Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[jacksatan]

...please do explain what you mean by (external efficiency) if it's not covered by input power taking a dive as generator losses (outputs), inductive and magnetic increase (as shown in the first vid and hence almost surely present in the 2nd unless the motor dramatically reduces losses in the generator also).

In all seriousness you simply don't want to find that this thing works, you are grasping at straws.

What I mean by external efficiency is simply power out divided by power in. Measure those with Thane's device completely out of action (ie make sure it's exerting no drag on the system, either mechanical or electrical: preferably, remove it altogether). Let's say you measure 80W out for 100W in. That means your motor's efficiency is 80%.

Now, connect Thane's device to the system and connect/disconnect any coils you like in any combination. One of three things can happen:

1. That same 100W in gets you 85W out - then this is a valuable invention because you've increased the efficiency to 85%.

2. But if you only get 75W out, then the efficiency has dropped to 75% so it's a bust.

3. If you get 101W out, then you're dreaming.

I'm not sure why you think this is grasping at straws - which part of this suggestion do you find to be unreasonable or illogical?

Um, no, again.

You have correctly recognized that motors output less torque energy than electrical in.
But you have failed in the above example to load the motor so the test without the generator will show very little in and nothing out. (and the efficiency of an unloaded motor is different to the efficiency of a loaded one, also if you are not going to have any drag, then you have no output, can't measure something that does not exist)

You would need to load it mechanically so that it is at the same speed and draws the same amps (has the same drag) as with the generator active with the full path to motor.
But you should find the gen less efficient probably because Thanes generator like any generator has losses compared to the torque input, in fact it has been built to have extra losses to slow it down. (say electricity to torque is a 35% loss (his motor ain't efficient) so you have 65% efficiency, but useful electrical output might be only 50% efficient as eddy and hysteresis losses in the core are so great so 32.5% efficiency or 32.5w from 100w in, meaning even if the amps to the motor halved with the same output you'd still show it as less successful than straight torque)

A better comparison would be to have a known equal drag on the motor, say a shorted generator, hey let's use Thanes! And then try it again with an uninterrupted path to the motor, we know that in each case the generator hasn't changed (unless you propose that the motor sends something to the generator) and is providing the same drag, we can therefore see that the generator's emf/aether output is effecting the motor.

Since the drag in vid one must be present in vid 2 we can count it as output without needing to see if it's still there (if it isn't an even larger miracle has occurred), so now shorted coils, and heating from eddy currents and hysteresis are automatically counted as output.

In short Thane has already done (the sane and possible version of) your test and the result is positive.
Your test is quite simply impossible and nonsensical and even if 'fixed' Thanes current generator is too inefficient to have too much chance of passing it unless you get into calorimetry and measure the heat outputs.

Because you can't possibly explain the effect you are just suggesting very poor experiments to do away with it while ignoring the anomaly.

Edit:

[/color]

Polar, one more thing.
I already suggested the most practical corrected version of the experiment you suggest, which is to run Thanes generator via a belt leaving the shaft free to output flux (though it's possible it would work just find at either end of the axle currently) into another motor (which again should maybe be belt) powering a conventional generator with set load.

Since Thanes generator is not passing any recognized form of energy to the other conventional motor generator system you can simply see if it improves the efficiency to recognize if the effect is valid, though we already know it is.

I am honestly just as confused over here as PolarBreeze... My original suggestion was to put EQUAL LOAD on the system in the contraption as out - I suggested a simple wooden string winder which would put a small but measurable load on the motor and simply measure the amount of string wound both in and out of the contraption. This would put the identical load on the system and would tell you whether while using the SAME amount of input energy you are able to get a greater lesser USEFUL OUTPUT than if the whole contraption did not exist... I do not mean to belittle any of the fascinating exercises on the applicability of Lenz' Law or hysteresis braking, but what I am interested in (and what I believe 99% of those reading the past 45 pages of messages are interested in) is whether Thane managed to increase the efficiency of the motor. One way to verify if it is more efficient is listed above... ways to avoid the question include measuring voltage without amperage, torque without energy, rpms without time, or any other number that is not simply distillable into a number that can finish the following statement: "The unique magnetic structure of this motor has made it __ % more/less efficient than the the use of the motor itself."

BTW - It does not help you case to say in one breath that he has both evidenced a more efficient motor, and that he cannot evidence it due to inherent inefficiencies in his setup...

[jacksatan]

PolarBreeze ,just for clarity what do you mean by dreaming ,Chet

What he means is that if your results indicate that you have broken the laws of Conservation of Energy, you are either dreaming or likely doing something wrong... here is as good a place as anywhere to indicate that the laws of Conservation of Energy are similar to the laws of gravity in the following way:

In theory, there may be someone out there who can fly, it is unlikely, but possible. How unlikely? Unlikely enough that if I saw Chris Angel flying down the street like Superman, I would not for a moment think that he has broken the laws of gravity, but would instead assume any other conceivable explanation almost regardless how far-fetched before the thought that he has broken the laws of gravity even crossed my mind...

Conservation of Energy is similar... I am open-minded enough to admit that it is "possible", but I am realistic enough to believe that is about as likely as us Muggles not noticing platform 9 1/2 with the train to Hogwarts School of Wizardry...

[jacksatan]

or 9 3/4... its been a while

[aether22]

I'm in blue once again, polar in black

1. "Torque energy" is a meaningless term. Torque is torque; energy is energy.


It is pretty clear what I mean, let's consult Wikipedia:
If a force is allowed to act through a distance, it is doing mechanical work. Similarly, if torque is allowed to act through a rotational distance, it is doing work.

And work is energy.

Now I am to either assume that you are an idiot, or a c#^t.
You either do not understand that energy can be conveyed through applying torque to a shaft or you are playing some word game in some lame (and IMO failed) attempt at one oneupmanship and making an argument in preference to truth or science.

2. "Load it mechanically" - yes, of course, that's what I'm suggesting! A motor is no good unless it can provide mechanical output so the only proper way to test it is with a mechanical load.

You did not mention any mechanical load, you said "no drag on the system, either mechanical or electrical", now I was not sure at the time but now it's clear that you simply omitted mentioning applying some other load which does drag the motor.

3. "built with extra losses to slow it down" - so what on earth benefit is that? Loss means wasted energy.

This is what you do not understand, Thane did not call it a Free Energy device, the name he gave it is a reverse action device and he has tuned it to make this effect most readily apparent to make a good demo.
And he is very wise in having done so and very likely by studying the physics involved in it's operation it can progress with less negative attention and contribute far far more than just another FE device to be dismantled and ignored. (and not understood)
Yes Free Energy is clearly Thanes goal, but Free Energy is not quite what this device was designed to create, rather to identify and demo an anomaly which can be used for Free Energy in a more efficient device when better understood. (If it had no core losses it would be running at max speed when not shorted already, that would not make a good demo!)
Clearly Thane has not been concerned with making it effecient yet.


4. Thane's test is NOT anywhere close to what I'm proposing because he does not provide an external mechanical load on which to measure the power output.

It has an electrical load that places a mechanical drag.
If you argue that this is not as good as your test then you would have to claim that either: Energy is going missing in the first demo, it is not being wasted as hysteresis, eddy currents, or mechanical vibration but is disappearing and this is not occurring in the second demo.
OR you would need to hold that in the second demo somehow adding the piece os steel has dramatically reduced losses in the generator. (although that would it's self be useful)

Otherwise the generator is an equal or in fact due to the higher speed a greater load in the second demo.

If you have 100 watts usage (through the intended coil induction as well as core losses) in the first demo then tell me how you could possibly have less in the second, and if there is less in the second how would that not be an achievement anyway?

You are utterly missing the point, you have no interest in physics, all you want to do is find the most impractical test to show the device does not work.

WHAT YOU CAN NOT EXPLAIN IS HOW A TINY PIECE OF STEEL ADDED TO THE SHAFT CAN CHANGE IT FROM A DEAD STOP TO OUT OF CONTROL ACCELERATION WHILE REDUCING INPUT!

Suggesting entirely impractical tests that are sure/likely to fail with the current design does not sound helpful to me, you also seem to be assuming that a generator can turn rotational (torque) energy into electrical energy at 100% efficiency, far from it and with a home made generator even further.
If you put 100W into the motor, while pulling 80W on a mechanical load, if you selected a normal electrical generator to provide an 80W mechanical loading it might be 64W electrical output assuming an 80% efficient generator.

Since Thane has huge hysteresis losses due to solid core coils and inefficient pickup coils it would likely require a redesign.

I'd rather not waste my time replying to this nonsense, I don't think you want to get the point of this.

[adlep]

Hi Thane;

I increased the speed so that it started making 1 volt on that coil and guess what! it took off and started to speed up and went to 3 volts, with no added power.  This is just preliminary.  May be I'm seeing things .  Going to have to test this further. Was this the threshold speed you talk about?

Vince

Is this a breakthrough?
Lets pay attention to Vince fellas!