Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[OUman]

100 turns at 2 amps driven from 10 volts  requires .1 Henry (Henry figure is made up and may be way out)
200 turns at 1 amp driven from 20 volts requires .4 Henry

In other words if you want half as much current when faced with twice as much voltage you need 4 times the reactive and ohmic resistance.  And a coil with twice as many turns of the same size mass shape will have 4 times the reactive and ohmic resistance.

Yes, that's true. I agree.

- The reactance is proportional to the inductance, which is proportional to the square of the number of turns.

- The resistance is inversely proportional to the area (cross-sectional area of the wire), which is inversely proportional to the number of turns (since you are imposing the condition that the total volume of copper remains constant*). Therefore, the resistance is in this case proportional to the square of the number of the number of turns.

- Therefore, if you double the number of turns, you multiply the impedance by 4. (both the reactive and the resistive part, provided you're keeping the total amount of copper constant*).

So, that's all true but I'm not sure where it gets us in terms of new discoveries because that's just conventional text-book calculations. What is the point you were making?


* note: and you're also assuming that the average length (circumference) of each turn is the same in either case, which may not be exactly true but is a second-order effect.

[aether22]

Yes, that's true. I agree.

- The reactance is proportional to the inductance, which is proportional to the square of the number of turns.

- The resistance is inversely proportional to the area (cross-sectional area of the wire), which is inversely proportional to the number of turns (since you are imposing the condition that the total volume of copper remains constant*). Therefore, the resistance is in this case proportional to the square of the number of the number of turns.

- Therefore, if you double the number of turns, you multiply the impedance by 4. (both the reactive and the resistive part, provided you're keeping the total amount of copper constant*).

So, that's all true but I'm not sure where it gets us in terms of new discoveries because that's just conventional text-book calculations. What is the point you were making?


* note: and you're also assuming that the length (circumference) of each turn is the same in either case, which may not be exactly true but is a second-order effect.

My point was to inform Thane that HV coils can output as much energy as HC coils. (By proving that they create the same ampere turns)
And that hence he need not have HC coils in his buggy except for regenerative braking possibly unless his device is not following basic rules of electromagnetism. (which I grant is entirely possible)

[CRANKYpants]

DEAR AETHER22,

PLEASE STOP SPECULATING ABOUT MY MOTIVES - I SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE 3 HOURS PER DAY TO DEBATE I HAVE WORK TO DO.

I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM I_RON/STEVE AS TO WHAT IS GOING ON WITH STEVE'S DEVICE?

I AM INSTALLING NEW MAGNETS ON MY ROTOR WHICH ARE 5X STRONGER THAN THER OLD ONES.

WHEN I HAVE SOMETHING WORTHWHILE TO SHARE I WILL.

Thane

[aether22]

Ah, I forgot, there is one other experiment.

Make a video of 2 tests, in the first case you get Thanes generator up to speed with the HV coil shorted, and then once the speed is at max you open circuit the HV coil as you simultaneously turn the power off to the motor.

In the second you follow the same procedure but when you turn the motor off you keep the HV coils shorted.

If the Generator were providing some motive force directly then the second instance should take a lot longer to decelerate.

However if the generator is increasing the motor power then shorting the coils may not slow deceleration and depending on the core may speed deceleration, especially with a laminated semi closed circuit core.

It has also come to my attention that attepts to increase motor speed beyond sych have failed entirely.

[vince]

Aether,

I had used a light dimmer switch but I noticed that the speed control was very dependent on the size of the rotor ( flywheel) and it was hard to get good speed control without a properly weighted rotor.  If it was too light it did not want to slow down properly and when I used too much it it took a lot more amps to keep it at the lower speed.

Vince