Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[aether22]

sorry, I had missed that one... I get .15 amps on the meter, surprisingly (to me) that stays the same
at the increasing RPM as it winds up to speed and also shows .15 A on a 10 ohm load... not surprising
the volts are only 1.3 volts AC at this 10 ohm load....

Yes the HV coils are next to the magnets

Ron

Whoops, I realize I need another 2 figures for my calculations, HC volts open circuit (please state if it's series or individual) and HC amps short circuit.

I thought you provided these but I had not noticed the load.

Never the less an incomplete.15A

HC load reading is 2.07 volts at .37 amps (same 5 ohm load)
HV open 637 volts, HV short .15A

Normally I would divide the HV voltage by the HC voltage, but we don't have HC voltage in open circuit, let propose it is 1/20th of the HV voltage or 31v, that is generous looking compared to the 2.07 voltage above (not sure it that is HC coils in series or not) and will hurt the relative energy producing ability of the HV coils and hence I am being generous with the opposition.

So if we now multiply the HV current by 20 times we get 3 amps, that's more ampere turns and more energy than the HC coils. (a greater MMF)

Let's say we go from the other direction, we will use the current to figure out the voltage, we will assume that the HC amps is 10 times higher than stated if shorted rather than through a 5 ohm load, so 3.7A .vs .15A, that's an HC current that is 24.7 times higher, and so the HC voltage would need to be 25V in open circuit to have as many ampere turns, that is over 10 times the voltage measured with a 5 ohm load.

Finally let's base it on an estimation of the turns and flux coupling ratio figure out what would be needed for them to have the same ampere turns, let's say the transformer produces 2,000 VAC when used as intended and when fed with 110v, that would require an 18 to 1 turn ratio, now let's also assume the HV coils have a 25% better flux coupling with the HC coil, so for every volt in the HC coil we have 21.6 volts in the HV coil and for every turns in the HC coil we have 18 in the HV.

So taking these still generous figures if we have an OC voltage of 637 in the HV then the HC would be 29v (both in series).
To have the same ampere turns is each we would need 3.25 amps in the HC coils but for the same energy we would only need only 2.7 amps I believe.

And in just the figures above we see that with the same or even double the load the HV coils produce only half the current of the HC coils but their higher voltage means that unless the acceleration effect is highly non linear with current there is far more energy from the HV coils as you could increase the resistance a fair bit while having little effect on the current, remember Thane has used coils with many hundreds of ohms and the acceleration effect has still worked.

.15A at 637v requires 4246 ohms so adding even a hundred ohms or more should not kill the acceleration effect but it will raise the voltage across the load to useful levels.

Although it is possible that even if the effect is highly non linear with current that a step down transformer may change the equation possibly and allow energy to be used while acceleration is generated.

So in short from my own figures it seems that the HV are not far from producing the same energy, the same ampere turns as the HC coil.
And from Ron's figures even if I boost the HC coils voltage and current reading a lot (so they conform to open and short circuit values) they still come in at most around the level of the HV coils but most probably have far fewer ampere turns, less energy induced into them.

In other words the evidence is that HC coils are only of use to show an important feature of the effect that differentiates it from other artifacts but is not useful in a generator utilizing this effect as the HV coils are more that effective at producing just as much energy if otherwise given equal access to the flux, and naturally loads suited for higher voltages and lower currents.

I will also add that the HV coils can give a quite nasty shock and they should be treated as potentially lethal, I could feel the current!

[OUman]

There is and must be a brake in the shaft and while I don't know if it is steel to steel with a sub millimeter gap or 2 or something more serious I know it is there.

You mean "break", I assume, not "brake". And, no, there is NOT a break in the shaft, nor does here need to be. The way they work is with a strain gauge built into the shaft.

I suspect that besides the possibility of the sensor attenuating the transmission of aether that it is likely to be a bit too costly.

Well, if a 2-foot-long PVC pipe can't stop it, then I don't think a little torque sensor will stop it, will it? As for cost, that seems to be kind of nickel-and-diming it since the implications of proving out this technology are so enormous.

I would also say I disagree with Thane, motor current is only a good indicator of motor torque if you know the RPM and every other factor relating to efficiency.

You're right about that - you can always tell when Thane gets into a rant that he's blowing smoke to avoid measuring things that might give an unambiguous measure of the performance of this thing.

[aether22]

You mean "break", I assume, not "brake"

er, yes.

And, no, there is NOT a break in the shaft, nor does here need to be. The way they work is with a strain gauge built into the shaft.

Maybe we are defining break differently, I may have slipped up in typing the right work but I think maybe you are slipping up in seeing one. (I don't mean a gap necessarily)
I will admit though my complaint is partly over cautious bollocks but I am not aware of any way anyone can measure strain of steel as if it were quartz.

The images of one I found online used rubber and holes which are in varying degrees of alignment depending on torque
But I will look harder at the links you sent to see if any can measure the strain on a meal shaft without interrupting it.

Well, if a 2-foot-long PVC pipe can't stop it,

Well I am sure 20 ft can't interrupt it if the pressure is high enough (and it might be that 2 inches or 20 feet make little difference) but Thane also showed that an inch or 2 can stop it if the pressure is lower.
Of course when I try the isolation test it may fail if laminations create a higher pressure effect that normal steel.  If that happens and if the surrogate tests don't work I may try running it with a belt and is that fails I will get a torque sensor.

Plus I may be able to significantly improve on the deceleration tests with my new setup, who knows.

then I don't think a little torque sensor will stop it, will it? As for cost, that seems to be kind of nickel-and-diming it since the implications of proving out this technology are so enormous.

Yeah, well I'm broke.
Mainly because if I tried to have a day job and a life I really couldn't devote my life to this, think 'starving artist' minus the possibility of selling your work, well to anyone who won't suppress it.

But hey if to you that's nickle and dime stuff...

You're right about that - you can always tell when Thane gets into a rant that he's blowing smoke to avoid measuring things that might give an unambiguous measure of the performance of this thing.

having you agree with my makes me feel all dirty, I need a shower. (Or maybe that was not having one yesterday)

[i_ron]

Whoops, I realize I need another 2 figures for my calculations, HC volts open circuit (please state if it's series or individual) and HC amps short circuit.

I thought you provided these but I had not noticed the load.

Funny thing, when I do the quote on this post It shows up as a long post?

Anyway I see there is lots of room for error in my numbers... as you are quoting me verbatim and
I was giving one set of numbers for full speed and another set for a partial speed test.

So to clarify for the full speed test...

The coils are in series

There are two magnets in each station, in home made cups. The depth of the cup is 3/16th of
an inch. There is a full height plastic sleeve over the OD of the magnets. The steel cup does not
touch the OD of the magnet.

Full speed is 36000 rpm (120 volts, 60 Hz)

HV open voltage is 790 volts AC

HV short amps is .15

HV 10 ohm load amps is .15 @ 1.whatever volts it was?

HC open voltage is 5.56 volts AC

Better?

And as stated, these dismal numbers are the result of the full height mot cores where the magnet
is .785 square inches and the core area is 2.734 square inches. As a rule of thumb I think the
core area should only be the same as, or less than, the magnet area. Thane seems to on the right track with cutting his mot cores down to half and now even less...

Ron

[aether22]

Funny thing, when I do the quote on this post It shows up as a long post?

Because I had just edited it prattling on and on and on....   As I am now doing with this one.

Anyway I see there is lots of room for error in my numbers... as you are quoting me verbatim and
I was giving one set of numbers for full speed and another set for a partial speed test.

So to clarify for the full speed test...

The coils are in series

There are two magnets in each station, in home made cups. The depth of the cup is 3/16th of
an inch. There is a full height plastic sleeve over the OD of the magnets. The steel cup does not
touch the OD of the magnet.

Full speed is 3,600 rpm (120 volts, 60 Hz)  <corrected your speed

HV open voltage is 790 volts AC

HV short amps is .15

HV 10 ohm load amps is .15 @ 1.whatever volts it was?

HC open voltage is 5.56 volts AC

Better?

I would still need the HC short circuit current to do justice to the calculations.

Never the less with 142! times more voltage from the HV coils you need only a 142nd of the current that flows in the HC coils to equal the same energy, that would mean a current of 21.3A from the primary coils if the energy was the same.

For Thane to be wise in using HC coils then there would need to be 4 times more energy from them at least (or real issues in using the HV energy which so far seems not to be the case).
Instead with popper placement we see there is probably far more energy from the HV coils.

And it accelerates which means you use up less energy to run the motor rather than more with the HC coils, and you are then getting more voltage due to the faster rotation so even more voltage and current.

Even if the HV coils had half the energy output it would be better to have 2 HV coils and use energy from both of them than have a shorted HV coil and a loaded HC coil slowing it down because with the 2 HV coils you have more output than with the single HC coil due to the increased RPM and you can also 'add on' an additional number of watts saving from the input side to make HV coils the clear winners.

The HV coils would need to produce less that 1/3rd the energy, say 1/4 or less before HC coils might be a good idea, and unless I am mistaken Thane has not sufficiently explored pulling energy from the HV coils.

If I am wrong the voltage and current figures are not backing that up, if I am wrong then the electrical formulas are not backing that up, if I am wrong then the logic is not backing that up.
If I am wrong and I may well be then there would need to be something unknown and unpredictable going on.

I may be wrong but I see no evidence indicating I am, I won't harp on about this (other than to do a final workup with Ron's figures) but I strongly encourage Thane to do some tests with current and voltage of his HV and HC coils, and put loads suited to the various characteristics.
Otherwise eventually I will prove it but my current setup is not awfully well suited to doing so.

Basically dividing the HC short circuit current by the HV short circuit current and then multiply the HC load's resistance by that figure and use that for the HV coils load, measure the current through each load and the voltage across each load, take the voltage and amperage and multiply them, compare the 2, if the coils are on the same core the one closest to the rotor will have a higher wattage.