Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[polarbreeze]

...These 3 are a progression, if one fails go no further
A: Feed flux from generator into a motor which is not mechanically coupled... etc

The drawback I see with this approach is that it adds extra configurations to the contraption, each of which will add more unknowns and so be more and more difficult to theoretically model. IMHO the most productive approach will be to take a single configuration on which the effect has actually been demonstrated and then measure, observe, analyze the heck out of it. Everything about that setup is measurable (fields, currents, voltages, torques...) and most of those measurements have not actually been done to date so the picture of what's going on in there is incomplete. Once the data have been collected, they can be tested against mathematical models of each of the candidate theories. Just IMHO.

PB

[jacksatan]

So, let's make a summary.

Theories:

Magnetic field theory (AKA back-emf)
Aether Theory
Energy transfer theory (from IST)
PB's slip theory (may be ignored without any consideration if any non science types are wondering)

Experiments:

There is an alternative method of testing which should eliminate some of these theories easily... According to PB's slip theory, the reason that there is greater efficiency as the device is loaded up is because of a more accurate match of the phase change. If that is the case, the efficiency will continue to increase as there are more and more coils attached to the secondary until the point of optimal match, at which point the efficiency will contiguously fall. This would be contrasted starkly to many of the other theories which seem to claim that efficiency will continue to rise as the number of coils increases ad infinitum. So the experiment to prove/disprove this is simply to complete that which you have started... take the simple tests from 3/9-3/11, and instead of changing the testing parameters follow a single course of loading up the secondaries 1 coil at a time... it should not take very long before you will either reach an optimal load (or at least be able to graph the projected growth) or reach a point of greater output than input... but in order to create a projection we need more than three data points for each experiment!!!

Small measured mechanical loads, with and without generator. (as fought for by Jacksatan, it has real merit but is limited in usefulness as it puts numbers on the effect but does not tell us anything new about the effect besides it's magnitude)

I am still in positive awe at the fact that after all the give and take you finally agreed that this is something worth doing... it gives hope to the prospect of all kinds of logically negotiated agreements where if people argue for long enough they may actually arrive at some agreement... like peace in the middle east...

[polarbreeze]

... According to PB's slip theory, the reason that there is greater efficiency as the device is loaded up is because of a more accurate match of the phase change...

JS: "more accurate match of the phase change", no, that's not it - in fact I'm not sure what that phrase means. Here is a clarification which may or may not change your experiment proposal. I was offering an explanation for the observed ACCELERATION, which is NOT a predictor (either way) of efficiency. Efficiency is about power, not about speed/acceleration - it's important not to confuse the two.

"It sped up" is NOT equivalent to "It got more efficient".

PB

PS - I agree with you about the "not enough data points" - much better to properly analyse what exists already, rather than building ever more complexity, which just adds to the fog.

[aether22]

Wrong.
The coil can not tell you the strength of the field inside (unless you monitor it from a known zero flux level), it can only give you details in the rate of change.
if you have a 100,000 gauss field and it drops 1 gauss to 99,999 gauss you get the same voltage (and current) induced in a coil of wire around it as you would for 1 gauss dropping to 0.

Aether, sorry but you are wrong. The coil will indeed provide a measure of the field strength inside. Your example is false because this is not a step-function change we're talking about: it's an alternating field. An alternating field will induce a current in the coil that is proportional to the magnitude of the field, since for an alternating field its rate of change is proportional to its magnitude.

PB

You are assuming that the only important part is that which changes, but if there is an imbalance in the NIB's there will be a static component.
but for coil flux you are right

[aether22]

So, let's make a summary.

Theories:

Magnetic field theory (AKA back-emf)
Aether Theory
Energy transfer theory (from IST)
PB's slip theory (may be ignored without any consideration if any non science types are wondering)

Experiments:

There is an alternative method of testing which should eliminate some of these theories easily... According to PB's slip theory, the reason that there is greater efficiency as the device is loaded up is because of a more accurate match of the phase change. If that is the case, the efficiency will continue to increase as there are more and more coils attached to the secondary until the point of optimal match, at which point the efficiency will contiguously fall. This would be contrasted starkly to many of the other theories which seem to claim that efficiency will continue to rise as the number of coils increases ad infinitum. So the experiment to prove/disprove this is simply to complete that which you have started... take the simple tests from 3/9-3/11, and instead of changing the testing parameters follow a single course of loading up the secondaries 1 coil at a time... it should not take very long before you will either reach an optimal load (or at least be able to graph the projected growth) or reach a point of greater output than input... but in order to create a projection we need more than three data points for each experiment!!!

PB's slip theory makes no sense so it need not be considered or experimented for.
An analogy on his theory would be that you have an old fashioned human powered mill, strong guys holding spoke like logs of wood force the axle to rotate.
If you made the resistance too strong eventually they could no longer keep it turning, PB is proposing that in effect having a guy hammer or push down the axle will somehow help, it can not.
And it can't increase induction of an entirely different magnetic field either.

It's pure bunk and i do not know what to think of someone who creates such a theory.