That's what I call a rotor!

"it weighs 2050 Kg's"

lol
Steven

Quote from: Nali2001 on May 17, 2008, 06:55:20 PM
Hi sir I-Ron
You don't know me  but I heard a lot about you! Good quality replications!
I also made a thiny some time ago. See it here:
http://www.krystyna.nl/Machine/RevUpUnderLoad.wmv

You see it accelerate to double rpm while doing a real 50watt load.
No additional (above idle) power is being fed to the motor during the vid.
What ya think?

Steven.
The sanding man

Nali 2K, who ever you are, thank you for posting that incredible link, that is mind boggling,

nice workmanship too!, just wood for the end plates but I can get a hint of some nice machining on
the rotor. Just the way it runs and accelerates shows some care has been taken, good work!

What do I think?  I think the hysteresis theory is alive and well. Unless there is more to that
generator than can be seen in the vid...? is it one of those anti Lenz designs? This might account
for a portion of that acceleration.... To be honest with you I just don't know.

I keep hoping that Thane will hit the magic numbers with a formula that we all can duplicate. His
high turns ratio is something I have not tried before... and is proving interesting.

Anyway, welcome to the group and thanks for posting, probably Thane will have some questions?

Cheers,

Ron

Quote from: i_ron on May 17, 2008, 06:23:32 PM
If you look back at Thanes chart you will see that he was running at 3400 RPM.

Hi Ron,

Thanks for the answers!

Yes, that was the RPM for the high speed test, but look further back, the original acceleration was noted around 400.

Quote from: i_ron on May 17, 2008, 07:00:37 PM
3) It is made as a steel fabrication, machined all over and "sort of" balanced, it weighs 2050 Kg's

Obviously, that was just a typo as we all make. Nobody is rotating a car.


Another question because the results seem a little unusual. What is the air gap between the magnets and the core?

Regards,
Larry

PS: Enjoyed the joke: Ottawa moguls though they could legislate us into metric. Yes, but sometimes we could use the additional accuracy.

Now for something completely different...

I didn't get any work done on it yesterday, in part because my new bed arrived and I was tidying and making it all nice, I had the same bed for over 20 years, it was broken (so I put in bracing) and rather sad but i loved it, but when I found it was growing mold inside it I knew I needed a new bed.

So the first night in a different bed and I didn't fall asleep all that well and I happened on a thought I have had before, a thought maybe half the age of the (old) bed.

But this time I applied it slightly differently and instead of coming to the mildly inconclusive conclusion I normally came to instead I found that it must work.

The first part many people must have thought of before, it is simply that as most people are aware the engines of a plane do not provide enough thrust to counteract it's weight, exceptions such as the Harrier Jump Jet and Osprey are quite rare. but the thrust can give enough forward motion for the wings to lift the plane and even make it swiftly rise.

So let's preform a quick thought experiment.
You are in a tower and you see a plane fly past, you have a spear gun with a rope attached and you shot it at the plane, you tie the other end to a pole and the plane now flies circles around the tower, you observe that the planes propeller provides 10 pounds of thrust for every 100 pounds of the planes weight. (I have no idea if 1/10th is enough but we will say it is for now)

We will say the planes weight is 1,000 pounds.

Now you cut the plane free before the pilot calls the cops on you, and you get out your credit card, make a call and you order a Helicopter to get you off the tower (since aerial spraying had killed all moths in the area anyway, LOTR joke), you note that before you get on it weighs precisely 1,000 pounds with the propeller providing all 1,000 pounds of force to keep it hovering there.

You then consider what would have happened if you stripped the helicopter and the plane down to just the essentials, say 2 planes (for balance) rigidly attached to the tower, drop the fuselage so it's just 2 props and 4 wings providing 2,000 pounds of lift, let's say the 'planes' now weight 1,000 pounds leaving 1,000 pounds of extra lift. (just to make it clear the planes now resemble an extra wide helicopter rotor blade which is propelled by comparatively small propellers)

Now let's do the same with the helicopters, remove the tails so we will again need 2 helicopters, one with rotor blades spinning clockwise and the other counter clockwise, chances are we will have a bit more weight we could not remove due to the larger engines so we will say we have 1,300 pounds of helicopter left with 700 pounds of excess lift.

So now we effectively have 2 helicopters, one made from 2 planes and one made from 2 heli's.
One can take 1,000 pounds of extra payload with propellers providing 200 pounds of trust.
The other can take 700 pounds of extra payload with the rotor blades providing 2,000 pounds of thrust.

Pretty interesting eh?

Now to my mind this would also be OU, but only if a plane is and and it may not be OU any more than the increased force from a lever or gear system is, but one thing it is without doubt is more practical!  Getting more lift with smaller engines!

And all that is required for it to be definitively true is for planes to be able to fly in circles without the lift miraculously disappearing, and that seems as close to a sure thing as you can get.

They say a picture is worth 1,000 words so maybe I should have shut up and just posted the picture.

Now this is shamefully off topic and I am just sharing here because I don't care what random people think, I'm curious what you guys think, it's not only not the right thread but almost entirely the wrong site.
In the unlikely event this thing creates any more than about 3 posts it will at least need a thread of it's own and I'll probably ignore said thread because I am far more enthralled with Thanes device.

Which with I_Ron's success I don't think anyone has tried a halfway close reproduction and failed to find the effect beside myself!

One last point is that in a way this is already a reality.
The gyrocopter uses a small prop with not nearly enough power to lift the whole weight of the craft and like a plane uses it to gain speed, which causes the rotor (which is the same as a helicopter rotor) to autorotate fast enough to lift the craft.

The catch is that the Gyrocopter needs forward movement to keep the blades rotating so it can't do VTOL, but if I understand it the blades are with the forward movement turning about fast enough to keep it in the air if it were not moving. (if that makes any sense)

James bond flew a Gyrocopter in 'You only live twice'.

Quote from: Nali2001 on May 17, 2008, 07:11:18 PM
That's what I call a rotor!

"it weighs 2050 Kg's"

lol
Steven

LOL, well so it should... it's 300 meters across...obviously I wasn't born to this metric puzzlement,  what ever those little things are that add up to nearly five POUNDS... micro kilo grams ? You see
on the scale it says in big letters that it is a KILOGRAM scale.... and the numbers read up to 2000... it is only when you read the very fine print that it says it is a 2.2 Kg scale,

Oh, I guess that should  be 300 milli meters, damn, so confusing....lets just say 10 inches.

Ron