Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[CRANKYpants]

NEW FLICK & PICS...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT2qi9ITcls&feature=channel_page

CHEERS
T

[CRANKYpants]

My last post on this thread.

YIPEE!
DON'T LET YOUR CRAPPY ATTITUDE HIT YOU IN THE ARSE ON THE WAY OUT!
HAPPY TRAILS
T

[poynt99]

This is a "systemic" problem that plagues 99% of the folks on this forum who make claims of overunity, efficiencies over 100%, and COP>1.

The underlying problem is that most electrical FE researchers out there have little or no formal technical electronics training, or have just not learned the basics if they have had the training. They do not know how to measure, they do not know what to measure, and they do not know why certain measurements need to be performed. It's as simple as that. There is one other possibility explaining the lack of proper measurements, but that would assume mal intent. We must assume the former as the actual reason.

CP's licensing offer is not the problem imo. Anyone with half a wit about them will "have it checked out" before committing themselves in any way, so don't worry about that (remember the magnacoaster?) The real problem is that Stefan has not established a formal protocol for members to follow who intend to make any kind of claims that would be considered out of the ordinary. Without fail, this would put to rest any doubts regarding what a person is claiming.

There is a great deal of learning that can be had from one's own experimentation and from that of other's as well. However, people should not lead themselves nor unsuspecting others down the garden path, and unless people start using proper power measurements, this is going to continue. Experimentation is helpful to all, but incorrect assumptions are quite the opposite.

A piece of lab gear is currently being developed that will alleviate all doubts regarding power and COP measurements. The intent is to offer it as open source in hopes that some will build and use it. I certainly hope they do, and perhaps one day Stefan will establish a protocol for claims and insist on it. Stay tuned.

As a final note, rather than judge whether a device is ou or not (because either is possible imo), I'm offering tools to help FE researchers discover for themselves if they've got it or not. It's up to them whether or not they use them.

Regards,
.99

[hydrocontrol]

That's right, a horsepower is simply an arbitrary unit of measurement. You can change your definition of horsepower as much as you like, but in the words of Shakespeare, a rose by any other name is a rose just the same. Just by changing your unit of measurement doesn't mean you have more or less of an actual mass or amount of energy. Just a different unit of measurement. A horsepower doesn't literally refer to a horse, it refers to a specific amount of power required, to do a specific amount of work, over a specific duration of time.

Cheers

Those 'arbitrary unit of measurement' are so much fun. Actually a horsepower was derived from the comparison of what a 'common draft horse' could lift compared to a steam engine. When electric motors were invented the comparison was then extended to those motors by the same method.
"In Watt's judgement, one horse can do 33,000 foot-pounds of work every minute."
An electric motor was made to lift the equivlent of 33,000 foot-pounds of work every minute then the power was measured that was being used by the motor. So from that power measurement 1 horsepower is equivalent to 746 watts. Does that mean the electric motor used for the test was the best configuration for an electric motor or was 100 % efficient. Considering the electric motor was invented in 1821 it is doubtful.
In any event you have to have a starting point for a reference even if that reference is an
'arbitrary unit of measurement' and all values are derived from that measurement. It is impossible to go rewrite all the billions of books that have 1 horsepower is equivalent to 746 watts so you live with what you have.

  I really do agree with your argument. My example may have not been the best. A better example would be to use a standard wind generator. Lets reference this one for simplicity sake.
http://www.e-marine-inc.com/products/wind_generators/airxmarine.html
"Output: 400 watts at 28 mph (12.5 m/s) "
Now lets change the generator configuration to be like the one Thane is trying to develop. What if it now gets 2000 watts at the same 28 mph (12.5 m/s) input wind using the same blade. Does it mean OU ?  No.  It does means a vast improvement that can be extremely beneficial for everyone and can be applied immediately to wind generators under development. YES. Thanes development really does not have to be OU to be useful.
What I see Thane trying to do is use a AC motor to replicate the wind and supply a constant input to his generator while he changes his generator configuration to get the best output. Is this the best approach ? I do not think I would do it that way but until I start doing my own replication it is not my call.

[CRANKYpants]

This is a "systemic" problem that plagues 99% of the folks on this forum who make claims of overunity, efficiencies over 100%, and COP>1.

The underlying problem is that most electrical FE researchers out there have little or no formal technical electronics training, or have just not learned the basics if they have had the training. They do not know how to measure, they do not know what to measure, and they do not know why certain measurements need to be performed. It's as simple as that. There is one other possibility explaining the lack of proper measurements, but that would assume mal intent. We must assume the former as the actual reason.

Regards,
.99

THANKS FOR THIS POYNT99, AND I AGREE AND NOBODY HERE KNOWS HOW TO EVALUATE GENERATOR PERFORMANCE - SO FAR AS I CAN TELL.

IF YOU LOOK AT MY LAST VIDEO YOU WILL SEE THAT THE NET DRIVE SHAFT TORQUE:
(MOTOR TORQUE - GENERATOR COUNTER TORQUE = 0) IN THE CONVENTIONAL MODE

DRIVE SHAFT POWER = TORQUE x SPEED x 2pi = 0
GENERATOR INPUT POWER = 0

IN THE HV COIL ACCELERATION MODE NET TORQUE IS LESS THAN ZERO (MOTOR SLIP IS LESS = LESS TORQUE)

GENERATOR INPUT POWER = 0
GENERATOR OUTPUT = 8.5 WATTS

EFFICIENCY = INFINITY.

CHEERS
T

ps
I_RON CAN YOU MACHINE A CROSS PLEASE - I'M GOING TO BE CRUCIFIED BY THE OU ENERGY CHANGERS SOON!