Ok, I demand you actually address each point as I do OR DO NOT BOTHER RESPONDING!

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),

WRONG!!
The change IS NOT a change to the coils that makes the difference between stalled and rotating swiftly, THE CHANGE IS TO THE SHAFT CONNECTING MOTOR AND GEN., in both cases the coils are shorted!
Also while it may be argued with some success that the counter magnetic field produced by a shorted coil may possibly overall reduce drag by reduction of core losses, THIS IS ELIMINATED IN THE FIRST VIDEO!


the braking effect is reduced and so naturally the motor spins faster.

THE BREAKING EFFECT DOES NOT DECREASE ONCE SHORTED AS PROVEN!

There seems to be nothing at all mysterious about this

HAVE YOU SEEN THE VIDEO?!?!

and you're definitely wasting a lot more power with the device installed than when it's not installed.

AS BY DESIGN, IF IT DID NOT LOAD THE MOTOR IT WOULD BE AT FULL SPEED THE WHOLE TIME AND MAKE A POINTLESS DEMO.

Answer these questions:
1: Have you recently watched the 1st and 2nd video? (the second being appended to the first)
2: Did you see in the (1st) video where the coils were shorted INCREASING THE LOAD ON THE MOTOR bringing it to a dead stop?
3: Did you see in the video where with the one change of adding a steel piece in the brass coupler made it accelerate beyond the point where it could be safely run as opposed to coming to a dead stop?
4: Did you notice that the voltage and in more recent tests the power output of the coils increased as the speed increased?
5: Since you believe that the generator load has decreased rather than the motor becoming more powerful, and given that the first video shows load increasing on coil shorting and since the only change in the 2nd vid is that the shaft is all steel can you explain how this steel shaft can dramatically reduce losses in the generator?

If you do not answer those 5 questions do not reply to me!.
If you do however unsuccessful my attempt may or may not be I will ask Stefan if he could please remove you. (I am not saying you could not post in this thread but do not directly reply to the subject I bring up and do not address me)

Are demands and ego something inherent to free energy groupies? 

I'm green now.

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!!!

The reasons besides suppression which does exist I assure you is the disbelief that such is possible, similar to the level of disbelief you show.
The very belief you have is a self fulfilling prophesy, because you are sure it would have been found if possible, become widespread if found and since it is not widespread it is obviously impossible, therefore any claim can be ignored as a mistake or hoax no matter the evidence, don't tell me you don't see the flaw in that logic.
Then there is inventor secrecy, it comes in many forms but a big one is "I hit the jackpot", which means the inventor keeps it under wraps until he has everything sorted to make billions off it.
Then because respected scientists would lose credibility, jobs etc... for looking into such a subject the only ones looking and willing to look 'outside the box' for the solution are those who do not have the education, the respect or the means to really get it out there.

But the main reason is the technology it's self, the fact is you are right, Free Energy is impossible.
It is only achievable by changing what is possible (that is why anomalies swarm around many of these devices), this will sound out there but it's space-time engineering, it's changing the rules by playing with the medium of all matter and energy, it's very much like macro quantum engineering.
And since that is not a generally easy thing to do and since the devices are not designed to do it because the inventors really do not know how it is only devices that become accidental hybrids, working in the normal way such as a motor or generator but also effectively in an aetheric way.

Well the point is since the aetheric part is hit on by accidentally it can be lost, sometimes the right conditions are only hit one and the experimenter can not replicate the effects himself, other times the device is replicated with the conventional part in tact but the aetheric function broken by an innocent change.
The aetheric part can rely on the darnedest things, such as having an all steel connection back to the motor!


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

Well I suppose it could be carried out , you are not suggesting a pass/fail so it would not hurt, I think there are many things that would muddy the waters.
I think what would be needed is to run many varying measured mechanical loads and you could get some picture of motor performance increase.
But when arguing with the likes of polarbreeze the thought of expecting him to appreciate complex data and subtitles was not something worth considering. But yes if not coming from a debunking point of view and with good analysis such a test could be of use, still I think I have suggested better tests.

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'.

In the current state it is putting a huge load on the motor, and while maybe with some load there is a chance it could 'pass' I think it unlikely, it is even when shorted with the steel in place putting no where near max speed. At my most generous I'd say it has a 10% chance of working.
BUT if you remove all losses, and count the electrical output (reduce the mechanical loading by the amount of energy being usefully output) then it simply MUST pass the test since in effect it would be placing no load on the motor and we know it improves motor power.

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 o0ptimized it would pass the test? Do you have any baseline whatsoever that would indicate how close you are to achieving your goal???

MAYBE it would pass the test, but since it is putting a massive load on it and it has not fully overcome that load (it is far below 3600 - slip), how can it if the improvment is not enough to overcome it's own loading?

Among things that may be clarified is 1) what is the comparative efficiency or how much to we need to bridge 2)


Hard to know

When the short causes the RPM to increase until the magnets fly off, is that useful power?

No realistic way for it not to be.

- 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?

I do not have the time to (re)state the various tests I believe will prove invaluable, though if have already stated them previously.


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?

Um, 'whatever' refers to the aether/back-emf or 'whatever' the generator is sending to the motor.
The idea is to preform a test that is remarkably similar to yours, only it is one that provided the 'whatever' can transfer from a rotating frame to a differently rotating colinear shaft in light contact will work (will 'pass').
The idea is to have a strong motor rotate the excrement out of the generator feeding the 'whatever' not into the motor powering it but into an induction motor with a measured mechanical load, it's shaft would obviously rotate separately but be placed right next to the generator shaft lightly touching it.

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...


That sounds like the definition of taking things too far.

Quote from: RunningBare on March 06, 2008, 04:39:53 PM
Are demands and ego something inherent to free energy groupies? 

You completely misread the emotion... it's utter frustration!
The only reason I chose to add my $.02 is also frustration...

If you and jacksatan and any others still do not understand that the only thing that seems to make a difference is whether there is a solid steel shaft connecting motor to generator, or a 3" air gap, then no amount of explaining is going to help you understand that fact.

The importance of a continuous ferromagnetic path from generator to motor IS THE ONLY THING THAT RESULTS IN UNUSUAL BEHAVIOR.  With a non-continuous path (i.e., two separate shafts separated by significant air gap), the system behaves as expected, and comes to a stop when coils are shorted due to the drag caused by the loaded generator.  The single significant fact of the continuous path has been what Thane points out NUMEROUS times in his vids and his contributions in this forum.  Perhaps its your lack of solid science/engineering background that prevents you from grasping the SIGNIFICANCE of this single variation of the system.

I too would like to see answers to the 5 questions that Aether22 listed... perhaps then we'll have some indication that you understand precisely what is novel and exciting about this system!

-Mark

Look mom... I'm a rainbow!!!

I'm green now.

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!!!

The reasons besides suppression which does exist I assure you is the disbelief that such is possible, similar to the level of disbelief you show.
The very belief you have is a self fulfilling prophesy, because you are sure it would have been found if possible, become widespread if found and since it is not widespread it is obviously impossible, therefore any claim can be ignored as a mistake or hoax no matter the evidence, don't tell me you don't see the flaw in that logic. If you'll recall, I started by pointing out that I do believe in black swans today, but I did not believe in them five years ago. Why? because someone put a bloody black swan on TV and said "here it is!!!". Similarly, if someone showed proof of free energy I am sure we would all believe him. Or, he could make loads of free energy in his basement and sell it to the grid for buco cash... then regardless of whether we believe him or not he would be listed in that magazine I mentioned...
Then there is inventor secrecy, it comes in many forms but a big one is "I hit the jackpot", which means the inventor keeps it under wraps until he has everything sorted to make billions off it. The inventor secrecy in this should be no different that the inventor secrecy in any other great invention... eventually the invention comes to light... It makes it all the more unlikely that those who claimed to find 'free energy' more than sixty years ago would not have shown incontravertable proof of it by now.
Then because respected scientists would lose credibility, jobs etc... for looking into such a subject the only ones looking and willing to look 'outside the box' for the solution are those who do not have the education, the respect or the means to really get it out there. Any one of these 'discoveries' must first start with some observable anomaly (such as Thane's). At the point of discovery, any legitimate scientist would have little problem studying the anomaly (such as the original offer by Zahn). Being associated with the wacko movement (no offense, it's perception) would be detrimental to ones credibility, but until such movement arises there should be little issue with the study of said anomaly. Furthermore, though Zahn has not dedicated his life to investigating this anomaly, he has offered suggestions on how to verify if it is something new, and has even gone so far as to suggest that it may be useful - without being 'free energy'. I assume the test that Zahn has recommended are being carried out and the results suplied to him for review...

But the main reason is the technology it's self, the fact is you are right, Free Energy is impossible. A fifth agreement!!! - and one I really didn't see coming...
It is only achievable by changing what is possible (that is why anomalies swarm around many of these devices), this will sound out there but it's space-time engineering, it's changing the rules by playing with the medium of all matter and energy, it's very much like macro quantum engineering.
And since that is not a generally easy thing to do and since the devices are not designed to do it because the inventors really do not know how it is only devices that become accidental hybrids, working in the normal way such as a motor or generator but also effectively in an aetheric way.

Well the point is since the aetheric part is hit on by accidentally it can be lost, sometimes the right conditions are only hit one and the experimenter can not replicate the effects himself, other times the device is replicated with the conventional part in tact but the aetheric function broken by an innocent change.
The aetheric part can rely on the darnedest things, such as having an all steel connection back to the motor! Well than this is our chance to prove it...


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

Well I suppose it could be carried out W00T!!! We have a winner!!!, you are not suggesting a pass/fail so it would not hurt, I think there are many things that would muddy the waters.
I think what would be needed is to run many varying measured mechanical loads This is something I think I pointed out clearly in my last post "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% speedand you could get some picture of motor performance increase.I think I'm starting to like you...
But when arguing with the likes of polarbreeze Sorry Polarbreeze, it looks like you're just going to have to take one for the team...the thought of expecting him to appreciate complex data and subtitles was not something worth considering. But yes if not coming from a debunking point of view and with good analysis such a test could be of use, still I think I have suggested better tests.W00t W00t!!!

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'.

In the current state it is putting a huge load on the motor, and while maybe with some load there is a chance it could 'pass' I think it unlikely, it is even when shorted with the steel in place putting no where near max speed. At my most generous I'd say it has a 10% chance of working.Maybe. Maybe not. I know one way to find out...
BUT if you remove all losses, and count the electrical output (reduce the mechanical loading by the amount of energy being usefully output) then it simply MUST pass the test since in effect it would be placing no load on the motor and we know it improves motor power.You might want to reffer back to your comment about just how finicky your 'whatever' stuff is... before moving on to the next project, I would certainly want to verify what we have here. In theory, it could be that if the motor were not heavily loaded 'whatever' might vanish...

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 o0optimized it would pass the test? Do you have any baseline whatsoever that would indicate how close you are to achieving your goal???

MAYBE it would pass the test, but since it is putting a massive load on it and it has not fully overcome that load (it is far below 3600 - slip), how can it if the improvement is not enough to overcome it's own loading?See comments below about 'infinite output'

Among things that may be clarified is 1) what is the comparative efficiency or how much to we need to bridge 2)


Hard to know Not if we run the test

When the short causes the RPM to increase until the magnets fly off, is that useful power?

No realistic way for it not to be. Zahn seems to think there is...

- 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?

I do not have the time to (re)state the various tests I believe will prove invaluable, though if have already stated them previously. Tests that would offer a numeric index to just how efficient this is??? I'm not counting you calorimetric idea, as I assume it was made in jest...


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?

Um, 'whatever' refers to the aether/back-emf or 'whatever' the generator is sending to the motor.
The idea is to preform a test that is remarkably similar to yours, only it is one that provided the 'whatever' can transfer from a rotating frame to a differently rotating colinear shaft in light contact will work (will 'pass').
The idea is to have a strong motor rotate the excrement out of the generator feeding the 'whatever' not into the motor powering it but into an induction motor with a measured mechanical load, it's shaft would obviously rotate separately but be placed right next to the generator shaft lightly touching it. Who knows? If 'whatever' exists there is no scientific base with which to draw upon for how to capture, transfer, or perceive it. If you thought of an experiment for it, knock yourself out...

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...


That sounds like the definition of taking things too far.Absolutely... I don't believe that unfettered the motor will continue to accelerate infinitely either. But if you don't think it could lift a Semi, do you think it could lift Yukon? A Prius? A Harley? This is exactly what I mean by 'measurable metrics'. I'm not a scientist, but if you told me that the most Thane's motor could lift was 500 pounds on a vertical pulley for 100 feet, I bet I could find some B average college student to do the math for me and figure out the total energy output... Infinity is very big number...