Quote from: CRANKYpants on June 07, 2008, 08:04:42 AM
DEAR A(4.69^2),

I READ EVERY WORD - BUT I DON'T AGREE ABOUT YOUR "MOTOR THEORY" AND IT'S NOT WORTH DEBATING SINCE NOW WE CAN BOTH GO ABOUT PROVING WHERE THE ACCELERATION COMES FROM.

CHEERS
Thane

Good and good.  I have just had fun realizing that despite the difference sizes there are tons of ways I can put together the motors, rotors and pulleys and shafts of various sizes so tomorrow should be fun, I should be able to both isolate the (more powerful) drive motor by pulley, and then see if the new rotor with a stator can effect a second inline motor under some load (probably your rotor and some HC coils), and I should also be able to replicate your with and without steel shaft test with the new rotor (which is important) and the monster coil.

If the results indicate you are right then I will probably replicate Vince's test, and do the stator current .vs rotor phase analysis (easy) and then attempt a self running version.

By the way I would love to see the 'brutal' acceleration so if you can video it so we can compare it to other video's or put some numbers to it. What do you think caused it, just greater flux coupling?  I also think that such a video could be a good draw to attract some new people.

I encourage anyone to suggest experiment ideas, I've got a nice list but I want to keep it topped up!

Quote from: aether22 on June 07, 2008, 08:58:46 AM
Good and good. 

I encourage anyone to suggest experiment ideas, I've got a nice list but I want to keep it topped up!

What OUmon says is to the point. The best starting point is to run the rotor not only with no coils but
no CORES. This gives a base line reading.

Then run the rotor with the cores and take the second reading.
Note when you short the HV coils the reading does not go below the initial no core reading.

It is primarily the reduction of steel core drag that is initiating the RPM acceleration.

This can be shown with a HV coil with a Somaloy core... there is no acceleration, only lenz reaction.

"SINCE NOW WE CAN BOTH GO ABOUT PROVING WHERE THE ACCELERATION COMES FROM."

This is what I am waiting to see, lay it on me Mr T you have not as yet shown me how this
can be achieved.

Ron

Quote from: i_ron on June 07, 2008, 10:52:10 AM

What OUmon says is to the point.

It is primarily the reduction of steel core drag that is initiating the RPM acceleration.

Ron

Model T and all,

This is further confirmed in that Hoptoad's comprhensive experiment also fails with Somaloy cores.

So both Thane's and Hop Toad's experiments can be narrowed down to specific core material and core dimensions and show that at some point there is a reduction of the negative Lenz Principle.

Ron

Quote from: OUman on June 07, 2008, 08:51:48 AM
The irony is that you, I and "the PhD" all agree about that part! Of course it's in the motor.

Thane apparently disagrees. I wonder where others stand.

I stand bemused.  How you, or the PhD, or anyone else can look at the collective observations of this group and others and state such definitive negative conclusions is beyond me.  If this is how mainstream science has evolved I suspect as one of it's consequences a graveyard of ideas withered and dead well before their potential contribution is known. What a stunning abundance of rigidity and arrogance, and worse - a near complete dearth of curiousity.

While it's certain that the distinct operational properties of an induction motor impact this experiment with, wait for it - an induction motor, it's highly (and improbably) speculative that the action at the coils warrants little or no investigation.  If we consider hoptoad's almost certainly related experiments with a motor with a very different torque-speed curve, you and others seem to be asking us to conclude - without anything approaching proof -  that these two similar and unexpected result sets have completely divergent but equally innocuous explanations. It's certainly in the realm of possibility, but it's hardly so logically attractive that a reasonable person would  toss over further experimentation on that basis alone. It's pretty ridiculous actually.

I still have no idea what the conclusion to all this will be or whether anything that can be applied will result. I'd be extremely pleasantly surprised at OU, but I'd also be surprised if it turns out that there was nothing at all new or interesting to learn.  If it turns out in the end you were correct it's not going to be because you're a superior thinker or more knowledgeable person, it's going to be that there just happened to be nothing where you decided not to go look. Just luck and a lack of imagination is all. Not much to congratulate yourself on I don't think.

Quote from: JustMe on June 07, 2008, 12:19:53 PM
I stand bemused.
snip
Not much to congratulate yourself on I don't think.

Just You,

You write very well, I couldn't have said it better. I too, am leaning toward OU man/woman is just one
of those people who once taught something believe firmly in that fact without ever leaving the door open for a future re examination as to whether the fact was true, relevant or expandable.

I did the Hop toad experiment B T (before Thane) and suffered the usual disappointment.But as I have learned before now, once you change the parameters of an experiment one is on new ground and
shouldn't cast aspersions at the inventor!

What I find interesting with Mr T's invention is the possibility he may be on to something. As you recall from my previous posts, the HV coil on a mot core showed a lesser amount of expended energy to generate the 27watts, similar to Hop Toad's published work.  With a single coil on a Somaloy core the results were as per usual, 10 watts out for an increase on the prime mover of 14 watts. So there must be at some point a modification of the expected Lenz or Le Ch?telier Principle
with Mr T's  HV coil on a steel or laminated steel core.

Ron