Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[aether22]

What "reasons" are they? I can see, as yet, no reason anywhere in this thread to consider there is OU here. I don't know about PB but as far as I'm concerned, there's no reason to be answered. If I've missed something though, please tell me what it is.

Acceleration beyond the speed of no stators present. (it can't be a reduction of core loss braking when there is no core loss braking in the comparison)   look at reply #2366 above to get the figures

Acceleration dependent on path to motor and stator number. (A steel shaft is required, unless many coils are used at which point non magnetic materials are Ok)

A measured increase in torque on the motor casing. (this can only occur if the motor outputs more torque, if the effect was at the generator the torque would tend to drop)

All of these have been well enough tested to be substantial proof that the effect is not at the generator and can be a net gain not just a reduction of losses at the generator. It is also worth noting that another test someone preformed found acceleration on approach of a laminated core to the generator which is also at odds with any braking based theory)

Also the use of closed circuit laminated cores removes removes almost any possibility of a braking based theory since such cores have exceptionally low losses. (as demonstrated by a 1 rpm acceleration when thane had the cores facing in the first mentioned test above)

Also the magnitude of the effect is outgrowing any explanation based on a reduction of braking.

And braking would assume that any 2 shorted coils are much the same, but it has been shown that the effect generally requires HV coils where HC coils act as a brake despite creating a stronger counter MMF. (the counter MMF is what reduces the rotor flux in the stator, the HC coils cause a greater reduction in core braking to whatever extent it is present and yet it slows the rotor to a dead stop)

You have the Nick OUman, may I ask then since you apparently believe in OU/FE what experiments you have done? Devices that you believe are genuine and work? Can you point us to email lists or message boards where you have been a proponent of a Free Energy device?

And why when there is so much evidence for this being OU why you would discard that and choose to oppose it.

you said: "I am very open to change it, though, if new evidence is brought forward. That's why I'm sticking around."

Finally if all you want to do is sit quietly and wait for the evidence rather than disrupt this thread, then why are you doing the latter and not the former?

[CRANKYpants]

15 amps, sounds awesome, 90 Amps, Whoa!
What voltage though? (with that we can calc energy, even 5v would be 450w)

I would note that just because one HV and HC coil combo might not decelerate the rotor does not mean that 2 or 6 will have the same effect, could be better or worse.

RIGHT NOW I AM ONLY SHORTING THE HC COILS TO CREATE MAXIMUM DECELERATION (WORST CASE SCENARIO) AND COMPENSATING THIS WITH A SHORTED HV COIL.

I ACCOMPLISHED THIS TODAY WITH 1 HV COIL TO 1 HC COIL - 2.5 AMPS w/ ACCELERATION.

EACH ADDITIONAL COIL I MAKE HAS TO MEET THIS REQUIREMENT AND IT HAS TO HOLD UP UNTIL ALL THE COILS ARE SET IN PLACE - HC ON ONE SIDE OF THE ROTOR AND HV ON THE OTHER - EACH COIL WILL WORK AS I HAVE DONE THIS BEFORE WITH THE IRON CORES AND I NOW HAVE THE LAMINATED CORES SORTED OUT NICELY.

THE COILS WILL EITHER BE MAGNETICALLY COUPLED IN PAIRS OR ALL TOGETHER - WHICH EVER WORKS BEST.

I AM TOYING WITH THE IDEA OF MAKING MY ROTOR WORK LIKE A FLYWHEEL AND USE MY DC MOTOR AS THE REGENERATIVE BRAKE AND ALLOW MY ROTOR TO FREEWHEEL AND CONTINUE CHARGING WHILE SITTING AT THE "TRAFFIC LIGHT".

Thane

[aether22]

I AM TOYING WITH THE IDEA OF MAKING MY ROTOR WORK LIKE A FLYWHEEL AND USE MY DC MOTOR AS THE REGENERATIVE BRAKE AND ALLOW MY ROTOR TO FREEWHEEL AND CONTINUE CHARGING WHILE SITTING AT THE "TRAFFIC LIGHT".

Thane

I think that's a great idea.
Obviously you can't just accelerate back up to speed by re-engauging the motor so you would need gears and a clutch, and that would allow you to operate the motor at a constant maximally efficient speed and just use gears to build up speed and the DC motor for regenerative braking.

note: But I know stuff all about cars so i can't begin to guess just how doing gears and clutch for such a situation would work, unless the gears were infinitely variable. (such gear do exist but no idea how practical they are for vehicles)

[CRANKYpants]

I think that's a great idea.
Obviously you can't just accelerate back up to speed by re-engauging the motor so you would need gears and a clutch, and that would allow you to operate the motor at a constant maximally efficient speed and just use gears to build up speed and the DC motor for regenerative braking.

note: But I know stuff all about cars so i can't begin to guess just how doing gears and clutch for such a situation would work, unless the gears were infinitely variable. (such gear do exist but no idea how practical they are for vehicles)

I AM GOING TO MONITOR THE ROTOR RPM AND THE MOTOR RPM ON A COUPLE OF DIGITAL TACHS ON THE DASHBOARD - THERE WILL BE A BELT ON THE MOTOR WHICH I WILL MANUALLY ENGAGE THE ROTOR WITH A LEVER WHEN THE TACH #'S ARE CLOSE ENOUGH NOT TO BURN MY BELT.

GET THE TIMING RIGHT AND I WON'T EVEN NOTICE THE TRANSITION.

Thane

[OUman]

OK, great, so there are then three pieces of evidence suggestive of OU potential:

1. Acceleration beyond the speed of no stators present. (per reply #2366 for the figures)

2. Acceleration dependent on path to motor and stator number. (steel shaft versus other)

3. A measured increase in torque on the motor casing. (can only occur if the motor outputs more torque)

Experiments need to be designed to build on this evidence and fully characterize each of those effects. Personally I think the most promising ones are #1 and #3, especially as there seems to be some dispute about that whole feedback-down-the-shaft thing.

...why when there is so much evidence for this being OU why you would discard that and choose to oppose it.

you said: "I am very open to change it, though, if new evidence is brought forward. That's why I'm sticking around."

Finally if all you want to do is sit quietly and wait for the evidence rather than disrupt this thread, then why are you doing the latter and not the former?

I think the evidence you quoted, and that I listed above, is only suggestive, not probative. But it's a good starting point and I can tell you for sure that if any one of those three points were to be expanded with some really convincing characterization data - with defensible experimental method and with measuring equipment that is sufficiently accurate and properly calibrated - then the world will beat a path to Thane's door.

I'm doing what you call "the latter" rather than "the former" because if progress is to be made, I think somebody needs to be raising these points.