Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[derricka]

Dear All,

Please find enclosed photo-data for the new E CORE orientation that I tested today.

Compared to the previous "I" - Modified - E Cores we have saved close to 100 input wattsand our chances for success have increased 100%.

This is due to reducing eddy current lossed in the core. I am sorry I didn't do this earlier - but better late than never. 

So now we should be at "system" over-unity with 4 HC coils producing only 26 watts/coil which I have already been able to produce - in fact I expect close to 50 or more watts/coil due to more efficient flux transfer.   

I will also be employing 4 of the High Torque HV coils as insurance.

Again, sorry for the delay.

Cheers
Thane

Kudo's for showing us your latest coil improvements.  I can't wait to see your next YouTube demonstration.  You are certainly correct in identifying more efficent flux transfer as a means of getting more power. Even 1mm can make a huge difference.  Not sure what kind of a rotor gap you are running now, but there are some tricks you can use, like swapping your rotor with a sanding disk to equalize the core faces, or using a mixture of ferrite powder and molten beeswax to build up the face of a shy core. Of course, for tighter tolerances, your test rig frame will also need to be as rigid as possible, and the rotor balanced for minimum wobble.

As for use of the word "overunity", fine in this forum, but the bigger your claims get, the more vicious your critics will become, even here.  The second law of thermodynamics is heavily defended in most university physics departments. To win the hearts of academics, openness, and transparency are paramount. Make the best measurements you can, and use the best lab grade meters you can reasonably get.  (Physicists aren't impressed by power measurements from department store grade DVM's, especially, when taken through a rat's nest of alligator clips). Your meters are better quality industrial grade, but research lab grade (like Clarke-Hess) would be better still. Putting a decent torque sensor on the rotor shaft, would also reinforce your measurement data, and set some constraints, to where power is going.  Anyway, nuff said.  Keep up the great work!

[hoptoad]

Not sure what kind of a rotor gap you are running now, but there are some tricks you can use, like swapping your rotor with a sanding disk to equalize the core faces, or using a mixture of ferrite powder and molten beeswax to build up the face of a shy core.

Sanding or grinding the core faces flush may seem like a good idea, but the burring on the edges of each plate on the cores will defeat the purpose of using laminations in the first place. The burring provides an electrical path between plates and will increase eddy currents.

When a lamination plate is cut, shaped or drilled, care needs to be taken to remove all edge burrs, and a small amount of laquer needs to be applied to any freshly cut or exposed surfaces, and allowed to dry.

It would be better if all plates are neatly aligned at the face ends to start with, and the integrity of the insulation coating of each lamination plate is maintained.

You can tell a cheap power transformer just by looking at the way any mount bracket points are created. If a transformer has welded bracket mounts anywhere on the core laminations, instead of insulated stem screw mounts, then its a cheap noisy (lot's of hum) heap of shi.......

@Thane, you're in need of I_Ron's precision metal working skills.! 

Beeswax?. Wouldn't it melt as the cores eventually build up heat under continuous load.?

Cheers

[hydrocontrol]

..............
To win the hearts of academics, openness, and transparency are paramount. Make the best measurements you can, and use the best lab grade meters you can reasonably get.  (Physicists aren't impressed by power measurements from department store grade DVM's, especially, when taken through a rat's nest of alligator clips). Your meters are better quality industrial grade, but research lab grade (like Clarke-Hess) would be better still.
.....................

Eventually you are going to need something like this computer interfaced NIST traceable Single Phase Reference Standard to measure the input and output power.

http://www.radianresearch.com/products/ref-stand/RD-23.html

It looks like Radian Research has a several different models of reference standards that maybe able to do the measurements.

or option number 2

getting your setup to run itself without any batteries or power utility line hookup would be another possibility. Even after "self running" you are still going to need some sort of better power measurement equipment to see exactly how much more power out verses power in you are achieving.

[CRANKYpants]

Sanding or grinding the core faces flush may seem like a good idea, but the burring on the edges of each plate on the cores will defeat the purpose of using laminations in the first place. The burring provides an electrical path between plates and will increase eddy currents.

When a lamination plate is cut, shaped or drilled, care needs to be taken to remove all edge burrs, and a small amount of laquer needs to be applied to any freshly cut or exposed surfaces, and allowed to dry.

YES THOSE HAND CUT LAMINATIONS ARE NOT IDEAL YET - BUT ARE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

@Thane, you're in need of I_Ron's precision metal working skills.! 

Cheers

SADLY I THINK I_RON PACKED UP HIS MILL AND LEFT THE BUILDING. 

T

[hydrocontrol]

SADLY I THINK I_RON PACKED UP HIS MILL AND LEFT THE BUILDING. 

T

I often thought that the banter that I_RON gave Thane achieved a good balance.  Perhaps I_RON is just engrossed in preforming some measurements with his setup for supportive data. I would certainly miss his input if he has left the building.