Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[Heinstein]

NASA - Invite revoked.  Or potentially fictional?  I didn't see any NASA letter posted - you seem to have no problem posting personal effects from other institutions like MIT professors, why would you discriminate against NASA?  No scanner handy?

OK I CAN SEE THAT YOU ARE A CRUSTY OLD FART HERE TO STIR UP THE POT AND CAUSE CONFLICT AND TENSION IN THIS REASONABLY CIVIL AND RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION - FINE I WON'T BE PLAYING ALONG THOUGH.

CHERRIOS
Thane

[Heinstein]

@MainePower
You should understand that all these so called "credible" persons and institutions have no intention of pursuing this technology, there supposed interest is nothing more than PR for the general public. There only interest in reality is two words---- job protection 

THERE ARE GOOD AND BAD PEOPLE EVERY WHERE JUST AS THERE ARE GOOD AND BAD SCIENTISTS AND TEACHERS ETC.

IF THIS FORUM IS GOING TO TURN INTO COWARDLY VENUE FOR TAKING POT SHOTS AT REAL PEOPLE'S CREDIBILITY (I KNOW HOW IT FEELS ) WHO DON'T HIDE BEHIND ANONYMOUS NICKNAMES THEN FINE - I BID YOU ALL ADIEU.

Thane

[PulsedPower]

With the speculation about Academics like Dr Zahn I thought it might be good to explain a bit about how things work in academic circles. Reporters and academia are not a good mix early in research, Reporters are trying to get a story, while academics usually avoid a story until the research is concluded because if they make a mistake which is easy at the beginning of research, there will be plenty of people who will pick up on it.  Check out how cautious the Gravity Probe B researchers are http://einstein.stanford.edu/http://einstein.stanford.edu/

Some people took Dr Zahns comments earlier to be negative, I took them to be constructive, the point of research is to get a good idea of the the topic being researched then explore theories. Dr Zahn's mail was just cautions with suggestions on what to explore. The best way to shut up naysayers is to explore their assertions and if possible eliminate them from consideration.

While there is politics in science like everywhere and preserving ones position in a given field is undoubtably the motivation from time to time, the scrutiny that Thane is getting is nothing compared to what a work like this published for peer review would get and nobody likes to look the fool. It is the process of critical review which makes academic work reliable, compared to say government reports The motivations of the criticisers is irrelevant the substance of the criticisms is what counts, pay attention to the substantive criticisms and devise an experimental method to prove or disprove them. Ignore insubstantive criticisms entirely.

I hope this gives you some encouragement Thane and others.

[innovation_station]

i drew up 1 more picture for you all .......

Thane  put your dubble ended grinder where my turbine is lol


ist

for those of you who have not seen my turbine here is the you tube link   

it just kinda fit lol   

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Erf7Fn--324

[aether22]

OK, so let's recap what we have here and see just what we can figure out about the effect shown in the first 2 videos.

For some reason when a complete magnetic circuit exists between motor and generator the drag previously felt from shorting the coils turns into a push.

This means that either the motor is effecting the generator to create far less drag or the generator is effecting the motor to make it more powerful on less power input. (or both?)

Because of a later test where a far more powerful magnetic field has what seems to be a vanishingly smaller effect on a motor it is assumed that the magnetic field from the generator is effecting the motor, but while the magnetic field from neodymium magnets is very dense, generally quoted at about 10,000 Gauss at the face of the magnet the field measured from the shaft is about 25 Gauss, only a few time stronger than the earths magnetic field.

So why don't we just say that motor enhancement is the preferred theory but not state it as absolute fact yet, and the  assumption that a simple super weak magnetic field alone can have such a dramatic effect seems unlikely to be true considering the far far stronger fields already inside the motor.

Those who are familiar with 'cold current' and other names for unconventional electrical like currents flowing through wires and creating unusual fields generated in generators much like this one might consider that the real key to the effect.

So assuming motor enhancement is the key, and for now ignoring how the effect happens why don't we try to identify 'what' happens in the motor.

How can the force a motor outputs be increased?

One would be to make more current flow which would create a stronger magnetic field and hence increase the force, but we know that isn't happening since the current decreases.

Another might be to reduce inefficiencies, especially reduce loss due to hysteresis so more power goes into driving the motor.

Another might be to increase the permeability of the of the steel or the air gap to create a stronger magnetic circuit, to pull more of the stator field into the rotor, this would also increase the inductance of the motor. (this would have the added effect of reducing a DC motors top unloaded speed for the rated voltage input, though DC motors have not yet been tested)  note: If this effect could somehow make make a motor overunity I think depends on precisely how the magnetic field of which (stator or rotor) is made stronger by what means, and it can depend on the type of motor, a DC motor would seem like the least likely to become OU by my estimation.

Reversing Lenz Law in the motor probably would not have the effect witnessed unless combined with increasing inductance because otherwise the motor would become a generator pushing even more power through it's self, though it would not be using energy the amps would go up without an increased inductance to hold it back.

I do not believe there is any other way by manipulating the forces and effects in an electric motor to gain higher torque with less current input, but if you disagree speak up, I suppose I could have included the possibility of reducing eddy current losses?

So really we have only 2 ways this could seemingly be occurring short of something entirely new powering the electric motor, it is either a reduction in hysteresis (resistance of a magnetic material to changing it's magnetic orientation) or an increase in permeability.

The first test that might be tried could be to take an electric motor, preferably a universal motor powered by AC, limit the current so that it will not exceed it's maximum rating and without letting it rotate measure it's torque, then measure it when being fed back emf from a generator, if it works when it's rotating (and it does according to thanes test with the drill) it ought to work when it's not.  Then try it on DC, if it still works being fed DC then you can rule hysteresis out as a sole effect though it might well be worth seeing if the back-emf flux has an effect on hysteresis.

If that is successful then we can put motors aside and try static configurations of electromagnets, measure the force increase!
Even if it only increases on AC it does not mean that the effect is due to hysteresis or solely due to hysteresis.

As previously mentioned there is a vanishingly small a difference between a transformer and motor from the coils point of view, though it might be required to have air gaps in the core as transformers have it seems probable they would be effected too.
And if this effect can be overunity it might be a good idea to start with something already so close to unity.

Another test would be to apply the flux to the ferrite loop of an analog AM radio, see if it improves thr pull of otherwise hard to head stations.

I have not yet considered how it could work if the motor is effecting the generator, it might be best to rule out this possibility with an experiment first so hopefully it won't require analysis.