypothesis is that there's magnetic flux passing through the shaft that's affecting the motor behaviour, then I proposed that we measure that flux and see what it tells us. Thane first of all claimed that it couldn't be measured and then when several people pointed out to him that it could indeed be readily measured he didn't follow up on it. So it is an open issue.

- In support of the speculation about a possible mechanism whereby the flux of Thane's theory could be affecting the motor, I made a suggestion. This was that this fed-back flux (if it exists), being of a higher frequency, could have the same effect as "slip" and therefore result in increased torque, which would cause acceleration (and acceleration is what Thane had observed). This is simply an idea and it could be easily measured but, again, Thane chooses not to follow up on it. There are other theories too, such as Aether's, which are also open issues right now.

- A third suggestion: since the only observation of the brass-vs-steel effect to date has been in Thane's own setup, it would be very desirable for someone else to try to reproduce it, and report on the results.

So I think you're mistaken when you suggest I'm trying to shut down the research (which is the way I interpret your comment "herd off a cliff"). I'm just offering an opinion about what's already explained and what remains to be explained. Do you see what I mean?

PB

[markzpeiverson]

jacksatan wrote:

"Everyone has heard the standard philosophical question of 'if a tree falls in the forrest with no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?"...

I always liked this version of that question...
     "If Helen Keller is alone in a forrest and falls, does she make a sound?"

-Mark

PS:
Depends on your definition of 'sound'.  The compressional waves in air are there regardless of anything else, so there's the potential for 'hearing/perceiving' a sound.  Human perception is quite an interesting thing...

[bitbeam]

Fair enough then.  I do not understand what you imply by "master electrician" and a "master mechanic".  What do the quotations mean?  I have a very good friend who is a master electrician and a family member who is a mechanical engineer. 

Hi Angel,

Sorry, the implication, if any, is that they sound more than qualified to duplicate the device, just let them have at it! The more duplicators the better! 

Cheers,
Aaron

[jacksatan]

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

For those of you who want me to prove my skeptics point of view...

Based on the metered results of:

INPUT
A = 0.02 AMPS
V = 1.06 VOLTS
P = 21.2 mWATTS

OUTPUT @ 1 K OHM
VOLTS = 4.91 VOLTS
P = 24.2 mWATTS

and varying only the input amperage (for simplicities sake) by the potential rounding error... the input amperage could range from =>0.015 to >0.025 or 25% of the measured efficiency in either direction... so given the measured efficiency of 114%, the actual efficiency could be anywhere between 85.5% and 142.5%... assuming the actual input is completely unknown, given the range of efficiency of (142.5-85.5=) 57%, the random likelihood of the efficiency being less than 100% (under-unity) would be (100-85.5=) 14.5/57 or 25.4%... given odds like that, I should request at least 3 to 1 odds that the correctly measured efficiency is uderunity, right? But I am a benevolent sucker, so I will offer 3 to 1 odds to anyone who wants to bet that this is over unity... any takers?

[aether22]

Thane, It has been sent right?

If so the tracking number would be very helpful as with verification on what day it was sent and the extra address I requested Kim add.

I need to see how likely it is that it will arrive before I leave and if after I need to assure it will be safe.