Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[JustMe]

Exactly right. So what?s with all these claims of 177% etc? Methinks Thane speaks with forked tongue...
PB

Funny.  It's actually the majority of YOUR posts that leave me feeling like I've just been slimed by a grinning used car salesman. But I digress.

You've implied that there is deliberate dishonesty here many times, many ways.  You have obvious contempt for the entire pursuit, and have from the beginning.  This stuff has been deemed a fantasy by you, indeed by most. You all may be right, but many intelligent, industrious and dedicated people all across the globe feel otherwise, and have and will for decades past and future.  I very much admire and respect those who dare to try to colour outside the lines regardless of their ultimate success or failure.

This little corner of the internet world should be a shelter from the inherent arrogance and various failings of status quo positions, and yet nearly every meaningful and extended discussion here attracts a skeptic or two who decides it's his or her job to tear the whole thing down in the name of truth, logic and all that is good and right.  Sometimes those skeptics manage to make a contribution or two despite themselves, as you have on occasion.  Others make themselves bearable by saying and doing unintentionally hilarious things like the skeptic on the Stiffler thread that said "99.9999999% of all purported and reported OU and free energy has turned out to be measurement error".

Thane and others have observed anomalies with atypical transformer setups they feel warrant further investigation, a path for which they surely don't need your approval.  He is not willing to assume that his >100% measurements at low power levels must be due to error, though everybody knows that is probable without your ceaseless posts pointing it out over and over again.  I'm so very glad for the existence of the past, present and future experimenters who aren't willing to assume, even in the face of ridicule and relentless pressure to do otherwise, and so should everyone be.

"If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said 'you can't do this'." -Spencer Silver, on the work on adhesives that led to the humble Post-it note

I like Post-its. Ditto airplanes, spaceflight, AC, my personal computer etc. etc. etc.

[Mr.Entropy]

Thane,

We know that connecting the load coil makes your motor accelerate.

It is possible that the coils' cores simply introduce a loss that is being reduced when you connect the coils.  In that case your motor will accelerate more if you simply remove the whole coil/core assembly and put it a few feet away.

Does your setup permit you to perform this test?

[JustMe]

Mr. Entropy,

I believe Vince's setup is flexible in this manner. He did not report deceleration losses when introducing the unloaded coil setup to the motor and rotor/magnets, though I don't know if or how he compared acceleration with and without the unloaded coils present. He reported acceleration with a large coil, and also just by holding unwound laminated cores close to the spinning magnets. The latter seems odd by my novice and tenuous understanding of things, because that shoud have increased drag? Aether's theory was that it would act like a short circuit because of eddy currents.  It will be really interesting to pin down just what's happening in each of these cases, and whether it's one explanation or a combination of things, conventional or unconventional.

[polarbreeze]

It's actually the majority of YOUR posts that leave me feeling like I've just been slimed by a grinning used car salesman.

There ya go again - such a diplomat!

You've implied that there is deliberate dishonesty...Ã, 

I'm struggling with this one and I'm still not sure. This thing, for example, about taking measurements on that transformer right down in that very low current region where the last-digit accuracy of the meter completely swamps any meaningful result - when a much more accurate meter should be readily available and/or when the current could readily be cranked up to a higher range where it could be properly measured. Were the experimenters just unlucky that it turned out that way or did they plan it that way? I think that's an absolutely fair question to ask. Besides, I have a wager with my spouse on that particular one.

You have obvious contempt for the entire pursuit, and have from the beginning.

That, I definitely take issue with. I was very interested and positive at the beginning and off-board emails I sent to Thane about it will confirm that. But, for sure I've become more and more skeptical the more I read about it because there's just no evidence - and here's the real point: it's very easy to collect objective evidence on something like this. It doesn't depend on opinion or on belief/skepticism or on PB being a "ballbreaker" or not - it can all be objectively measured. Yet the experimental method always is designed to leave ambiguity. Doesn't that strike you as strange?

...I very much admire and respect those who dare to try to colour outside the lines regardless of their ultimate success or failure...

Me too, absolutely. So do I and by the same token I object to those who manipulate those people by pretending they're "coloring outside the lines" when really they're not at all. That behaviour pollutes the field for those who really may have breakthrough ideas.

...nearly every meaningful and extended discussion here attracts a skeptic or two who decides it's his or her job to tear the whole thing down...

Hard to have a "meaningful and extended discussion" unless there are people on both sides of the issue, don't you think?

...on the Stiffler thread that said "99.9999999% of all purported and reported OU and free energy has turned out to be measurement error"...

The point I expect he was making - and I think objectively you have to see there might be something in it - is this: It is very striking that the experiments do always seem to be designed such that there remains some factor that promotes ambiguity. And this in a field where measurement should be very easy to do accurately and reliably if the experiment is properly designed and the equipment properly selected.

[PerpetualLurker]

OilBarren:

I have looked through previous posts in this thread for some kind of schematic diagram of your bi-toroid transformer setup.  I found something way back in message #244 (though I could have missed something more recent) which shows a primary winding and two secondaries, both with loads.  In the recent photos and posted results I can only see references to a load and measurements on one secondary.  Can you shed some light on how the other secondary is connected?