Quote from: gotoluc on March 09, 2008, 09:56:09 PM
At this time, Thane and I are both stunned as to why we are able to do this. Usually a transformer Primary (in transformers we have today) have the input power to the Primary going up as you add load to the Secondary. Not the other way around .

......   Ahh the joys of dicovery!     Often, when you stumble across the unexpected, you realize that what you expected might not have been reasonably expectable to begin with.  It remains the unexpected until we know more, after which we will come to expect it. !   

To quote someone ?? - "If we only do what we've always done, we will always get what we always had."

Keep on exploring guys, there is always more to discover.

Good luck in solving this "unexpected outcome". It can be "expected" in certain induction motors, where the nominal loading of the motor slows the rotor into synchronous phasing, resulting in current consumption decreases, but increasing the load further, causes the current consumption to rise again.

But in a 'simple' transformer, it stays IMHO, in the unexpected category. Till we know more !    Good luck

Cheers

P.S.   Polarbreeze is right to mention impedance. It may be part of the puzzle and therefore part of the solution, then again ......... ?

Hmmmmm  KneeDeep

If you use two wheels of magnets,one on each side of the coil, impedence will cancel out, resulting in zero impedence. I think that would be a good thing.

Quote from: JustMe on March 10, 2008, 12:16:11 AM

Quote from: polarbreeze on March 09, 2008, 10:50:28 PM
I think I said that it would be "stupid" to make that claim and the reason is that it would ruin the inventor's credibility and thereby prevent him from getting funding to advance the work. Thane has received exactly the same advice from some of the PhD references whose names are used on this forum. Maybe I could have used a milder word - so sorry for that. It wasn't intended as an insult to OU believers: just a comment about a reality of the techno-business world.

My comment about the patent was in response to another poster who said he'd "found the patent" and posted a link to it. He hadn't and I pointed that out. I think that's pretty much OK.

etc... etc... I don't have the patience to retrace all of what you're saying. I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about any "tin foil hat" though so I think maybe you're collecting others' words in with mine.

The "tin foil hat" thing was probably jacksatan, so I retract that with apology. Your original comments on the patent application that stood for a short time before you edited them several days ago would be described as neutral by exactly no one, so we'll call that a retraction too, perhaps with an implied apology.  And I don't think anybody would ever confuse any of your comments with those of Dr. Townsend. All that being said, you're dead on when you say that the emotional responses are unproductive and a distraction, and my last post to you was intended to point out that you do have some power of your own to steer this discussion in a positive way.  However if your response to me is a true reflection of your perception of the things you've said, and a true reflection of your perpection of what a reasonable person might draw from your various statements, I'm not sure that you appreciate that as much as you could.

You don't have to find OU or other versions of colouring outside the lines likely or even possible to be a good addition to this thread.  In fact, it's the very fact that you don't, along with your empirical nature, that contributes to you being a valuable check and balance.  Like it or not, overunity.com is where we are with this, because like it or not, Thane's back-emf theory takes it here and out of the comfortable world of journal articles and textbooks, out of the well documented and the well understood. So you, and in a sense I as well, are strangers in a strange land.  Guests as it were. I think there's benefit in remembering that.

Hey - why are you knocking the hat? I liked the hat line... Aether tells me his is a ten gallon! But seriously speaking, there is a bit of logic behind skepticism. Every once in a while it even convinces people to produce results... like 3.29 watts in 1.05 watts out (thank you Luc!!!) where we finally have a benchmark number to work against!!! Now if we could only make that 3.29 watts in 3.30 watts out... that would be a fantasy... but I'd love to see it happen!

satan is that what you deduced from test #4  please  take another look  Chet

Quote from: JustMe on March 10, 2008, 12:16:11 AM

... Thane's back-emf theory takes it here and out of the comfortable world of journal articles and textbooks, out of the well documented and the well understood. So you, and in a sense I as well, are strangers in a strange land.  Guests as it were. I think there's benefit in remembering that.

I think it's important to keep an open mind on this. Thane's observations can probably be explained with conventional theory but so far there has been very little data gathered to plug into the models so we don't know for sure. If, when all the data are collected and the theoretical model drawn, conventional theory doesn't do it, then indeed there needs to be another hypothesis, and that may include OU concepts. I think it's a mistake to jump to the conclusion that it's OU without first doing all the experiments and gathering all the data - and I'm sure everyone in the OU community would concur with that because they wouldn't want the OU concept to be polluted by "false alarms".

Of course, another absolutely valid way to do it would be to construct a hypothesis that does include OU and then to carry out experiments to validate that hypothesis. That would be an excellent way to go, actually, and it would be a shortcut to the solution if some OU theoretician could develop such a hypothesis and document it so that others could work on it together. Although OU by definition would rewrite the current laws of physics, there's no reason to abandon the scientific method - that would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. After all, quantum mechanics went outside the then-recognized laws but it was established and proven (and continues to be refined) through scientific method. I think there's benefit to remembering that.