Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[CRANKYpants]

So you don't need a driving source then? No rotory mechanical input to induce current ? Just watch the generator start up on its own and start outputting power. 

THE GENERATOR INPUT (mechanical) DRIVE SHAFT POWER IS NOT THE SAME AS THE PRIME MOVER INPUT (electrical) POWER.

POWER CONSUMED BY THE MOTOR IS A REFLECTION OF THE MOTOR'S EFFICIENCY AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GENERATOR.

THE MECHANICAL INPUT POWER TO THE GENERATOR IS ZERO IF THERE IS ZERO ROTATION OR SPEED AND ZERO WORK BEING PERFORMED BY THE GENERATOR.

OF COURSE THE MOTOR IS WORKING HARD AT PROVIDING DRIVE SHAFT TORQUE AND COULD BE CONSUMING A MILLION WATTS BUT THE FACT REMAINS - A LOCKED DRIVESHAFT CANNOT PERFORM ANY WORK. INPUT POWER = 0 OUTPUT POWER = 0

I THINK YOU WOULD AGREE IF I WAS HOLDING THE DRIVESHAFT WITH MY HAND - YOU WOULD CLEARLY SEE THAT THERE IS NO MECHANICAL POWER (input) GOING TO THE GENERATOR AND THERFORE NO OUTPUT.

INPUT = 0
OUTPUT = 0

THE MOTOR TORQUE IS MAXIMUM, BUT THE NET DRIVE SHAFT TORQUE = 0
AND NO ROTATION RESULTS (which by the way is a steady state condition - Steady State condition: NET Torque must = 0).

AT 3600 RPM THE MOTOR TORQUE IS MINIMUM, VIRTUALLY ZERO (BECAUSE MOTOR SLIP = 0 or very close to it), BUT NET DRIVE SHAFT TORQUE IS MAXIMUM (the new required torque is provided by the HV coils and NOT the motor because at full speed motor torque is almost zero)
ROTATION IS MAXIMUM.

SO NOW OUR LOGIC COMES FULL CIRCLE AGAIN.

AT FULL SPEED: 

GENERATOR INPUT (drive shaft power) = 0 WATTS
GENERATOR OUTPUT = 8.5 WATTS

CHEERS
T

[sushimoto]

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

LoL
Thane, you are MY man.

Your new stuff is showing some fresh bucks in the pockets, hu?

Good progress.

[CRANKYpants]

TORONTO STAR PART DEUX

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/594471

"The only thing impossible to open,
is a closed mind".

[wattsup]

Could not resist.

AT FULL SPEED: 

GENERATOR INPUT (drive shaft power) = 0 WATTS
GENERATOR OUTPUT = 8.5 WATTS
CHEERS
T

Sorry but that is so very wrong.

AT FULL SPEED: 

GENERATOR INPUT (drive shaft power) = It may be 0 torque (don't know but I doubt it) but not 0 watts because the drive motor is still consuming 220-240 watts to maintain what you would call a full speed neutral shaft torque condition.

Why do you think that particular grinder motor only has grinder wheels of a specific diameter. Because if the diameter of the grinder wheel was any wider, the motor would not turn when asked to grind something. The wider you go the less tension on the end is required to create the same stall level on the drive motor.

GENERATOR OUTPUT = 8.5 WATTS

If this is based on the output voltage of around 250 volts that we have seen, then it is only  0.034 amps that is often seen with what we would call reactive power. Been there, done that, many times.

***************************************

You are not comparing apples to apples. That's why I am saying forget about all this talk. If you really want to learn about this, do the simple test I mention on my previous post. This is the only way you will learn what's really going on, what may not be happening and only then could you tackle the "real" problem to increase the efficiency.

Hint: If the mag wheel had less diameter, then the HC coil will have less potential to stall it under the same conditions as under the wider wheel. But the trade off will be less speed of magnet travel over the HC and HV coils at the same rpm.

If the drive motor at full speed has 0 torque, then by shorting the HV coil you have simply made a wheel that turns Magnet Wheel to Auto Excited Electro Magnet HV coil which simply boils down to being a Magnet to Magnet that will be subject to the same slippage phenomenon as any magnet to magnet motor being loaded by a generator. Since it boils down to magnet to magnets you still  have the sticky spot to content with and that's where the drive motor is assisting in adding just enough to overcome it. That's why the rpm increases.

So in fact, to be able to use the present system and have the HV coil auto generate a condition aiding in increase of drive motor speed, this condition is costing 220-240 watts. Now if you put two 100 watt bulbs on the generator they should light full brightness, and have 8.5 watts to spare, but I am sure they will not.

From that neutral torque condition given a finite added momentum of the HV coil being shorted, you are in fact increasing speed but you are still decreasing available torque. Meaning what? If your starting point is let's say 1000 rpm with no load, then you short the HV and connect the generator, then at 1001 rpm you will have maximum torque that was added by the HV coil and as the rpm increases the torque availability from the HV coil will still decrease from that new set-point. So there is nothing special there. You are just transfer the start point from the O rpm at the drive motor to the 1000 rpm magwheel/HV combo.

As soon as the system is turned on, you have an automatic deficit of 220-240 watts. The generator would have to produce 228.5-248.5 watts output for your 8.5 watts to be valid. If I put this in the same output equivalent as an alternator output, at 248 watts it would have to produce 12vdc at 20.666 amps. The drag that the HC coil would have to produce to make 248 watts will be so great, and the fact that it is located at the edge of the mag wheel meaning a little drag on the edge creates much drag to the drive motor, I am sure it will not turn. I have done it so many times it ain't funny. Over 250k$ worth of tests in that direction. lol

So what I was saying is if you look at the "real" problem, you will have a chance to figure out the "real" solution. I like the HV coil auto accelerating idea but again, this has been done before with other configurations. From the video link I put up, one could surmise that if you have two smaller mag wheels with the HC/HV coil in between them, maybe then there is a chance if the ten times output with two magnets video is correct and only if the output is stable and not reactive power. Volts means nothing, it's amps that counts. If the HC coil had 20 or so shorter wires wound in parallel, I think this will give you a better results but again, this requires some experimenting. But in my experience if one coil is wound over the other (which is not necessary because the same effect could be had with a separately placed HC and HV coil) the outer coil will create a cloaking effect over the inner coil as it gets energized and that may be a negative situation and that may explain why your are only getting 8.5 watts output.

Now.................... if you agree to remove that licensing post, I will agree to being more positive (but still a realist) and/or stop breathing down your neck so to speak and if you then look to what Tesla has done to drive his many motors, you will learn that there are other ways of driving that drive motor watts hog so you will have a standing chance. There is a way to drive the motor and return the power used to drive it back to source. This again has been done before. So the question is how can you drive the motor with practically no watts. That's where the OU starts.

Hint #2: No standard off the shelf motor will ever give you OU. Their inherent design flaw is there is no potential for flyback return. That's why they get hot.

Hint #3: You can get the same 0 torque by using the Rotoverter method and only consume 28-50 watts. lol

Look man, if there is anyone on the Forum that truly believes OU is possible, I'm one of them. Each new thing I learn helps me waste less time on other ideas because we get to know already what the results will be. You have a good working ethic which is highly commendable plus you have the tools to create what you have in the mind, that is the ideal situation. Now all you need is to expand your knowledge or learn to listen to others that have some knowledge in the matter. I paid my dues dearly as we have all. You can take it or leave it.

Question: How do you expect to learn something if no one challenges your method.

[i_ron]

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UUXGvQ3q8s

Butt Thane, wattsup was asking the right questions. We need people like that.

Here are some numbers from my test today…

The first part of the video shows the rotor only, no coil/core, running on 72 watts.
This is the base line. Note the 3419 RPM.

Next, the rotor, with core and open coil, running on 148 watts.
The difference then is the core drag, which lowers the speed to 3217 RPM.

Finally, with the switch to the HV coil closed, the rotor accelerates to 3330 RPM and the
draw reduces to 123 watts.

Now this is with a solid rotor but the obvious conclusion is that the drag is
reduced but the rotor does not reach the free run speed and the wattage does not reduce to free run draw.  Incidentally the coil resistance is 123 ohms and the voltage on the analog meter reads 900 volts.

So if your HV coils do better than this I look forward to the numbers. But these are the numbers that everyone is asking for, so please post your numbers in this format. Obviously I have not included the HC coils contribution to this process; I leave that up to you to explain. Because in my mind this is an important point that really is the heart of the matter.

Ron