Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[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.

... Essentially what I was getting at was that (and please correct me if I am wrong) your hypothesis would claim that if the tests as referenced in the PDF from March 11 were to be replicated using additional coils added one at a time, the overall efficiency of the device (as measured by watts in/watts out) will increase to a point, at which it will plateau and then gradually decrease with each additional coil...
...

BTW - not sure why you threw that acceleration vs. power thing in?

I wouldn't necessarily draw that conclusion about efficiency (although it may be so, I just don't know). All I'm saying is that higher effective frequency would increase slip, which would increase torque, which would cause the motor to accelerate (which is what has been observed). I'm only going so far as to suggest a possible reason for the acceleration and I'm not predicting anything about the efficiency. One thing at a time: it accelerated... why? Solve that, then on to the next thing...

PB

ADDED: - oh, wait a minute, you're talking about the transformer experiment, not the motor thing. Sorry, we're at cross purposes. In that case, yes indeed, my hypothesis for the transformer thing is that it's a question of matching impedance and YES, I agree completely with you that a good way to do it would be to look for the peak by way of a graph.  I think the preferable way to do it though would be with a fixed secondary and then add turns to the primary: we already know that the efficiency of this transformer is rising with added primary turns, so let's keep doing that until we find the peak (or not!). Great idea. Very clear. As I said before, I do prefer the transformer experiment because it's a much simpler system and it has no moving parts and far fewer unknowns. Sorry about the disconnect!

PB

[jacksatan]

ADDED: - oh, wait a minute, you're talking about the transformer experiment, not the motor thing. Sorry, we're at cross purposes. In that case, yes indeed, my hypothesis for the transformer thing is that it's a question of matching impedance and YES, I agree completely with you that a good way to do it would be to look for the peak by way of a graph.  I think the preferable way to do it though would be with a fixed secondary and then add turns to the primary: we already know that the efficiency of this transformer is rising with added primary turns, so let's keep doing that until we find the peak (or not!). Great idea. Very clear. As I said before, I do prefer the transformer experiment because it's a much simpler system and it has no moving parts and far fewer unknowns. Sorry about the disconnect!

PB

Amazing, huh? Aether and I have found agreement, Polar and I have found agreement, by transitive theory PB and Aether already agree!!! they just don't know it yet... pretty soon this going to be one big happy disfunctional family - with spooks dressed in trenchcoats and black bent-down Stetsons and wackos in their Star Trek uniforms with their tinfoil hats all working toward the common goal of global domination...

[aether22]

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

So I guess you're somewhat ambivalent about my theory then?

What's yours?

PB

Well there is no point in me giving my theory, you see really there are 2 issues. (I would here point out that I am not so much replying to polarbreeze which I consider pointless but bringing up an important subject).

There are 2 issues here, since it is clear from Thanes demo that something is communicated down the shaft and that brings us to the question of what is communicated through the shaft.

So far only 2 suggestions, one is that of is EMF/MMF. The other is that it is aether/orgone/torsion/ZPE (it has been given many names), of course it could well be both but we will assume one is more critical.

A separate question is once conducted what does the aether/magnetic field do to increase the torque output by the motor while lowering the current draw, we can answer these 2 questions quite separately.

There are experiments to answer the first question and separate experiments to clarify the second. (an answer of the first question may not enlighten us on the second and visa versa)

On another note, Jacksatan, you are making less than no sense currently, the transformer has no relation to the generator and a theory based on the latter can not be tested on the former.

[JustMe]

I think the preferable way to do it though would be with a fixed secondary and then add turns to the primary: we already know that the efficiency of this transformer is rising with added primary turns, so let's keep doing that until we find the peak (or not!). Great idea. Very clear.

Isn't this what they've already stated they're doing? Increasing turns on the primary and gathering data on a repeated set of secondary configurations?

[aether22]

...Shaft saturation, place neodymium magnets in attraction on the shaft...

I think using the neo's is a bit hit-and miss. I suggest the most effective way to saturate the shaft will be to do it with a (DC) electromagnet. If you want the field to be axial, you can put a (static) coil around the shaft. If you want it to be radial, you can position the electromagnet radially adjacent to the shaft.

PB

PS - but see my post below also because I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to be adding complexity to the system when its existing behaviour has not yet been measured and modelled.

While I believe if pulled off it would be a potentially telling experiment I feel you may be right about a DC coil being the best choice but I agree that may be a bit much to add.

I never thought you would have anything to say that I would find agreeable but I guess you never know.