To me it seems as though aether22 and polarbreeze are talking about 2 different things. Polarbreeze seems to me to be looking for quantitative proof that the motor's performance is improved through the presence of the generator and it's effects, relative to a comparable operating state without the generator at all.  It would be a reasonable and critically important test if it addressed the current claim and focus of the demonstration, but I don't think it does. If further research indicates that this effect can be taken out of it's current context and practically applied (as we all very much hope!) the types of tests Polarbreeze advocates will of course be invaluable, and one would expect standard as well.

Forgive me if I've made any bad assumptions.  I've read every word very carefully, but some things remain muddy. 

Quote from: aether22 on March 06, 2008, 02:10:32 PM

Quote from: polarbreeze on March 06, 2008, 09:55:55 AM

Quote from: aether22 on March 06, 2008, 07:26:39 AM

...we know as surely as possible that the motor is producing more power...

None of the measurements that have been provided give any evidence that the motor is actually producing more power. The only credible way to do that is to do actual measurements of power in and power out, comparing the system with and without the device in place. It is a very, very simple thing to set up - why don't you just do that?

...
EVERYONE reading this who can understand and agrees with what I have said and agrees that polarbreeze does not have a leg to stand on please drop me a private message with a line expressing your agreement and I will post and update it...

And if you agree with polarbreeze by all means message me also but I will ignore such messages from people who have made similar arguments on this thread ...

Aether, what you said was:

...quote...

(1) EVERYONE reading this who can understand and agrees with what I have said and agrees that polarbreeze does not have a leg to stand on please drop me a private message with a line expressing your agreement and I will post and update it...

(2) And if you agree with polarbreeze by all means message me also but I will ignore such messages from people who have made similar arguments on this thread...

...unquote...

OK, go ahead if you want to manipulate the postings that way but it detracts from the real issue, which is that there are NOT any measurements of actual power that demonstrate that the device increases efficiency. Those measurement would be very easy to do - why have they not been done and shared with everyone so we can see the performance of this technology?

Quote from: JustMe on March 06, 2008, 03:00:23 PM
To me it seems as though aether22 and polarbreeze are talking about 2 different things. Polarbreeze seems to me to be looking for quantitative proof that the motor's performance is improved through the presence of the generator and it's effects, relative to a comparable operating state without the generator at all.  It would be a reasonable and critically important test if it addressed the current claim and focus of the demonstration, but I don't think it does. If further research indicates that this effect can be taken out of it's current context and practically applied (as we all very much hope!) the types of tests Polarbreeze advocates will of course be invaluable, and one would expect standard as well.

Forgive me if I've made any bad assumptions.  I've read every word very carefully, but some things remain muddy. 

Yes, I think you're right. The difficulty is that what you are calling the "current context" is as follows:

When the device is added to the system, it imposes a huge load on the motor (like a strong brake). This of course slows the motor down or may even stall it so it can't run at all. Then by making changes to the connections to the coils, the load imposed by the device is of course reduced (due to well-known effects of back-emf), the braking effect is reduced and so naturally the motor spins faster. There seems to be nothing at all mysterious about this and you're definitely wasting a lot more power with the device installed than when it's not installed. There is absolutely no evidence from any of the measurements that there is any efficiency gain in this system. That is why I am suggesting that those efficiency measurements be made, so everyone can see objectively what benefit the device is contributing.

Quote from: polarbreeze on March 06, 2008, 03:16:39 PM

Then by making changes to the connections to the coils, the load imposed by the device is of course reduced (due to well-known effects of back-emf), the braking effect is reduced and so naturally the motor spins faster. There seems to be nothing at all mysterious about this and you're definitely wasting a lot more power with the device installed than when it's not installed.

It's been my understanding that Thane's back-emf theory would not be properly characterized as a well known effect. If we accept that it is back-emf that is being shunted through the shaft to positively affect motor performance (aether22's theory is somewhat different), the claim seems to be that this is the first time a force previously associated exclusively with system losses has been identified as a potential booster.  Thus the focus on the interaction between the motor and the generator without consideration for overall system efficiency at this time.

First - Aether, I appreciate the time you are putting into this, and I further appreciate the more direct response that you are offering. I am proud to say that in the last give and take we agreed no less that three times!!! A major accomplishment... So in that vein, and the prospect of further agreement I would like to continue this dialogue...

I found myself replying before remembering my promise, considered deleting, or posting privatly, but oh well...Thanks for trying

Aether - Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot...

Probably.Note the first agreement!!!

Allow me to introduce myself - I am not a scientist. I am a businessman. I have an MBA, not a masters in electrical engineering. Despite my lack of science background, I have worked on venture capital placement in the fields as diverse as batteries, solar energy, and commodity trading. I am a skeptic of things that I have not seen before. I believe Jesus died more than 2000 years ago. I believe that Jesus has been dead for over 2000 years. I believe in the existence of black swans. I did not believe black swans existed five years ago. The reason I did not believe in black swans five years ago was because no credible person on earth had seen one, and people on earth have been almost everywhere. But realize, finding a black swan was not something everyone on earth cared all that much about. So not too many people were dedicating their lives to finding a black swan. I do not believe free energy exists. I don't believe it exists because no credible person has been able to prove it exists. Unlike black swans, many intelligent people have dedicated their lives to finding free energy. They have all failed. This is not proof positive that free energy does not exist. It is just a reason that it is unlikely.

I agree that is no proof and that proving such a negative is impossible.Second agreement!!!
I entirely disagree whole heartedly without the slightest iota of doubt whatsoever with your claim that "all have failed to find Free Energy". (of which there are 3 types, breaking the 1st 'law' (I believe possible given the right conditions but hard to prove), Breaking the 2nd 'law' (verifiably broken), or taking energy from some unseen source)I don't feel that you completely acknowledged the gist of the concept that if it were broken, Americans would not have paid $285 billion dollars in electricity costs last year... Conspiracy theorists often forget that the medium-term beneficiary of 'free energy' would undoubtedly be the utility providers since it would be a patented concept for 21 years and would lower their generation costs... coal companies don't give a damn about coal miners, and would praise the lord if another method were found that would be more economical... The fact that something so extraordinarily valuable has not been verifyably and repeatedly proven leads me to believe that is about as likely as spinning straw into gold - if someone had figured out how to do it we would know about it because Forbes would publish it under - Richest Man in the World, dude figured out how to make something from nothing!!!

Aether - you have repeatedly pointed out that it is impossible to test Thane's device on an unloaded system since the motor will run at max speed and their will be no discernable benefit from Thane's device.

True.Third Agreement!!!

I have repeated suggested mechanically loading Thane's device and the motor without the magnets so there can be an equal comparison.

Obviously if you remove the magnets the generator will not work. My apologies, you are correct (some might even consider this a fourth agreement!!!), what I meant to say was to remove the entire contraption - including coils - and let the motor run using a measurable mechanical load to slow it down
So you must mean for a control yes, but how heavily would you load it? A good rule of thumb would be to start testing at a load which would cause the RPM to to fall to half its rated speed, and dependant on the results repeat the test using the same method at 25% and 75% speed As heavily as the load supplied by the magnets when shorted without the full steel connection? (so it goes the same speed, problem is that is 0 RPM currently, it comes to a dead stop) No, the idea is to compare the total output 'including load' from the completed contraption to total output without the contraption
You could do that but the question would be what you could possibly achieve because once you replace the magnets you would need to remove the purely mechanical load or face twice the load.
Is this never the less what you are suggesting, so as to get an idea of the loading the generator has (or most likely has) when shorted with the full steel shaft? no, sorry (actually it would not truly give the loading since the greater the speed the greater the loading and the generator swiftly rotates)

Maybe if you ran the test for a short enough time (a second) relying on inertia or calculating inertia into the equation somehow? no

If so that would work very partially though I fail to really see the point as it would not prove or disprove anything and it would be so messy and estimated few would trust the results but I suppose it could be of some use.

If this is what you mean I apologize, what I thought you meant was load it mechanically both with the magnets and without (which would double the loading it experiences with), I am however sure that even if you did not mean that some others did. Nope, it was the same recommendation as the others... I still believe that irrespective of whether the contraption 'passes' the test (in the sense that it increases the total output from an uncontraptionalized motor) the data will be vital



Although you have grown quite irate along the way, you have never directly respoded to this suggestion (I personally think it's quite good).

I had but maybe I misunderstood the suggestion and responded to what I thought was being suggested?Maybe?

You have however, repeatedly indicated your lack of confidence that Thane's contraption would pass this simple test (ie. complete more mechanical work within the contraption than without) since the contraption is not fully optimized. Be that as it may, I can see much good coming from this test - even if the contraption does fail.

Obviously it would not 'fail' the version I am considering you may mean in this message, it IS doing more work when the shaft is all steel, But much of that work is removable losses such as eddy currents and hysteresis etc...  if removed by a better core material, and covered in plastic to reduce aerodynamic drag possibly I am sure it would pass any version of the test. This is the crux of my confusion... Why in the name of everything that is holy would you be so confident that, in its current unoptimized state, the contraption would fail the 'test', but once it is optimized it will pass the 'test'. This is completely baffling me. Is there some data that tells you that in its current state will not pass the test? Is there some data that tells you that if it were optimized it would pass the test? Do you have any baseline whatsoever that would indicate how close you are to achieving your goal???

Among things that may be clarified is 1) what is the comparative efficiency or how much to we need to bridge 2) when the short causes the RPM to increase until the magnets fly off, is that useful power?

Yes, it must be, now I wonder again just what test you mean.
The mechanical loading the generator places on the motor must increase dramatically under such a condition, the only way it possibly could not (since it does in vid 1) is if the motor (any kind) sends something through the shaft to reduce losses in this one specific generator type, that we can safely say is 100 times less likely than a specific generator effecting the motor. speaking of likelihood when referring to free energy is a bit relativistic... some might say it is more likely that the minor magnetic field from the contraption creating a maglev kind of scenario inside the shaft effectively removing most all friction from the rotor would be 'more likely' than free energy, but relative likelihood is pure speculation. The fact is that few will care all that much until you can prove something with value - be it a slightly better mousetrap, more efficient motor, or free energy for all.

- what are its limits? - how much load can that sustain? I fear that the fear of failure for a minor test is prohibiting the further advancement of this 'science'. For if this is never tested, how will you ever get this conraption to perform useful work?

Well the test (any version) can be preformed if losses are reduced (relatively straight forward) See crux of my befuddlement above.
Or I have suggested an isolated version where the generator feeds 'whatever' into a motor mechanically loaded, but not the one driving the generator. This is not something I have seen you recommend before (maybe I missed it?). If 'whatever' is a measurable quantity of electricity, this sounds remarkably similar to what I am trying convince you to test?
I have also suggested a whole host of other experiments what can further advance this and give a clearer picture of what is happening.
I hope they explain things, and advance science - I, however, am a little more focus oriented... it is difficult for me to estimate how close we are to a breakthrough without some sort of baseline - I don't feel that we have one as of yet.

Please note, one of the reasons that I don't see it as necessary (or for that matter particularly useful at this point) to put much effort into making this contraption more 'efficient' stems from comments such as the following:

CONVENTIONAL GENERATOR MODE
WITH ALL COILS LOADED AND 450 WATTS BEING SUPPLIED TO THE MOTOR THE SYSTEM CANNOT ROTATE. OUTPUT POWER = O

MAGNETICALLY COUPLED SYSTEM
WITH ALL COILS LOADED AND 196 WATTS BEING SUPPLIED TO THE MOTOR THE SYSTEM IS ACCELERATING BEYOND SAFE LIMITS AND GENERATOR OUTPUT IS INCREASING.

THE INPUT POWER IS 196 W AND IS APPRAOCHING 0
THE GENERATOR OUTPUT IS INCREASING AND APPROACHING INFINITY

- THE EFFICIENCY OF THE SYSTEM CANNOT BE DETERMINED YET BECAUSE THE UPPER SPEED LIMIT OF THE SYSTEM HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED.

Thane

A statement that in its current form "THE INPUT POWER IS 196 W AND IS APPRAOCHING 0 THE GENERATOR OUTPUT IS INCREASING AND APPROACHING INFINITY" would seem to indicate that in its current form, if this motor were bolted to the ground, and attached to a strong enough chain and pulley, the only thing that should stop it from lifting a full laden semi truck into the air would be the tension strength of the steel in the wheel itself... this is something which I see as easily verifyable at this point, and a demonstration of which would (even if not providing concrete numbers) would certainly be extremely visually pleasing...