Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[nul-points]

Now, when you put a big wad of copper around the core, and allow it to carry an eddy current (by shorting it, if it's a coil), you provide a low resistance path for a current that can counteract the magnetic field in the core.  Copper is a very good conductor -- a lot closer to superconducting than ferromagnetic materials, so (by Faraday's + Ohm's laws) most of the eddy current will be generated in the copper.  There will be more of it, but certainly no more than is required to cancel the magnetic field in the core, and that is limited, and since copper is a good conductor, the P=IR losses will be relatively low.  There are bound to be many configurations in which shorting the coil will reduce the load on the motor.

MrE

...this may be relevant to your discussion above - Aspden quotes findings of anomalies in eddy-current losses discovered decades ago & apparently not followed-up by mainstream science - unsurprisingly, given the intellectual inertia displayed by the attitude of  'the OUmen' ...say, wasn't that a film about a very scary character? 

Aspden's paper on this subject can be found at:  http://www.energyscience.org.uk/le/le18.htm

here's a little taster:
"I began my Ph.D. research on the eddy current anomaly at Cambridge in 1950 and spent three years on experiments probing all aspects of the problem that I could think of. Some of my tests revealed anomaly factors as high as 6 applicable during parts of the magnetization cycle. By this I mean that calculation of the instantaneous power dissipated as eddy current loss, as determined at different stages in the cycle of magnetization, was only one sixth of the corresponding measure of that form of power loss at that same instant.

Now I say here that I probed all aspects of the problem that I could think of at the time, but I confess, in retrospect, that there was one aspect that I should have thought of but didn't. It never occurred to me that the heat being generated as loss could regenerate itself as electricity in a way which augments the EMFs driving the eddy currents. Had I thought of that possibility, I would in all probability have dismissed it immediately from my mind, because it would have involved challenging the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However, I am, I believe, now a wiser being and I will here redeem myself by surveying the evidence which supports that contention."  H Aspden, 1998


PS alan's visited my thread a few times and i believe he's consistently interested in finding & giving serious consideration to examples of OU phenomena - possible that he may be located in the Netherlands (just a guess on my part)

rock steady, T'eddy
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site  http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc

[LarryC]

@nul-points,


Thanks for your input. Not addressed to me, but yes, I have previously read the Aspden's papers. I do believe the Aspden effect does occur as I have again seen it earlier today with repeated motor testing. But, it is fleeting and hard to prove with all the variables that we are faced with. Besides, the spooks would jump all over it if we brought it up, since they are to chickenshit to do actual testing, they would have no ability to comprehend.

Regards, Larry

[aether22]

Larry, are you sure this is the same subject? I think the eddy current thing is not the same as the motor speed up issue but I could be mistaken. (still you read his papers, I have not)

Anyway I finally decided to 'man up' and just run an experiment, I figured I'd keep true to my list and preform the old mot deceleration experiment first, but the first problem is all of a sudden I can't get a fracking stable motor speed, and then since it's moving anyway it's hard to say but it seems to have little effect, not the acceleration I found yesterday I don't think.

I tried a medium large gap then a 'kinda small gap, I am going to probably create some tools for setting replicable gaps one of these days so i can give a pretty accurate mm reading.

One of the things with my 'larger coil mass reduces lenz law' logic is that the lower the current density the more likely you will get acceleration and therefore the smaller the change in flux over time the less current.

And yet that reasonably disagrees with the observation of the effect.

With the motor speed controller seemingly giving me issues and Larry's joy with the Variac I am seriously thinking of getting one.  hmmm I see one on an nz based auction site, hope I can win it.

[markzpeiverson]

  Aether22 seems to be more disciplined in his experimentation, so now that he's producing results, maybe we'll get it.

Sorry guys and gals, but from what I've seen here, none of you are all that disciplined!  Please don't take this the wrong way, as I am keenly interested in what's going on here, but I feel the reason some of you are getting discouraged/depressed/frustrated is because you aren't methodical.  When dealing with a complex, multi-variable system, rigorous scientific method REQUIRES that the experiments be designed and conducted in such a way that ONLY ONE THING AT A TIME IS CHANGING!  I would guess that at least 5 to 10 variables are being changed between any two sets of experiments that you've done!  No wonder you're feeling frustrated... there are many variables in this system, and the mutual interactions of some or all makes it even more complex; too complex for even the human mind to decipher those interactions.  Thus, you're not able to formulate any definite, repeatable conclusions; "it just doesn't make sense!"

A disciplined, methodical scientific process applied to this phenomenon will be a long and laborious one, but if done right, it should accelerate the process of discovering just what variables are important, and thus how best to optimize for a given effect. 

Just one simple example:

Hypothesis:
  Does the size/length of the core material make a diff?

Procedure:
Do a series of experiments starting out with a 4-inch length core (of whatever material); run at least 4 or 5 reps of the exact same test (whatever that is) making good notes on all monitored variables (Pin, Pout, rpm, accel/decel, etc.) ; cut off 1/4 inch and redo the tests and data logging, doing your best to keep all other things in the system exactly the same, and your test procedure exactly the same, including being so anal as to keep the number of seconds between steps in the test procedure the same; repeat the shortening of core and retesting until you're down to the last .25" of core; do the test, log data, then remove the core completely and run the tests.  Now plot your data... and really learn something.

Repeat this exact same experiment, but with a HC coil, a HV coil, a MOT coil... and there are a sh*tload of variations given that we're talking 20 or more variables in this system.

-Mark

[aether22]

Sorry guys and gals, but from what I've seen here, none of you are all that disciplined!  Please don't take this the wrong way, as I am keenly interested in what's going on here, but I feel the reason some of you are getting discouraged/depressed/frustrated is because you aren't methodical.  When dealing with a complex, multi-variable system, rigorous scientific method REQUIRES that the experiments be designed and conducted in such a way that ONLY ONE THING AT A TIME IS CHANGING!  I would guess that at least 5 to 10 variables are being changed between any two sets of experiments that you've done!  No wonder you're feeling frustrated...

While I'm not disagreeing that I/we could/should be more disciplined (And I am working on it) I only change 1 or 2 variables deliberatly each time, the problem is some are fuzzy such as gap which is currently unmeasured, just eyeballed.
And motor power which currently consists of turning a potentiometer nob where the only indication of hitting the same value is hitting the same speed which is almost impossible.

Furthermore there are changes that happen from experiment to experiment, even when Thane handed his machine to some engineers they complained that there were variations they could not remove and some of this may be due to aetheric variations such as the 'Aspden effect'.

On a related issue I do intend on keeping better records of experiments than I have been.

there are many variables in this system, and the mutual interactions of some or all makes it even more complex; too complex for even the human mind to decipher those interactions.  Thus, you're not able to formulate any definite, repeatable conclusions; "it just doesn't make sense!"

No, between getting deceleration with the 'old mot' and and acceleration yesterday I had changed only 3 variables (the triac setting variable is not very notable) the gap (not deliberately) and I had taken the other twin HC coil off and wound an 11 turn one on the other side (either way open circuit and hence likely inert) and I had flipped the copper HC coil over so the contacts were more accessible, I believe that's all.

But I have a hard time imagining that the absence of the other HC coil or the presence of the new one will make a bit deal.

Never the less you have encouraged me to keep a closer track of everything.