Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[innovation_station]

 

CONGRATS VINCE!!




do make a video!!


ist

[aether22]

BTW - It does not help you case to say in one breath that he has both evidenced a more efficient motor, and that he cannot evidence it due to inherent inefficiencies in his setup...

It is not my fault you can not grasp a simple sentence.
He can evidence it just fine and has, but only if you count the losses.
If you count only the output of the coils you will have a harder time because the losses are likely larger.

These losses are required because otherwise it would be going at full speed before shorting and there would be nothing to demo.

Is it really that hard to understand that the losses the slowed the generator down in demo 1 are the same losses that are present in demo 2 only in demo 2 they must be greater due to the higher speed.

And therefore the only answer is the motor is now more efficient.

IF that is not the case then the only other vaguely sane way is to assume that by having an all magnetic connection to the motor, the generator became hugely more efficient (due to receiving what? from various motor types) which would make it the reverse but really just as interesting a claim. (that is however less likely as it requires many different motor types to create a mysterious energy to travel through the shaft which effects only this one type of generator since it is known not to happen normally when a motor and gen are connected together)

The only way to test the idea you are proposing is to measure the torque between the motor and generator, if it shows the torque to be greater when at an identical speed (and current) with Thanes gen than with a mechanical load that means the motor is outputting more energy for a certain speed/current.

Comparing the mechanical to the electrical output of Thanes coils is unfair since in reality the weaker the electric current the more pronounced the effect (since Lenz Law is holding up in reality) and Thane has designed it to show off the effect not the electrical output.

I am quite done explaining to anyone why a mechanical load compared to the electrical output is a bad idea.

[ramset]

AETHER22  please don't confuse them with the facts their minds already made up  . also I agree  Thane is working with this thread [vince] and I tremendously commend that  ,Chet

[jacksatan]

I guess if you're blue and PolarBreeze is black, I'll be red...
I'm in blue once again, polar in black

1. "Torque energy" is a meaningless term. Torque is torque; energy is energy.


It is pretty clear what I mean, let's consult Wikipedia:
If a force is allowed to act through a distance, it is doing mechanical work. Similarly, if torque is allowed to act through a rotational distance, it is doing work.

And work is energy.

Now I am to either assume that you are an idiot, or a c#^t.
You either do not understand that energy can be conveyed through applying torque to a shaft or you are playing some word game in some lame (and IMO failed) attempt at one oneupmanship and making an argument in preference to truth or science.

Your being a little disingenuous here - you cut off the omnipotent Wikipedia mid-statement. The actual text is "If a force is allowed to act through a distance, it is doing mechanical work. Similarly, if torque is allowed to act through a rotational distance, it is doing work. Power is the work per unit time." So once again, achieving higher torque is wonderful, but does not do much mankind - achieving greater Power could change the world...

2. "Load it mechanically" - yes, of course, that's what I'm suggesting! A motor is no good unless it can provide mechanical output so the only proper way to test it is with a mechanical load.

You did not mention any mechanical load, you said "no drag on the system, either mechanical or electrical", now I was not sure at the time but now it's clear that you simply omitted mentioning applying some other load which does drag the motor.
So we're clear on this point?

3. "built with extra losses to slow it down" - so what on earth benefit is that? Loss means wasted energy.

This is what you do not understand, Thane did not call it a Free Energy device, the name he gave it is a reverse action device and he has tuned it to make this effect most readily apparent to make a good demo.
And he is very wise in having done so and very likely by studying the physics involved in it's operation it can progress with less negative attention and contribute far far more than just another FE device to be dismantled and ignored. (and not understood)
Yes Free Energy is clearly Thanes goal, but Free Energy is not quite what this device was designed to create, rather to identify and demo an anomaly which can be used for Free Energy in a more efficient device when better understood. (If it had no core losses it would be running at max speed when not shorted already, that would not make a good demo!)
Clearly Thane has not been concerned with making it efficient yet.
But with all due respect, if we are in agreement that this device does NOT produce greater efficiency than the standard motor, why in the name of everything that is holy is there so much talk about its spectacular voltage?!? There are stun guns out there that run off of a AA battery that can produce 50,000 Volts... shocking isn't it?

4. Thane's test is NOT anywhere close to what I'm proposing because he does not provide an external mechanical load on which to measure the power output.

It has an electrical load that places a mechanical drag.
If you argue that this is not as good as your test then you would have to claim that either: Energy is going missing in the first demo, it is not being wasted as hysteresis, eddy currents, or mechanical vibration but is disappearing and this is not occurring in the second demo.
OR you would need to hold that in the second demo somehow adding the piece os steel has dramatically reduced losses in the generator. (although that would it's self be useful)

Otherwise the generator is an equal or in fact due to the higher speed a greater load in the second demo.

If you have 100 watts usage (through the intended coil induction as well as core losses) in the first demo then tell me how you could possibly have less in the second, and if there is less in the second how would that not be an achievement anyway?

You are utterly missing the point, you have no interest in physics, all you want to do is find the most impractical test to show the device does not work.
Yes, there may be an expected electrical drag, but does that reduce output or not??? if it reduces output, you haven't shown me anything that I haven't seen before, if it increases output, PLEASE SHOW ME HOW MUCH!!! Simply saying "Look it spins fast" does not tell how much energy is being provided. We are all very interested in this phenomenon or we would not be wasting our time writing about it. There is no one on this board who would not be tickled pink if OU were proven a reality, but a simple mechanical test will tell us if there is anything to talk about, or if we should go find something else to occupy our time...

WHAT YOU CAN NOT EXPLAIN IS HOW A TINY PIECE OF STEEL ADDED TO THE SHAFT CAN CHANGE IT FROM A DEAD STOP TO OUT OF CONTROL ACCELERATION WHILE REDUCING INPUT!

I don't have to, you did it for me above - all those comments about hysteresis and eddy currents and what not... but more importantly, though it would be very interesting to replace the electric starter on my car a magnet induced "out of controll" accelerator, I don't think that is what we are looking to accomplish, is it?

Suggesting entirely impractical tests that are sure/likely to fail with the current design does not sound helpful to me, you also seem to be assuming that a generator can turn rotational (torque) energy into electrical energy at 100% efficiency, far from it and with a home made generator even further.
If you put 100W into the motor, while pulling 80W on a mechanical load, if you selected a normal electrical generator to provide an 80W mechanical loading it might be 64W electrical output assuming an 80% efficient generator.

Since Thane has huge hysteresis losses due to solid core coils and inefficient pickup coils it would likely require a redesign.

I'd rather not waste my time replying to this nonsense, I don't think you want to get the point of this.

No one suggested this test to fail - nor am I certain that it will fail (though chances are it will). The purpose of the test is to see just how efficient the motor is... does this motor have any commercial value??? If Thane can show an increase in motor efficiency - not even mentioning OU - there would be a line of financiers out the door looking to license the technology for everything from nuclear powerplant generators to ceiling fans... so why not run the simple test???

[OilBarren]

I have mounted the coils on a plastic ring. I gave it a quick test.  I don't know for sure but  I was measuring  .5 volts on one open coil with 5 shorted coils and it did not do anything.  I increased the speed so that it started making 1 volt on that coil and guess what! it took off and started to speed up and went to 3 volts, with no added power.  This is just preliminary.  May be I'm seeing things .  Going to have to test this further. Was this the threshold speed you talk about?
Vince

WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY "I INCREASED THE SPEED" ?
MAY I RECOMMEND THAT YOU START OUT WITH ALL COILS OPEN - MAKE SURE YOUR 1 VOLT COIL IS AT 1 VOLT (AND NOT ACCELERATING - SHOULD BE A STEADY STATE SPEED) - AND THEN SHORT OUT THE OTHER COILS - DO NOT TOUCH THE INPUT - IT SHOULD EITHER DECELERATE OR ACCELERATE? LET'S SEE... WE ALL HAVE OUR FINGERS CROSSED FOR YOU VINCE!

Thane