Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[OilBarren]

Thane, one thing I wondered about was the fact that we do expect an induction motor going faster to use less power, and the motor was going slightly faster with the HV coils alone

. 
JM, IF YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE (LARGE) TABLE - THE HV COILS WERE NEVER "ALONE".
THEY WERE ALWAYS EMPLOYED TO COMPENSATE FOR THE HC COILS LOAD INDUCED DECELERATION.
THE HC COILS WERE SUPPLYING THE LOAD IN EVERY TEST.

IN THE SPLIT PHASE MOTOR TEST (SMALL TABLE) THE HV COILS WERE "ALONE" AND YES THE SPEED WAS SLIGHTLY FASTER - THE QUESTION AND THE REALITY IS - WHY DO LOADED COILS CAUSE THE SYSTEM SPEED TO INCREASE WHEN EVERY PHYSICS TEXT BOOK SAYS LOADED COILS CAUSE THE PRIME MOVER TO DECELERATE?

(I think it's really cool that I've learned these new bits of things all because of this!) While it seems unlikely this would account for the entire difference, it does create some muddiness.  What do you think about hoptoad's suggestion about the DC motor for these specific high speed tests? What might that tell us that we don't already know now?

A DC MOTOR WON'T PRODUCE ANY BETTER OR MORE TELLING RESULTS THAN THE HIGH SPEED TESTS IN THE "LARGE" TABLE. THE PARADIGM IS SIMPLE - TAKE 10 WATTS OF POWER OUT AND THE POWER BALANCE EQUATION SAYS THAT AN ADDITIONAL 10 WATTS MUST GO BACK IN  UNLESS OF COURSE YOU UPSET THAT BALANCE WITH HV COILS.

Thane

[OilBarren]

"Still, an impressive number compared to the views on other threads."
OUman

THIS IS THE HARSHEST, MEANEST, NASTIEST THING ANYONE HAS EVER SAID TO ME EVER!!!
HOW WILL I EVER GO ON???

OH, LOOK WE HAVE BEER.

CHEERIOS
Thane

[OUman]

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.

What kind of backwards logic is that? What part of POWER IN IS THE SAME,
RPM IS THE SAME do you not understand?

There is no part of that which I do not understand. In fact, I agree with it and if you refer back to my post you will find that this was not the part that I was taking issue with.

The input from the grid is still 130W

Yes.

...to allow the motor to turn it's PHYSICAL LOAD  (rotor) at the same RPM.

Yes, although you're still having trouble understanding what the word "load" actually means to an engineer or scientist.

Same heat, smeat, whatever.

NO. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the heat generated in the generator coils is the same in both cases because the loading of the coils was changed. It's a completely unsubstantiated assumption. 

If it were possible to feed the 7.7W back to the grid. Then the utility company would only charge us for 122.3W while using 130W. Whoa 8)  Now you're generating 130W of heat using 122.3W.

OK, so little Jimmy buys 130 oranges from the market in Almonte. They cost a dollar each so he's paid, let's see, $130 for them. He then re-sells 7.7 of these oranges to a restaurant in Renfrew for the same price (he's not a capitalist). So he recoups $7.70 . He calls Larry to have him calculate how much money he's now paid for his 130 oranges. "Whoa " says Larry - you paid only $122.30 for 130 oranges.

Must be the new math, I guess

This point cannot be made any simpler.

You got that right!

[OUman]

I think what I mostly don't understand with you is that you seem to be operating from the assumption that no matter what the explanation for this is, it will have no application or benefit. That seems both unreasonably pessimistic and premature.

JM, you seem to be making an unsubstantiated assumption about the assumption I'm operating from 

[adlep]

OK, so little Jimmy buys 130 oranges from the market in Almonte. They cost a dollar each so he's paid, let's see, $130 for them. He then re-sells 7.7 of these oranges to a restaurant in Renfrew for the same price (he's not a capitalist). So he recoups $7.70 . He calls Larry to have him calculate how much money he's now paid for his 130 oranges. "Whoa " says Larry - you paid only $122.30 for 130 oranges.

Must be the new math, I guess

So you have just killed your own point.

If he paid $122.30 for 130 oranges that are selling for $1.00 a piece, then it is very good, because he got $7.70 of FREE money somehow
No?
2nd grade math?