This post is just me thinking aloud, it may not be very interesting at all so I don't recommend really um, reading it.

I have my mot-gen setup in the first config which I won't go into but it's a test to get specific acceleration on shorting info with the same mechanical resistance that will exist when the motor is isolated by a pulley.

And I started to really question how I can separate the different possible conventional causes for acceleration from Thane's effect, they are of course reduction of cogging torque (unbalanced magnetic forces creating vibration),  hysteresis and eddy current losses on shorting of coils, although there is Lenz force which counters these savings.

Since it is established that shorting coils can lead to a reduction of core losses that is greater than the Lenz force it is important that this effect not be confused for Thane's effect, and so here I will attempt to list all the differences, every possible way to tell the 2 apart.

The conventional effect is somewhat rare requiring generally rather precise conditions, one requirement is very poor cores, most of the time the effect has shown up it had disappeared as soon as a decent laminated core was used. (the exception possibly being Adam's and Hoptoad as their cores though imperfect are not awful, their effect may be Thanes effect or the conventional effect or a bit of both)

Closed magnetic circuits made of high quality laminated steel has never to my knowledge manifested this effect, although it is worth noting that to a lesser degree the rotor is still vulnerable as it is not laminated.

Still my monster coil can't guard against such a possibility, not my current monster coil anyway.

As for cogging torque that is also reduced by shorting but is not reduced by high quality cores, the effect is large enough at low speeds to stop the motor and while it's influence at high speeds is reduced I don't believe anyone has shown it's influence to entirely disappears and no one has a clue as to the magnitude, it probably does not account for the more energetic high speed accelerations but it might account for the 1 rpm a second type accelerations.

Another is that reduction of core loss does just fine with coils of a few ohms, low voltage high current coils demo the effect just fine, however Thanes effect only comes into play with large numbers of turns generally generating relatively high voltages in open circuit often over 100v.

I can not add a high current coil to my HV coil, I could have while winding it but it's too late now, I could however wind a high current coil on the same type of core and compare side by side! I might do that.
Also if I place this other coil just right cogging torque should be eliminated .

If the same ampere turns leads to a different reaction then that is pretty sure that the HV coil is genuinely demonstrating Thanes effect.

Another is that Thanes effect can accelerate the rotor beyond the speed attained when no stator is present, however it wasn't a very large effect in Thanes last documented test and while I could look harder so far I don't think I have had a setup suited to replicating this effect, in fact Thane if you are listening I'd really like enough info to replicate this maybe, I'm not even sure why you specify 'split phase', do you mean split phase motor start (cap in motor used to create rotating stator field required at low speeds) or do you mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_phase  ?

Another possibility is to remove the effect by isolating the motor from the generator by a pulley or non magnetic shaft, however that is under dispute and so for the time being is ineffective as a test.
Torque sensors or experiments to measure torque changes on the motor housing would nicely tell the 2 apart, however neither of these are awfully practical, also they would first have to again prove that the torque comes from the motor, an issue not currently settled.

So the most reasonable way would seem to be the addition of a high current coil that also removes cogging torque.
With high quality cores, HC and HV coils for comparison, with balanced cogging then without any further effort Thanes effect may be accurately separated from the pretenders, I will have to settle for 2 out of 3 with my current tests as I hope to use solid core coils as they are the type that can potentially be blocked by a break in the shaft.

Oh, and on that note the reason for all this was that with the break in the shaft my monster coil still caused acceleration, an effect Thane was not able to get, it is likely due to the overkill evident in the coil increasing the aetheric pressure/speed too much, but it could also be that the effect I noted was not Thanes effect but the more conventional type.

Oh, and again I will note that while not fully relevant to the subject of this message it is worth noting that a short circuited coil can use less power and cause less Lenz drag than one which has a load more suited to the generator (but not less than an OC coil) due to both the current limited nature of generators and the stator assuming an almost 180 degree phase to the rotor which applies no force to decelerate the rotor. (though it is hard to know just how close the practice can get to the theoretical ideal)


Oh, BTW, this from Stefan:

He is banned now also with his other
name polarbreeze-
Thanks.
Regards, Stefan.

QuoteWith just the rotor at full speed the input draw is say 1.58 amps. This I call the baseline,
this is the friction loss and windage losses for the motor and rotor.

RON_NESIA - MY DATA SAYS 106 WATTS BASELINE - JUST ROTOR - SPEED = 1728 RPM

QuoteWith the coils and cores in position the input draw is say 1.89 amps, (no load, no short)

106 WATTS AGAIN - COILS & CORES IN POSITION - SPEED = 1729 RPM

QuoteNow with the two HV coils shorted in series the draw is reduced to 1.72 amps.

103 WATTS HV COILS SHORTED - SPEED = 1741 RPM

QuoteThe difference between 1.89 and 1.72 is the reduction in core drag.
The speed didn't change noticeably because it was already near sync speed.
But the reduction in draw did not go below the baseline 1.58 amps.

3 WATTS BELOW BASELINE - SPEED INCREASE OF 12 RPM ABOVE BASELINE

HC COILS ONLY MOTOR I/P = 111 WATTS - SPEED = 1721 RPM

*** HC COILS and HV COILS I/P = 105.9 WATTS (SAME AS BASELINE) - SPEED = 1724 RPM ( - 4 BASELINE) ***

*** MY HIGH SPEED TESTS SHOW IDENTICAL NUMBERS I.E. 130 WATTS BASELINE AND 130 WATTS WHILE DELIVERING 7.7 WATTS (TABLE #4).

SO THIS IS MY GOAL - A BALANCE BETWEEN - HC DECELERATION UNDER LOAD COMPENSATED WITH HV COIL ACCELERATION - IT IS EASY TO DO AND SIDETEPS ALL THIS ENDLESS YADDA - YADDA - DINGDONG ...

CHEERS
Thane

PS
I WILL SHOOT SOME VIDEO OF MY NEW TEST-BED TODAY (SUNDAY) WHERE I AM BUILDING AND TESTING COILS TO GIVE ME THE BALANCE I DESIRE.

I WILL SHOW NOW SEPARATED HC AND HV COILS - AND HOW THE HC COIL CAUSES SYSTEM DECELERATION THROUGH A 10 OHM LOAD AND HOW I CAN - THEN ACCELERATE THROUGH THIS DECELERATION BY ENGAGING ONE HV COIL - AND HOW ACCELERATION IS INCREASED WHEN I ENGAGE THE SECOND HV COIL. (all this cogging torque stuff is a waste of time to me personally)

NOW I HAVE 5 HV COILS MADE SO FAR AND THEY WORK EVEN BETTER WITH A 5x STRENGTH MAGNETS ON THE ROTOR.

AS IT IS I CAN INITIATE ACCELERATION FROM A 53 OHM / 30 GAUGE WIRE COIL WHEN THE COIL IS AT ABOUT 24 VOLTS (NO LOAD) - THIS IS WHAT I NEED ALSO - LOW RPM ACCELERATION FOR MY CHEEZEWIZZ DUNE-BUGGY.

Quote from: CRANKYpants on June 08, 2008, 09:14:20 AM
RON_NESIA - MY DATA SAYS 106 WATTS BASELINE - JUST ROTOR - SPEED = 1728 RPM

106 WATTS AGAIN - COILS & CORES IN POSITION - SPEED = 1729 RPM

103 WATTS HV COILS SHORTED - SPEED = 1741 RPM

3 WATTS BELOW BASELINE - SPEED INCREASE OF 12 RPM ABOVE BASELINE

HC COILS ONLY MOTOR I/P = 111 WATTS - SPEED = 1721 RPM

*** HC COILS and HV COILS I/P = 105.9 WATTS (SAME AS BASELINE) - SPEED = 1724 RPM ( - 4 BASELINE) ***

*** MY HIGH SPEED TESTS SHOW IDENTICAL NUMBERS I.E. 130 WATTS BASELINE AND 130 WATTS WHILE DELIVERING 7.7 WATTS (TABLE #4).

SO THIS IS MY GOAL - A BALANCE BETWEEN - HC DECELERATION UNDER LOAD COMPENSATED WITH HV COIL ACCELERATION - IT IS EASY TO DO AND SIDETEPS ALL THIS ENDLESS YADDA - YADDA - DINGDONG ...

CHEERS
Thane

PS
I WILL SHOOT SOME VIDEO OF MY NEW TEST-BED TODAY (SUNDAY) WHERE I AM BUILDING AND TESTING COILS TO GIVE ME THE BALANCE I DESIRE.

I WILL SHOW NOW SEPARATED HC AND HV COILS - AND HOW THE HC COIL CAUSES SYSTEM DECELERATION THROUGH A 10 OHM LOAD AND HOW I CAN - THEN ACCELERATE THROUGH THIS DECELERATION BY ENGAGING ONE HV COIL - AND HOW ACCELERATION IS INCREASED WHEN I ENGAGE THE SECOND HV COIL. (all this cogging torque stuff is a waste of time to me personally)

NOW I HAVE 5 HV COILS MADE SO FAR AND THEY WORK EVEN BETTER WITH A 5x STRENGTH MAGNETS ON THE ROTOR.

AS IT IS I CAN INITIATE ACCELERATION FROM A 53 OHM / 30 GAUGE WIRE COIL WHEN THE COIL IS AT ABOUT 24 VOLTS (NO LOAD) - THIS IS WHAT I NEED ALSO - LOW RPM ACCELERATION FOR MY CHEEZEWIZZ DUNE-BUGGY.

Thane of the hill,

Now those are some impressive numbers. If I could even approach these results I would be a  happy
camper. Thanks for the reply, you have trained us to note that when someone takes a poke at you
you come back with lots of real answers, so with PB gone someone has to step up to the plate
and do the dirty....

Sorry for all the blather, I was trying to get through to A tootoo this time but your response is very
encouraging and I look forward to some visual info on this new setup.The only point of disagreement
in your post is where you claim to want to ignore cogging torque. This is, unfortunately, part of
life and can't be ignored!  It is like cracks in the sidewalk... to step on them or not? are you
prepared for the consequences?   

Keep your pecker up!

Ron

Quote from: JustMe on June 07, 2008, 12:19:53 PM
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.

The way I see it, science is absolutely full of curiosity and absolutely full of new, stimulating ideas. So full, in fact, that those new ideas must necessarily compete for supremacy and acceptance. The way they do that is through a process called scientific method. It's the Darwinism of scientific progress, if you like. A new idea has to be shown to work and/or to provide a more precise theory (explanation) for observed results in order to gain acceptance. I think we can all agree that peer-review is somewhat flawed in making that happen; nonetheless, there are other mechanisms, including the free market (profit motive) and, now, the liberation provided by the internet, that make it more effective all the time. I agree with you there's also plenty of rigidity and arrogance but the beauty of scientific method is that properly designed experiments can speak for themselves, can be replicated, can be refuted, all of which takes place independently of the mental state of the experimenter.

Quote from: JustMe on June 07, 2008, 12:19:53 PM
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.

That's not what's being said. People who are very knowledgeable and intimately familiar with induction motor behaviour are stating that the results that have been observed can be explained 100% by the torque-speed characteristics of the induction motor (not simply that they "impact the experiment" as you put it). None of the results presented by anyone on the forum here provides any evidence whatsoever that this is not the case. Since nothing "unexpected" is happening, there is no reason to invoke any theories of operation other than those that are already established - and, by the way, that have been used for decades to create millions of actual systems and products that all obligingly conform to the established theory.

It's not a question of presence/absence of curiosity, or imagination, or open-mindedness. Why do you think it "improbable" that conventional theory explains it all? There's is no logical reason for that statement; it's just wishful thinking. There is no evidence whatsoever of something other than conventional behaviour going on - so what reason is there to search for other explanations? If someone comes up with one experimental result that can not be explained by conventional theory I'll be the first to join the hunt for a new theory. But it's not there - and you know it's not there. You hope it is, and good for you for that, but so far it's not.

Quote from: JustMe on June 07, 2008, 12:19:53 PM
...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.

I agree completely, except for the "decided not to look" part. Seems to me I'm doing lots of "looking" - haven't found anything of substance here yet though!

Quote from: CRANKYpants on June 08, 2008, 09:14:20 AM
I WILL SHOOT SOME VIDEO OF MY NEW TEST-BED TODAY (SUNDAY) WHERE I AM BUILDING AND TESTING COILS TO GIVE ME THE BALANCE I DESIRE.

I WILL SHOW NOW SEPARATED HC AND HV COILS - AND HOW THE HC COIL CAUSES SYSTEM DECELERATION THROUGH A 10 OHM LOAD AND HOW I CAN - THEN ACCELERATE THROUGH THIS DECELERATION BY ENGAGING ONE HV COIL - AND HOW ACCELERATION IS INCREASED WHEN I ENGAGE THE SECOND HV COIL. (all this cogging torque stuff is a waste of time to me personally)

NOW I HAVE 5 HV COILS MADE SO FAR AND THEY WORK EVEN BETTER WITH A 5x STRENGTH MAGNETS ON THE ROTOR.

I may still make my HC solid core coil, but I think you may have persuaded me that the best action I could take right now might be to make the strongest accelerating setup I can as that is the best way to tell what is what, but still have HC and HV coils in a balanced setup.