Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[Heinstein]

?Do fluxes cancel or add??
If they are additive then test #2 should provide a higher output power
than test # 1.

You are of course welcome to your own opinion but IMO finding a higher power in test 2 than test 1 doesn't indicate that the fluxes don't cancel.

2 things make this occur, one is the fact that if you have one of the coils shorted it will resist the primaries changing flux and the primary flux will be diverted into the other open leg.

The other thing and this could admittedly be an issue of semantics in part but the flux from the 2 secondaries is identical and opposite if everything is setup correctly.

This means that unlike in a normal transformer where the secondary cancels out the primaries magnetic flux (stopping and further induction) they cancel out each others flux meaning that no matter how much current passes through them they can't dent the primaries emf and so more turns will indeed mean more power. (though so will lower resistance)

Now you could look at this in isolation, you could look at it as each secondary helping the other but if you bother to consider the self induction each coil has on it's self it the exactly equal and opposite to the effect the other coil has.

So while this is indeed semantics as you are not wrong about the secondaries amplifying themselves it seems more accurate to say that the net field from the 2 secondary coils is 0 and hence the primary emf can not be countered by anything the secondaries do.

Sorry, just had to reiterate that one last time.

Dear aether22,

Very well said, I knew I was wrong when I posted it but I was too tired to correct myself.

Can you do something for me though?
Take two magnets with identical poles facing each other and repelling in air.
Then place them on a sheet of iron ? and make the fields cancel each other out such that they are NOT attracted to the iron because the fields cancel each other out inside the metal?
Keep reducing the thickness of the metal until it saturates (same permeability as air)
and tell me what happens?

Thanks
Thane

[MainePower]

Dear Thane, your posting of the letter from Zahn I predict sets your 15 mins of fame clock at right around 14:59.  Your visit to him generated the news that is driving the excitement right now and your NASA invite on which you have no academia backing you (actually you now have negative academia backing).  The fact that he has turned down your invite rather harshly too rebukes the Zahn excitement quotes from the media making it sound as if you are onto something astounding and brings the whole device back down to earth. 

I believe you have a matter of a few days to do precisely what Zahn requests and post the results again publicly otherwise you will probably slip into obscurity.

I am neither master of magnets or electricity but common sense needs to be the only discipline applied to see what's going on.

1) Satisfy Zahn's request as quickly as possible.  Publically, perhaps more youtube videos are in order.
2) Try to save enough face here on forums like this to get at least SOMEONE to reproduce your motor who can also duplicate the Zahn testing.

A believer but now doubtful.[/size]

Dear MainePower

I can show you even worse and harsher criticisms than Dr. Zahn?s. The fact remains they are all simply un-quantified opinions which in the absence of supporting data are worthless (and some are just plain silly). We offered Dr. Zahn $ 20,000 to provide the supporting data.

Now what we do have in the way of academia backing is; Dr. Habash of Ottawa U (and also two scientists from York University) who I gave a demo to yesterday and we addressed all the issues presented (hysterisis brake, no useable generator output etc.). I told Dr. Habash that either I convince him that my claims are valid (off the record) or I pack it in. I am still there today.

Dr. Habash feels that the generator Back EMF is creating an ?energy less? synchronous motor effect inside the induction motor (causing acceleration) while at the same time the generator output continues to go up.

Dr. Habash also said that it is easier to kill something like this but hard to keep alive so from the university?s perspective every public pro or against comment has to be supported with data to protect the integrity of the university ? which takes time to produce. The university has given me 5 ? 4th year students to get the data. From a common sense point of view ? does that sound like support or not?

The NRC is sending 3 scientists in for a demo tomorrow or Friday.

Edison, Einstein, Galileo, Tesla, the Wright Brothers and Banting didn?t have any easier a time than I am ? they had their doubters also. It?s par for the course.

I can do a lot in 60 seconds.

Thanks
Thane

Arguably I would say that you are where you (today) are because of Dr. Zahn, delivering you (media, public debate, this forum, NASA, NRC?) so I guess throwing him under the bus as a skeptic because he doesn't want to take the time (or your money) to prove your invention is real is a tactical decision?   I guess I don't understand that if Dr. Zahn's tests are so easy that you can't just produce the results?  Wasn't that your intent?  To go to MIT (or any university) to try to get the scientific community behind your invention because you lacked the expertise? That's how you hooked me in, you were humble and seeking validation. He seems to be "interested" but skeptical - why not continue to play that out by cooperating rather then just dismissing it as "more skeptical nonsense from people who don't care to do the diligence to prove me wrong"  I think he's asking you to do the same, he's saying the burden of proof is on _you_, not him.  I think that's fair. 

He didn't shut you out and laugh you out of the building.  He challenged you.  I think you have to seize this opportunity and challenge him back rather then saying he needs to supply you with data of his hypothesis.  In short, you need him more then he needs you.  Be humble.

Imagine that if every inventor marched into MIT with a reporter on their shoulder and said "prove I am brilliant in my invention!" obviously that doesn't work.  You've invested your life in this, you're so close, why not give the respected professor his due and complete the task?  You yield your lack of education to these folks - so I just see it as the next logical step in your process.  I'm passionate about this because I want you to be RIGHT.

Dr. Zahn's reputation is on the line now, he's basically thrown the gauntlet down and said "do these tests" and come back to the table with the results.  If you do them, then you can challenge his thinking and perhaps engage him further and earn another high caliber supporter in your to be on the mantle with Edison, Tesla.  Without these types of individuals, you could go to your grave pounding the table that "everyone else is wrong while I am right, they just don't understand".

I think there are many paths to greatness and you are on the brink right now, I see your relation to Dr. Zahn as a key catalyst to break through. 

Again I hope you can hit these two objectives:

1) show Dr. Zahn you're right and disprove the hypothesis.
2) get people duplicating your device.  Which you're doing here and I think it's wonderful.


GOOD LUCK!

[gyulasun]

...  Anyone please tell me what do you think the effect will be in doubling the relative permeability in the above toroid?

Hi Thane,

It is true in practice as well that you can increase a coil self inductance,

{L=(mu*N*N*A)/l where A is cross-section of the coil and l is coil length, mu is permeability of the core and N is number of turns}   

by making more turns or increasing the core's permeability. So in a coil with a given mu core permeability, you can induce a voltage of  Vi=-L*(dPHI/dt),  L is self inductance of the coil, dPHI is flux change during dt time change.

Now if you double the permeability given before, the induced voltage will nearly also double (assuming the core still far from saturation) because the mu permeability is a proportional multiplier in the induced voltage formula: the higher the mu the higher the induced voltage.

...Also please find enclosed my invitation to Dr. Zahn to join me at NASA.
Looks like I am going solo but I would like some feedback on the ?hysterisis brake? idea circulating the web since no one ever suggests that in the lab after they see it.  ....

Luc or anyone else any comments?

Here is what I believe takes place in your setup: when you run your setup with the coils unloaded, the load on your motor shaft (hence your input power consumption)  comes from magnetic drags between the magnets and the cores, neglecting normal ball bearing friction and airdrag, right?  The magnetic drag comes from the natural attraction between the cores and the magnets.  Agree with this?

And when you short circuit the coils, the created current will turn the cores into an electromagnet whose flux should work AGAINST the permanent magnets' flux  (ala Lenz law) but this means the natural attraction between them gets reduced, hence the drag can also reduce, hence the driving motor's shaft load also gets reduced, this means RPM can increase and motor input power consumption can approach to the unloaded motor running consumption which is always less than a loaded motor consumption. Can you agree with this explanation?
I can also think of simply core saturation from the induced current when you short circuit the coils, hence the magnetic drag can also reduce in this case.

I have probably missed if you mentioned but let me ask what happens to the motor consumption when you start loading output coil 2, gradually towards a short circuit? I mean Test case 2 when you have the unloaded 177.7V on coil 2.

rgds,  Gyula

[Heinstein]

Hi Thane,

Here is what I believe takes place in your setup: when you run your setup with the coils unloaded, the load on your motor shaft (hence your input power consumption) comes from magnetic drags between the magnets and the cores, neglecting normal ball bearing friction and air drag, right?  The magnetic drag comes from the natural attraction between the cores and the magnets.  Agree with this?

YES I agree also called Cogging Torque

And when you short circuit the coils, the created current will turn the cores into an electromagnet whose flux should work AGAINST the permanent magnets' flux  (ala Lenz law) but this means the natural attraction between them gets reduced, hence the drag can also reduce, hence the driving motor's shaft load also gets reduced, this means RPM can increase and motor input power consumption can approach to the unloaded motor running consumption which is always less than a loaded motor consumption. Can you agree with this explanation?

I might agree if the acceleration occurred at ALL speeds.
It does not.
At a certain low RPM the system decelerates to a DEAD STOP when the coils are shorted. Indicating Back EMF in the air gap and Lenz?s Law effect.

At a certain higher RPM the system accelerates ? the greater the generator output the greater the acceleration. My explanation for this is the higher RPM state produces more generator MMF (magnemotive force H) ? enough to overcome the reluctance of the (hard) steel rotor and motor drive shaft to make it?s way into the motor rather than remaining in the air gap as per the lower RPM state.

I have probably missed if you mentioned but let me ask what happens to the motor consumption when you start loading output coil 2, gradually towards a short circuit? I mean Test case 2 when you have the unloaded 177.7V on coil 2.

The system speed gradually increases as the resistive value approaches 0 ohms from an open circuit - the slip angle between the rotor and stator decreases and the stator power draw decreases..

Thane

[Steven Dufresne]

...Also please find enclosed my invitation to Dr. Zahn to join me at NASA.
Looks like I am going solo but I would like some feedback on the ?hysterisis brake? idea circulating the web since no one ever suggests that in the lab after they see it.  ....

Luc or anyone else any comments?

Here is what I believe takes place in your setup: when you run your setup with the coils unloaded, the load on your motor shaft (hence your input power consumption)  comes from magnetic drags between the magnets and the cores, neglecting normal ball bearing friction and airdrag, right?  The magnetic drag comes from the natural attraction between the cores and the magnets.  Agree with this?

And when you short circuit the coils, the created current will turn the cores into an electromagnet whose flux should work AGAINST the permanent magnets' flux  (ala Lenz law) but this means the natural attraction between them gets reduced, hence the drag can also reduce, hence the driving motor's shaft load also gets reduced, this means RPM can increase and motor input power consumption can approach to the unloaded motor running consumption which is always less than a loaded motor consumption. Can you agree with this explanation?
I can also think of simply core saturation from the induced current when you short circuit the coils, hence the magnetic drag can also reduce in this case.

I have probably missed if you mentioned but let me ask what happens to the motor consumption when you start loading output coil 2, gradually towards a short circuit? I mean Test case 2 when you have the unloaded 177.7V on coil 2.

rgds,  Gyula

Thane,
I'm no expert on hysterisis braking so I can't comment there. Everything and more than I saw in the demo at Ottawa U is in Thane's demonstration videos (go to youtube and search for thane heins) so anyone familiar with hysterisis braking can look at them. All I can add is that there was no smoke and mirrors, but then I never thought there was (well, there might be smoke and broken mirrors if he let's the rotor continue to accelerate :-).)

Gyula,
If you look at the first video, PEREPITEIA GENERATOR DEMO VIDEO - Parts 1 & 2, you'll see that Thane does the tests with the motor not magnetically coupled and again with the motor magnetically coupled. The motor runs significantly faster when the motor is magnetically coupled to the rotor than when it's not. So you might want to rethink after looking at the video. The two diagrams Thane recently posted don't point that out.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org