Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[OilBarren]

NOW LET'S PUT ONE FINAL NAIL IN OUman"s IGNORAMUS COFFIN.

POWER OUT = POWER IN - LOSSES

IN TABLE 4 THE LOSSES FROM NO LOAD TO FULL LOAD - HV COIL ENGAGEMENT ARE EXACTLY THE SAME (i.e. 130 WATTS)

1) NO LOAD:

POWER OUT = POWER IN - LOSSES
0 = 130 W - 130 W
LOSSES AS HEAT FRICTION ETC.= 130 WATTS
POWER OUT = 0 WATTS

2) HC COILS IN SERIES ONLY

POWER OUT = POWER IN - LOSSES
14.9 = 146 W - 131.1 W
LOSSES AS HEAT FRICTION ETC.= 131.1 WATTS
POWER OUT = 14.9 WATTS

3) HV COIL IN SERIES:

POWER OUT = POWER IN - LOSSES
7.7 W = 130 W - 130 W (THE MOTOR IS DISSIPATING THE SAME HEAT @ 130 W)
LOSSES AS HEAT FRICTION ETC. = 130 WATTS
POWER OUT = 7.7 WATTS

WHERE DO THOSE EXTRA 7.7 W COME FROM???

POWER IN IS THE SAME
RPM IS THE SAME?
ALL THE LOSSES ARE THE SAME (HEAT, FRICTION ETC.)

POWER OUT IS NOT THE SAME.

DON'T BE FOOLED BY A FOOL - 130 WATTS IS THE LOSS NO MATTER HOW IT'S SPUN.

Thane

ps
IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS THIS MEANS THAT:
(JM THIS IS FOR YOU!)

IF THE HC AND HV COILS ARE BALANCED SUCH THAT ONE COMPENSATES FOR THE OTHER THEN 130 WATTS IN CAN PRODUCE ANY AMOUNT OUT.

[JustMe]

The Skeptics report was fascinating to me in it's way.  Remember I started my involvement with this on a Skeptic forum, because that's what I thought I was.  I have the perfect skeptic profile: computer science grad with the narrow intelligence type our social, economic and education systems reward and validate, so no real reason to push the fundamentals of my own thinking too far out of it's comfortable box.  I once scored nearly three standard deviations above the mean on logic and reasoning tests administered in a university psych class I took as an adult a few years ago, and in that same class on another battery of tests I scored well below average on exotic beliefs (UFOs, aliens, ghosts, psychics etc. etc.). I've excelled at a career for 20 years that has required logic, reason, and the ability to organize information and make decisions on it's relevance to a given problem or question instinctively on a daily basis. I've rarely met a conspiracy theory I liked. In short, I am a skeptic. *I* am a skeptic.  Those people are for the most part pseudoskeptics, a word I gratefully learned yesterday that has finally provided a label for the unease and frustration I have felt with the kind of arguments that come out of these individuals and their sympathetic diaspora.

You were so right to point out that the 'perpetual motion' stuff came directly from the Skeptic side. That was something I noted from the beginning.  In fact Hamilton's articles and blog specifically stated that that was not the claim. That didn't stop Skeptics from trumpeting the term over and over just for it's low investment/high return value in classifying you as a crackpot long before any actual evidence was assessed. A regular from SFN who specializes in clever posts (just ask him!) and mind numbing verbosity fired off a breezy, belittling and data free missive to James Randi that manged to call you a liar and a fool without actually saying it outright, and Randi promptly shared it, without fact checking a single thing, via the SWIFT these people get a special thrill up their leg over appearing in. Some other guy named Bob Park published something almost as read-between-the-lines dismissive - a little wee paragraph of nothing really - and it ends up back over at SFN as evidence. Collectively it is at times a big, irresponsible, intellectually lazy, thoughtless, self indulgent echo chamber.

You did the right thing in taking the time to demonstrate to their group, despite the outcome, because your openness and willingness to submit the system to scrutiny is necessary.  The probability that you were ever going to get a fair and balanced assessment of the present state and future potential of your work from the Ottawa Skeptics was always negligible. Maybe nil. I could knit an entire sweater out of the confirmation bias and/or logical fallacies on almost any set of Skeptic collected observations on this matter since I started reading in February. The collective 'you' will continue to be vulnerable to this until you make your data crystal clear and absolutely infallible. This much of their argument cannot and should not be dismissed. If you can do that, it should be done with as little delay as possible.

[LarryC]

POWER OUT = POWER IN - LOSSES

IN TABLE 4 THE LOSSES FROM NO LOAD TO FULL LOAD - HV COIL ENGAGEMENT ARE EXACTLY THE SAME (i.e. 130 WATTS)


3) HV COIL IN SERIES:

POWER OUT = POWER IN - LOSSES
7.7 W = 130 W - 130 W (THE MOTOR IS DISSIPATING THE SAME HEAT @ 130 W)
LOSSES AS HEAT FRICTION ETC. = 130 WATTS
POWER OUT = 7.7 WATTS

WHERE DO THOSE EXTRA 7.7 W COME FROM???

POWER IN IS THE SAME
RPM IS THE SAME?
ALL THE LOSSES ARE THE SAME (HEAT, FRICTION ETC.)

POWER OUT IS NOT THE SAME.

At this point you have so clearly explained the excess power, that even a caveman would understand. Anybody arguing with this excess power should need to present proof otherwise, thru their own testing to be taken seriously.

Larry

[OUman]

POWER OUT = POWER IN - LOSSES

IN TABLE 4 THE LOSSES FROM NO LOAD TO FULL LOAD - HV COIL ENGAGEMENT ARE EXACTLY THE SAME (i.e. 130 WATTS)


3) HV COIL IN SERIES:

POWER OUT = POWER IN - LOSSES
7.7 W = 130 W - 130 W (THE MOTOR IS DISSIPATING THE SAME HEAT @ 130 W)
LOSSES AS HEAT FRICTION ETC. = 130 WATTS
POWER OUT = 7.7 WATTS

WHERE DO THOSE EXTRA 7.7 W COME FROM???

POWER IN IS THE SAME
RPM IS THE SAME?
** ALL THE LOSSES ARE THE SAME (HEAT, FRICTION ETC.) **

POWER OUT IS NOT THE SAME.

At this point you have so clearly explained the excess power, that even a caveman would understand. Anybody arguing with this excess power should need to present proof otherwise, thru their own testing to be taken seriously.

Larry

OK, now we're getting somewhere. The false assumption that's being made is that the amount of heat generated in the system is the same in those two cases. In fact, it's clearly not the same because the coil connections have been changed. In the so-called "no load" condition, 130W of heat is being dissipated in the system (motor + generator), and in the particular "loaded" condition cited, only 122.3W of heat is being generated. That's where the 7.7W comes from. It's not "excess power". No amount of upper-case ranting will change that.

[OUman]

IN ADDITION, GENERATOR EFFICIENCY IS ALWAYS CALCULATED AT THE DRIVE SHAFT SIDE ENTERING THE GENERATOR NOT AT THE PRIME MOVER SIDE BECAUSE A GASOLINE ENGINE AS A PRIME MOVER HAS AN EFFICIENCY OF 20 - 30 %.

SO IF WE LOOK AT THE DRIVE SHAFT POWER = SPEED (RPM) / TORQUE IN THE ABOVE TABLE WE SEE SOME VERY INTERESTING THINGS...
Thane

I agree that's the right way to measure generator efficiency. But you have not measured the torque. You refer to an "above table" - what table is that? I see no table with any torque measurements in it. You have not measured driveshaft power as far as I can see from anything you've posted.