Quote from: CRANKYpants on June 25, 2008, 07:00:49 AM

SOMEONE TELL ME WHY THIS IS NOT PAUSIBLE.

T

2 reasons.

The first is that if the phase moves beyond 90 degrees the rotor will not be assisting the stators current but hurting it, you simply won't get it beyond 90 deg.

And if you did it would mean that the coils were getting power from elsewhere not from the rotor. (obviously this is defined as a motor)

The second is far more general and it is that there really are no holes in the conservation of energy until you go and change the rules, the rules can't be changed with inductance and capacitance etc...
You need to actually engineer the medium of matter and energy. (although inductors and capacitors correctly designed can affect the aether)

In short there are no logical loopholes, there are no 'mistakes', you can't out think the universe and trick it into giving you more energy, you need to work with it to redefine the rules of the game.

That is the overwhelming truth I have come to accept.

Quote from: aether22 on June 25, 2008, 06:42:41 AM
You really failed to answer my question, if you double the number of turns both the inductance and resistance will be 4 times greater and the phase will be the same.

@Aether
If you double the number of turns (in a single layer), the total resistance will be doubled not quadrupled. Take two identical pieces of wire of equal length and measure their resistance. If each length of wire was 1 ohm, do you seriously think when you put them together in series they will suddenly make 4 ohms   

The last I time I did my math I was sure 1 ohm plus 1 ohm equals 2 ohms. 

In a multilayer inductor, the resistance will be slightly more than doubled, because consequent layers have an increasing diameter, which is the equivalent of having one of the two wires slightly longer than the other.

But the total inductance will increase proportional to the total number of turns squared. So it will be quadrupled (sort of - other variables contribute : See the formula table in the link below. Every different formula for a coil shows the number of turns squared is inherent to calculating induction so in that respect (only) you are right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductor

Cheers

Hold on a minute...

the Peripiteia came into the spotlight because the thing
behaves in a way that it should not according to theory,
in that it receives a "kick" instead of getting slowed down... right?
At least, that's what was claimed about it.

So either it does or it doesn't...
How can it be that the inventor is still arguing about the theoretical
possibility of his invention,
after he has already build it and shown that it works?

Were the claims false? Does the motor not produce a "kick"
where it should "brake", and does it not produce more output
than it should?

If it does not work at all, then why is the discussion still active?
And if it does work, then why don't the guys with theoretical
objections replicate it and try to answer the theoretical questions
themselves?
If they don't build and test it because they believe it is impossible
on the grounds of theory, then it is useless to argue with them
anyway because they do not believe that the inventor actually
has a working version, they don't believe it is possible, and they will
continue to present their circular argumentation, which will never
admit the possibility.
If they don't believe the theoretical interpretation by the inventor
because they have built and tested it and found it not to work at all,
then at least there is solid reason to disagree with the inventor.

But I don't really see anyone building the thing, I just see people
repeating that it can't work and I see the inventor repeating that it does.

Well, at least he built his version... And I can understand his conviction
that it works if he has a working version in font of him.

In any case, it seems to me that bickering over how a claimed effect
does not accord with the laws of nature is not very productive.
Every important electrical effect was originally discovered because of the
fact that it produced "anomalous" phenomena that did not accord with
estblished natural "laws" as they were understood at that time.
Scientific progress lives on anomalies and on discrepancies between reality
and theory.
To dismiss a possible newly discovered effect as impossible because it
does not appear to accord with natural laws at first glance is not as obvious
as some seem to think. If everyone had done so, we would not have been
able to refine the hypotheses into the quite nicely formulated and detailed
theory of electromagnetism to begin with.

And I just cant help it:
THANE, THERE IS A KEY ON YOUR KEYBOARD THAT READS "CAPS LOCK",
PLEASE PRESS IT AND YOU'LL SEE THAT your text stops looking annoying and
reads a lot easier.

Quote from: Koen1 on June 25, 2008, 08:01:58 AM

So either it does or it doesn't...
How can it be that the inventor is still arguing about the theoretical
possibility of his invention,
after he has already build it and shown that it works?

It depends what you mean by that little word "works". Does it "work", you asked previously...

I don't think there's much doubt about the observations and replicating the setup exactly would yield the same results. What's up for debate though is what those observations mean...

Does it produce more power out than in, you asked previously? Answer: no - it's actually only about 30% efficient. BUT, it can be set up so that it consumes, say 100W (I forget the exact numbers) for zero output and then with a different coil configuration it'll produce, say, 5W out while the input power drops to, say, 95W. This has been interpreted by some as being OU behaviour: 5W of useful power out, with a reduction of input power of 5W means that 10W of additional power appeared from somewhere.

Well if that is really all there is to it, then "it works" in the sense
that a functioning setup can be replicated which shows the same effects.
And "it doesn't work" in the sense that there is any OU.

Come on, is that really what all the fuss was about?
So you managed to make a really inefficient device that turns
the input into zero output, and when you alter the coil configuration
it becomes slightly less inefficient and the input output ratio shifts
from 100:0 to what, 100:5,25 or something ?
How in the world is that OU?
That's not even plain U.
The road from there to even a little bit OU at something like 95:100
is still quite long... it seems to me.

Well if that's really all there is to the "Perepiteia" generator,
then I must say the word pretentious to describe the name is
an enormous understatement,
and I'll just leave you guys to arguing.

oh, and SORRY FOR BUGGING YOU ABOUT THE CAPS THANE