Quote from: OilBarren on March 09, 2008, 09:07:02 AM

...COME TO OTTAWA UNIVERSITY (1/2 HOUR DRIVE) AND SEE FOR YOURSELF...

Is the setup at Ottawa U then? I thought you were set up in Almonte. I could do either. What's the name of the researcher you're working with at Ottawa U?

Just for the record, I'm not doubting the observations that you're making. What I think is missing though is a hypothesis for how it works. Unless you can hypothesize what mechanism is at work, you can't do any objective experiments to prove or disprove it. There's no point at all in doing repeated observations of the "effect" - every experiment needs to be structured to prove or disprove a hypothesis. That vital element seems to be absent as far as I can see - unless you've stated your hypothesis somewhere and I've missed it?

   blank

Quote from: polarbreeze on March 09, 2008, 11:56:56 AM

Quote from: OilBarren on March 09, 2008, 09:07:02 AM

...COME TO OTTAWA UNIVERSITY (1/2 HOUR DRIVE) AND SEE FOR YOURSELF...

Is the setup at Ottawa U then? I thought you were set up in Almonte. I could do either. What's the name of the researcher you're working with at Ottawa U?

Just for the record, I'm not doubting the observations that you're making. What I think is missing though is a hypothesis for how it works. Unless you can hypothesize what mechanism is at work, you can't do any objective experiments to prove or disprove it. There's no point at all in doing repeated observations of the "effect" - every experiment needs to be structured to prove or disprove a hypothesis. That vital element seems to be absent as far as I can see - unless you've stated your hypothesis somewhere and I've missed it?

Polar, I appreciate your presence here and share your interest in getting some cold hard numbers.  However, I hope nobody replies to your post with anything substantive because almost every word of it is ridiculous.  That you don't know where the device is, or who Heins' University of Ottawa collaborator is, or seem to think there has been no hypothesis presented is inexcusable for someone who stomped in here throwing words like 'suspicious' around.  On what knowledge authority was that then? Go get the basic facts you asked for yourself.  Shouldn't be hard since they're pretty much everywhere, and have been from the beginning.

Quote from: JustMe on March 09, 2008, 12:24:23 PM

Polar, I appreciate your presence here and share your interest in getting some cold hard numbers.  However, I hope nobody replies to your post with anything substantive because almost every word of it is ridiculous.  That you don't know where the device is, or who Heins' University of Ottawa collaborator is, or seem to think there has been no hypothesis presented is inexcusable for someone who stomped in here throwing words like 'suspicious' around.  On what knowledge authority was that then? Go get the basic facts you asked for yourself.  Shouldn't be hard since they're pretty much everywhere, and have been from the beginning.

So there is a hypothesis for what's going on here? What is that hypothesis?

Quote from: kjkent1 on March 09, 2008, 11:52:56 AM
So much theoretical discussion -- so little practical demonstration.

I don't understand why so much effort is invested in trying to get others to "believe" that Mr. Hein's device works. The "money zone" is simply demonstrating that the motor can be put to some practical use, with results superior to anticedent systems. Once you accomplish this, the theoreticians will come leaping in to try to explain what's happening. Until you accomplish a practical use demo, however, few will care -- outside of this thread, that is.

Perhaps it's a catch-22 situtation where little progress can be made without further investment that depends on more progress being made before anybody is willing to invest.  It's hard from the outside to assess where the focus needs to be next.  Does is need to be on proving the back emf theory so it can be accepted as something new and worth exploring? To me, even if we accept that the force at play is indeed back emf, we still have to see what happens beyond the early stage acceleration that has been described as a postitive feedback loop.  Back emf captured - maybe, but that means it is still a closed system and mother nature has proved so gloriously tricky in the past. I'd be very interested to know where others think this needs to go next, what needs to be quantified first etc. and what Thane would like to see happen.