Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect  (Read 874197 times)

conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #735 on: March 19, 2013, 10:57:46 PM »

An easy way to see AUL is to get a diametric magnet and spin it with one of your drive coils, mine gets up to 40,000 RPM so is really good for seeing the effect in a single coil, i stuck mine on a carbon rod axle and used miniature flanged bearings sunk into holes in the perspex supports :

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?ix12bdfu0ypv1e2

I'm working on a coil that makes the rotor go faster than when there is no coil/core assembly present.

atb,

DC.

I saw your videos. Great idea. I will order some diametric ring magnets and diametric cylinder magnets. I got some small bearings but I had some success with "needle bearings" (the axle is sharpened like a pencil at both ends and the tip rests in a little crater, best in a hard material like glass).

Magnetic bearings (like skycollection does it) are also very good. Somewhere on YouTube I saw a motor like yours (diametric ring magnet on an axle) with a simple magnet bearing arrangement.

Did you drill a hole for the carbon axle or was it a ring type magnet?

Greetings, Conrad

DeepCut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #736 on: March 19, 2013, 11:16:50 PM »
It's a cylinder magnet, i got the plastic laser cut, there is a local company who are cheap and don't mind my small orders.

I bought the carbon rod online, it is good but after a while it wears down and the magnet slips if you don't superglue it.

Some pics of the diametric setup :

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?a9a5708ii8c13rf

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?f7jyrx8n8odnpqb

Some pics of a small multi-magnet rotor using threaded brass rod for axle and nuts and washers to secure bearings and rotor :

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?16o9q3z1zwi0433

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?aj22y7vrbxnkvlr


atb,

DC.




conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #737 on: March 19, 2013, 11:17:26 PM »
@synchro1 and DeepCut:

I am really amazed by the pole independence of a bifilar Tesla coil and I will try that with my "pulse motor drive circuit".

I also like DeepCut's setup ( http://www.mediafire.com/view/?ix12bdfu0ypv1e2# ) and I will build that too, just because it is so nice.

I am always reluctant drilling a hole into a magnet? But it seems to be possible without a negative effect?

I am away till after Easter, so it will be some time.

Greetings, Conrad

DeepCut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #738 on: March 19, 2013, 11:28:08 PM »
Yes that's a great fact from synchro, i will make a small bifilar drive coil and test it.

Right now i am testing the difference between a single bifilar coil as output, and the same coil rewound as quadfilar with the two sections connected in parallel, as suggested by gotoluc.

I've done the first test and am now rewinding the coil for the second, with my amazingly high-tech winding machine :

[URL=http://s1274.photobucket.com/user/deepcut71/media/DSC02942_zps1f5160e7.jpg.html](http://i1274.photobucket.com/albums/y437/deepcut71/th_DSC02942_zps1f5160e7.jpg)[/url]

Well it was a good discussion, i look forward to your build :)


atb,

DC.


DeepCut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #739 on: March 19, 2013, 11:34:20 PM »
Sorry, i forgot to say the magnet already had the hole.

I will be winding coils for a bit but i have the PC on if you have more questions.

I have asked millions of questions over the past few years so it feels good to be answering some :)


atb,

DC.


synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4720
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #740 on: March 20, 2013, 12:32:56 AM »
@synchro1 and DeepCut:

I am really amazed by the pole independence of a bifilar Tesla coil and I will try that with my "pulse motor drive circuit".

I also like DeepCut's setup ( http://www.mediafire.com/view/?ix12bdfu0ypv1e2# ) and I will build that too, just because it is so nice.

I am always reluctant drilling a hole into a magnet? But it seems to be possible without a negative effect?

I am away till after Easter, so it will be some time.

Greetings, Conrad

I agree that drilling holes in magnets is strictly Tabu!

DeepCut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #741 on: March 20, 2013, 01:09:18 AM »
Yes, no drilling of magnets !

I managed to bugger up my test coil, more wasted copper !

One day i will put all my useless coils into a bath of acetone to remove the insualation layer, then melt down the copper. Or maybe just give them away !

Anyway, i know of one other guy doing good things with parallel, multifilar coils so we know it works.

Trouble is, say we are going from bi to quadfilar, in order to maintain the same inductance we have to use twice the amount of wire, but the extra current means extra AUL so it's a price we pay for better performance and a higher current output.

atb,

DC.


synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4720
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #742 on: March 20, 2013, 01:49:24 AM »
Not to downplay Skycollection's Lenzless demonstrations too much. We can duplicate his Pancake sandwiches simply enough. His approach is awesome as it stands. Thanks to Skycollection for his recent series of enlightening videos! We're witnessing how simple it is to harvest free energy. Skycollection appears to generate at least the measely 8 watts it takes to run it. Every instinct tells me he's generating much more then 8 watts in illumination. Looks more like the equivalent of at least 40 watts to me.
 
Two capacitor banks of equal storage would answer the question. One bank charged for input, the other empty to store output. Simple to measure and compare the capacitor charges after a full run. It wouldn't surprise me to find 8 times the power in the output capacitor maybe much more. This simple discovery may replace nuclear fission and fossil fuels. I discovered an even simplier approach, however that still leaves Skycollection's innovation as the current state of the proven art. Bravo for George!
 
Another point is multiple coils split the input and Lenz delay advantage. 6 pancake coils in parallel generate the same no Lenz output back to back as they would evenly spaced around the rotor. Twenty four back to back would work as well as 6 do in 4 seperate coils. So, we should be able to quadruple the output by beefing the coils up 4 times in size! 4 coils of 24 pancakes!
 
The diametric magnet core can cut down on all this extra wire. Wait for Deepcut's forthcomming replication to see what I mean.

ALVARO_CS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #743 on: March 20, 2013, 08:16:09 AM »
4 coils 24 pankakes should mean a bigger core, (longer)
and multiply the magnetic drag,even with no lenz
a clue may also be in the number of turns (length of wire) and/or ratio center coil area- magnet area (reminds me the Adams advices)

In Adams type, I got good results with square mags on rotor, and round cores at driver coils.

Gentlemen, this discussion you shared here inspired me a lot. Thanks so much.

My next try will be exploring rectangular bifilar pankakes, playing with golden mean dimensions in 3D.(for generator coils)

Will post any result, good or bad. (sorry not able to make vids, only pics.)

cheers
Alvaro

THANE HEINS

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #744 on: March 20, 2013, 01:10:38 PM »
Hello All,

Please allow me to take a moment of your time to set the record straight...

There is no such thing as "THE DELAYED LENZ EFFECT."

The "effect" is actually called REGENERATIVE ACCELERATION or ReGenX GENERATOR INNOVATION (some also refer to it as the HEINS EFFECT with respect to the original discoverer) and it was developed by yours truly, Thane Heins from 1999 to 2008 and rose from my desire to create a new energy innovation that would end the "need" for oil wars. The ReGenX Innovation was developed on a steady diet of Blood, Sweat and Tears and often all three simultaneously.

The ReGenX innovation was introduced to the world at MIT and then Ottawa University (naively and honestly as the Perepitea Generator) via a newspaper article written by Tyler Hamilton and published by the Toronto Star who deliberately and cleverly included the "Perpetual Motion" notion to mislead and stir up readers emotions in order to sell more advertising - which they did very well because the article was one of the top articles that year (although totally based on a false premise).

At Ottawa University the Regenerative Acceleration innovation's development was assisted greatly by Luc Choquette (and his own blood, sweat tears and sore back), Owen Charles, Saverio Panetta, Bill and Ellen Costantino and many, many others - who were ALL God sent and indispensable, who helped move the innovation in their own way from one stage to another until we achieved the final goal and with both the ReGenX innovation and the BiTT and was promptly expelled from our satellite lab at OU (Ottawa University) after being slandered, locked out of our lab, physically assaulted, threatened and had 3 prototypes sabotaged.

There has been much false and predominantly ignorant criticism of the innovation over the years - which have all been proven false and baseless but some still exists today (below)...

Nevertheless the ReGenX Innovation is currently being embraced and commercialized by 8 different companies worldwide and updated patents have been filed - so it is ready to move to the next stage of its evolution - or revolution into the mainstream market and commercialized.

Those of you who have been able to successfully create a generator that has the ability to accelerate under load - you have ALL created Over-Unity devices - Congrats!, ignore what any ignorant naysayer may claim.

Thanks
Thane

Thane C. Heins
President & CEO
Potential +/- Difference Inc. R & D
"Change catalysts using our potential to make a positive difference"
Email: thaneh@potentialdifference.ca
Cell: 613.795.1602
YOUTUBE http://www.youtube.com/user/pdicanada1 
Linkedin http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=107557432&trk=tab_pro
slideshare http://www.slideshare.net/ThaneCHeins 


HERE IS YOUR ("INGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS") LESSON FOR THE DAY BOYS AND GIRLS...   
 
Cheers
Thane
 
 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: ReGenX and Impedance Matching...
From: Stefan Hartmann hartiberlin@gmail.com
Date: Mon, March 18, 2013 8:09 pm
To: thaneh@potentialdifference.ca,   
 
Hi Thane,
to me "impedance matching"  also means:   
 
DEAR STEFAN,   
 
WHAT IT "MEANS" TO YOU IS IRRELEVANT SINCE,   
 
EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN OPINIONS - BUT NOT THEIR OWN FACTS. ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Reducing the load on the input power by matching the right load at the output...

Exactly this you are doing...   
 
NOT TRUE AT ALL (AND THIS IS A FORM OF MALICIOUS SCIENTIFIC SLANDER BASED IN IGNORANCE WHICH SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED), AND WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE OVER UNITY FORUM TERMS OF USE IF SHARED: "You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate"...   
 
SINCE A DEAD SHORT IS AN INFINITE LOAD AND YOU CAN'T GET A HIGHER LOAD THAN THAT. AND THE ReGenX GENERATOR CREATES THE MOST ACCELERATION WITH A DEAD SHORT (IE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF LIGHT BULBS (LOADS) CONNECTED IN PARALLEL) AND WORKS BEST WITH PURELY RESISTIVE LOADS.   
 
THE "IMPEDANCE MATCHING" IDEA IS COMPLETLY FALSE, INACCURATE AND PURE BALONEY!   
 
But you don´t yet get more power out than in.   
 
YES WE DO (ANOTHER FALSE AND INACCURATE STATEMENT BASED IN IGNORANCE) AND I EXPLAIN WHY BELOW... TO THOSE WHO ARE EDUCATED ENOUGH TO COMPREHEND IT WILL BE CLEAR.   
 
I ALWAYS FIND IT AMAZING THAT THE FOUNDER OF AN OU FORUM CAN'T EVEN SEE OU WHEN IT HAS BEEN STARING HIM IN THE FACE FOR OVER 5 YEARS.

If you are still using your yellow motor for testing and still no flywheel, you will not see, if you can raise the RPM on the purely passive flywheel by appling your Regen-X coil load...

Only this test would be valid and will show, if adding your Regen-X system will not drag the Flywheel RPM totally down over time.   
 
NO IT WILL NOT (AND AGAIN MORE IGNORANCE)...   
 
SINCE THERE IS NOT A SINGLE CORE MATERIAL ON THE PLANET THAT DOES NOT PRODUCE SOME SORT OF HYSTERESIS EFFECT (MAGNETIC DRAG), AND REMNANT FLUX IN THE CORE REQUIRING ADDITIONAL DRIVE SHAFT COERCIVE FORCE TO EXTRACT IT. (THE COMPANY THAT CREATES ONE WILL RULE THE WORLD BTW)   
 
THE ReGenX GENERATOR OPERATES ON THE VERY SAME PRINCIPLE AS DO ALL GENERATORS I.E. COILS WITH CORES - SO IN THAT SENSE IT IS EXACTLY IDENTICAL TO ANY OTHER GENERATOR ON THE PLANET (THAT HAS CORES). 
 
HYSTERESIS, REMNANT FLUX, AND DRIVE SHAFT COERCIVE FORCE REQUIREMENTS WILL ALL BE DEALT WITH IN MANUFACTURING IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS.

So putting a Regen-X system on any motor will just need additional input power, cause your coil rods are dragging the motor down.   
 
WE DON'T USE "RODS" WE USE M3 AND ABOVE FERROMAGNETIC LAMINATIONS TO MINIMIZE CORE HYSTERESIS AS DO ALL GOOD GENERATORS AND MOTORS ON PLANET EARTH.

Why aren´t you just doing the run test on your E-Bike ?   
 
WHO SAYS WE ARE NOT?   

Just let the E-Bike run WITHOUT the Regen-X system and see how long the 36 Volts batteries will last and the attach again the Regen-X system and let the bike again run the 36 Volts Battery pack run down by recharging the 36 Volts battery pack from the output of your coils.   
 
THE 24 COILS ON THE INFINITE RANGE eBIKE PROJECT WILL DELIVER A MINIMUM OF 384 WATTS OR 16 WATTS/COIL.   THE BIKE MOTOR WILL CONSUME A MAXIMUM OF 360 WATTS.   
 
ONCE COMPLETE THE INFINITE RANGE eBIKE WILL RUN "FOREVER" AS PLANNED JUST AS WE DID AT OU (OTTAWA U WITH THE BYONX eBIKE).   

As you already have all the parts in place, why don´t you do these tests ?

Regards, Stefan.   
 
MORE IGNORANCE AND MORE FAULTY ASSUMPTIONS - ALL THE PARTS ARE NOT IN PLACE...   
 
ALL 24 COILS HAVE TO BE REWOUND AND 2 MORE ROTORS HAVE TO BE MADE AND INSTALLED WITH 2 NEW COIL JIGS ETC.       
 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OVER-UNITY AND PERPETUAL MOTION     

 
BELLOW IS THE CORRECT WAY TO EVALUATE ANY ELECTRIC GENERATOR:   
 
AN ELECTRIC GENERATOR IS A DEVICE WHICH CONVERTS MECHANICAL POWER INTO ELECTRICAL POWER.   
 
THE INPUT TO THE GENERATOR IS THE MECHANICAL POWER IN THE DRIVE SHAFT WHICH IS EQUAL TO THE TORQUE X THE SPEED.   
 
THE OUTPUT IS THE ELECTRICAL POWER DELIVERED TO THE LOAD.     
 
ALL GENERATORS ARE EVALUATED (EFFICIENCY WISE) BY WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THEY ARE PLACED ON-LOAD NOT BEFORE (DURING NO-LOAD).   
 
FOR EXAMPLE:   
 
THE HYDROELECTRIC GENERATOR ON THE RIVER IN OUR TOWN REQUIRES 500 KW OF MECHANICAL DRIVE SHAFT POWER JUST TO IDLE ON NO-LOAD!     
 
A LARGE WIND TURBINE WOULD BE EVEN WORSE AND REQUIRE EVEN MORE NO-LOAD IDLING ENERGY AND OFTEN THE WIND TURBINE'S GENERATOR IS USED AS A MOTOR TO BRING THE BLADES UP TO SPEED. ALSO OFTEN DONE TO TRICK THE TOWN FOLK WHEN THE WIND IS LOW BUT THE PEOPLE WANT TO SEE THEIR TURBINE TURNING INSTEAD OF SITTING IDLE.   
 
A DIESEL MOTOR WILL POWER A LARGE GENERATOR ON NO-LOAD WITH A LARGE FUEL CONSUMPTION - WITH ZERO POWER IN THE DRIVE SHAFT, ZERO GENERATOR OUTPUT AND ZERO EFFICIENCY.   
 
THE IDLING NO-LOAD MECHANICAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS ARE NEVER EVER PART OF THE EFFICIENCY CALCULATION. IF THEY WERE MOST GENERATORS WOULD BE LESS THAN 10% EFFICIENT AND THIS IS NOT THE CASE.   
 
IT IS THE ON-LOAD MECHANICAL ENERGY INPUT INCREASE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IMPORTANT NOT THE NO-LOAD IDLING PRIME MOVER POWER CONSUMPTION.   
 
I.E. A GENERATOR THAT DELIVERS 0.8 WATTS TO THE LOAD WITH A 1 WATT INCREASE IN ON-LOAD MECHANICAL DRIVE SHAFT POWER OVER THE NO-LOAD STARTING POINT IS 80% EFFICIENT - EVEN THOUGH THE NO-LOAD MECHANICAL ENERGY INPUT MAY BE 500 KW AND THE TOTAL INPUT 500,001 WATTS WITH AN OUTPUT OF 0.8 WATTS!   
 
SO IF YOU HAVE A GENERATOR THAT ACCELERATES ON-LOAD ANY LOAD (AND YOU ARE NOT SOMEHOW REDUCING NO-LOAD MECHANICAL LOSSES IN THE PROCESS THEN YOU HAVE OVER-UNITY) CONGRATULATIONS!   
 
SATURATING THE CORE AND REDUCING ROTOR FLUX PENETRATION WOULD BE A FORM OF NO-LOAD LOSS REDUCTION BECAUSE THE HYSTERESIS EFFECTS WOULD BE REDUCED (BUT THE CORE WOULD QUICKLY OVERHEAT AND FAIL)   
 
AS WOULD LEVITATING THE GENERATOR OFF THE BEARINGS OR SUPERCONDUCTING YOUR COILS ETC. WHEN PLACING IT ON-LOAD.

BTW THE NET MECHANICAL INPUT POWER TO ANY GENERATOR AT ANY STEADY STATE SPEED IS 0.00 WATTS BECAUSE THE NET TORQUE WILL ALWAYS BE ZERO AND MECHANICAL INPUT POWER = TORQUE X SPEED.   
 
IF THE SYSTEM ACCELERATES ON-LOAD THEN THE MECHANICAL DRIVE SHAFT POWER INCREASES (OVER THE NO-LOAD STARTING POINT) + THE LOAD POWER ADDED TOGETHER ARE MORE THAN THE NO-LOAD STARTING POINT ... THE GENERATOR IS OVER-UNIY ALTHOUGH NOT PERPETUAL MOTION.     
 
IF YOU CAN DELIVER SUSTAINED POWER TO A LOAD (OR LOADS) WITH A REDUCTION IN NO-LOAD IDLING INPUT POWER REQUIREMENT THEN EVEN BETTER.     
 
ANY GENERATOR THAT CAN DELIVER 1 WATT OF ELECTRICAL POWER WITH ONLY A 1 WATT INCREASE IN MECHANICAL DRIVE SHAFT INPUT POWER INCREASE (OVER THE N0-LOAD STARTING POINT) IS 100% EFFICIENT.   
 
IT GOES UP OR DOWN FROM THERE... NOT HAVING TO INCREASE THE MECHANICAL INPUT WHILE DELIVERING 0.0000000000000000000000000001^N=INFINITY WATTS IS OVER-UNITY.     
 
THE ReGenX GENERATOR DELIVERS 1 WATT OF ELECTRICAL POWER TO ITS LOADS + AN INCREASE IN MECHANICAL OUTPUT WITHOUT AN INCREASE IN DRIVE SHAFT MECHANICAL INPUT POWER AND INCLUDES A REDUCTION IN PRIME MOVER INPUT.   
 
PERPETUAL MOTION IN THIS CASE REQUIRES AN OVER-UNITY GENERATOR CONFIGURATION WHEREBY THE ELECTRICAL OUTPUT EXCEEDS THE ELECTRICAL INPUT POWER AND ALL THE RESISTIVE LOSSES IN THE SYSTEM WHICH IS A TALL ORDER BECAUSE THE RESISTIVE LOSSES INCREASE AS SYSTEM SPEED INCREASES     
 
BUT IT CAN AND HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE AND WILL BE DONE AGAIN.     
 
REGARDS Thane

ps
THE DAY I CREATED A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE AT OTTAWA UNIVERSITY (ATTACHED)

DeepCut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #745 on: March 20, 2013, 01:13:34 PM »
synchro i'm having serious doubts about this 'magnet as a core'.

Both of my tube magnets are 0.6 Tesla, even having them sitting four inches apart would make it impossible to spin up the rotor magnet.

You have tried this yourself, haven't you ?


atb,

DC.


Heinstein

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 96
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #746 on: March 20, 2013, 01:17:00 PM »
A MESSAGE FROM THANE HEINS (I'll remove this one if the moderator doesn't censor me?)
 
Hello All,
 
Please allow me to take a moment of your time to set the record straight...
 
There is no such thing as "THE DELAYED LENZ EFFECT."
 
The "effect" is actually called REGENERATIVE ACCELERATION or ReGenX GENERATOR INNOVATION (some also refer to it as the HEINS EFFECT with respect to the original discoverer) and it was developed by yours truly, Thane Heins from 1999 to 2008 and rose from my desire to create a new energy innovation that would end the "need" for oil wars. The ReGenX Innovation was developed on a steady diet of Blood, Sweat and Tears and often all three simultaneously.
 
The ReGenX innovation was introduced to the world at MIT and then Ottawa University (naively and honestly as the Perepitea Generator) via a newspaper article written by Tyler Hamilton and published by the Toronto Star who deliberately and cleverly included the "Perpetual Motion" notion to mislead and stir up readers emotions in order to sell more advertising - which they did very well because the article was one of the top articles that year (although totally based on a false premise).
 
At Ottawa University the Regenerative Acceleration innovation's development was assisted greatly by Luc Choquette (and his own blood, sweat tears and sore back), Owen Charles, Saverio Panetta, Bill and Ellen Costantino and many, many others - who were ALL God sent and indispensable, who helped move the innovation in their own way from one stage to another until we achieved the final goal and with both the ReGenX innovation and the BiTT and was promptly expelled from our satellite lab at OU (Ottawa University) after being slandered, locked out of our lab, physically assaulted, threatened and had 3 prototypes sabotaged.
 
There has been much false and predominantly ignorant criticism of the innovation over the years - which have all been proven false and baseless but some still exists today (below)...
 
Nevertheless the ReGenX Innovation is currently being embraced and commercialized by 8 different companies worldwide and updated patents have been filed - so it is ready to move to the next stage of its evolution - or revolution into the mainstream market and commercialized.
 
Those of you who have been able to successfully create a generator that has the ability to accelerate under load - you have ALL created Over-Unity devices - Congrats!, ignore what any ignorant naysayer may claim.
 
Thanks
Thane
 
Thane C. Heins
President & CEO
Potential +/- Difference Inc. R & D
"Change catalysts using our potential to make a positive difference"
Email: thaneh@potentialdifference.ca 
Cell: 613.795.1602
YOUTUBE http://www.youtube.com/user/pdicanada1 
Linkedin http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=107557432&trk=tab_pro
slideshare http://www.slideshare.net/ThaneCHeins 

 
HERE IS YOUR ("INGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS") LESSON FOR THE DAY BOYS AND GIRLS...   
 
Cheers
Thane
 
 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: ReGenX and Impedance Matching...
From: Stefan Hartmann hartiberlin@gmail.com 
Date: Mon, March 18, 2013 8:09 pm
To: thaneh@potentialdifference.ca,     
 
Hi Thane,
to me "impedance matching"  also means:   
 
DEAR STEFAN,   
 
WHAT IT "MEANS" TO YOU IS IRRELEVANT SINCE,   
 
EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN OPINIONS - BUT NOT THEIR OWN FACTS. ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Reducing the load on the input power by matching the right load at the output...
Exactly this you are doing...   
 
NOT TRUE AT ALL (AND THIS IS A FORM OF MALICIOUS SCIENTIFIC SLANDER BASED IN IGNORANCE WHICH SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED), AND WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE OVER UNITY FORUM TERMS OF USE IF SHARED: "You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate"...   
 
SINCE A DEAD SHORT IS AN INFINITE LOAD AND YOU CAN'T GET A HIGHER LOAD THAN THAT. AND THE ReGenX GENERATOR CREATES THE MOST ACCELERATION WITH A DEAD SHORT (IE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF LIGHT BULBS (LOADS) CONNECTED IN PARALLEL) AND WORKS BEST WITH PURELY RESISTIVE LOADS.   
 
THE "IMPEDANCE MATCHING" IDEA IS COMPLETLY FALSE, INACCURATE AND PURE BALONEY!   
 
THERE IS NO IMPEDANCE MATCHING HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgHFhNMkDiw&list=PLkH1zLdXy1SypPD7inxAYi8MjkQk91syC&index=1
 
OR HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCRx9MW-a7M&list=PLkH1zLdXy1SypPD7inxAYi8MjkQk91syC
 
OR IN ANY OTHER ReGenX TEST AND THE ONLY VATIALBE THAT IS CHANGED IS THE OPERATING FREQUENCY OF THE ReGenX COIL AND THE LOAD STAYS THE SAME (ALWAYS)!
 
But you don´t yet get more power out than in.   
 
YES WE DO (ANOTHER FALSE AND INACCURATE STATEMENT BASED IN IGNORANCE) AND I EXPLAIN WHY BELOW... TO THOSE WHO ARE EDUCATED ENOUGH TO COMPREHEND IT WILL BE CLEAR.   
 
I ALWAYS FIND IT AMAZING THAT THE FOUNDER OF AN OU FORUM CAN'T EVEN SEE OU WHEN IT HAS BEEN STARING HIM IN THE FACE FOR OVER 5 YEARS.

If you are still using your yellow motor for testing and still no flywheel, you will not see, if you can raise the RPM on the purely passive flywheel by appling your Regen-X coil load...

Only this test would be valid and will show, if adding your Regen-X system will not drag the Flywheel RPM totally down over time.   
 
NO IT WILL NOT (AND AGAIN MORE IGNORANCE)...   
 
SINCE THERE IS NOT A SINGLE CORE MATERIAL ON THE PLANET THAT DOES NOT PRODUCE SOME SORT OF HYSTERESIS EFFECT (MAGNETIC DRAG), AND REMNANT FLUX IN THE CORE REQUIRING ADDITIONAL DRIVE SHAFT COERCIVE FORCE TO EXTRACT IT. (THE COMPANY THAT CREATES ONE WILL RULE THE WORLD BTW)   
 
THE ReGenX GENERATOR OPERATES ON THE VERY SAME PRINCIPLE AS DO ALL GENERATORS I.E. COILS WITH CORES - SO IN THAT SENSE IT IS EXACTLY IDENTICAL TO ANY OTHER GENERATOR ON THE PLANET (THAT HAS CORES). 
 
HYSTERESIS, REMNANT FLUX, AND DRIVE SHAFT COERCIVE FORCE REQUIREMENTS WILL ALL BE DEALT WITH IN THE DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING PROCESS IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS.

So putting a Regen-X system on any motor will just need additional input power, cause your coil rods are dragging the motor down.   
 
WE DON'T USE "RODS" WE USE M3 AND ABOVE FERROMAGNETIC LAMINATIONS TO MINIMIZE CORE HYSTERESIS AS DO ALL GOOD GENERATORS AND MOTORS ON PLANET EARTH.

Why aren´t you just doing the run test on your E-Bike ?   
 
WHO SAYS WE ARE NOT?   

Just let the E-Bike run WITHOUT the Regen-X system and see how long the 36 Volts batteries will last and the attach again the Regen-X system and let the bike again run the 36 Volts Battery pack run down by recharging the 36 Volts battery pack from the output of your coils.   
 
THE 24 COILS ON THE INFINITE RANGE eBIKE PROJECT WILL DELIVER A MINIMUM OF 384 WATTS OR 16 WATTS/COIL.   THE BIKE MOTOR WILL CONSUME A MAXIMUM OF 360 WATTS.   
 
ONCE COMPLETE THE INFINITE RANGE eBIKE WILL RUN "FOREVER" AS PLANNED JUST AS WE DID AT OU (OTTAWA U WITH THE BYONX eBIKE).   

As you already have all the parts in place, why don´t you do these tests ?
Regards, Stefan.   
 
MORE IGNORANCE AND MORE FAULTY ASSUMPTIONS - ALL THE PARTS ARE NOT IN PLACE...   
 
ALL 24 COILS HAVE TO BE REWOUND AND 2 MORE ROTORS HAVE TO BE MADE AND INSTALLED WITH 2 NEW COIL JIGS ETC.
       
 
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OVER-UNITY AND PERPETUAL MOTION     

BELLOW IS THE CORRECT WAY TO EVALUATE ANY ELECTRIC GENERATOR:   
 
AN ELECTRIC GENERATOR IS A DEVICE WHICH CONVERTS MECHANICAL POWER (IN A DRIVE SHAFT) INTO ELECTRICAL POWER.   
 
THE INPUT TO THE GENERATOR IS THE MECHANICAL POWER IN THE DRIVE SHAFT WHICH IS EQUAL TO THE TORQUE X THE SPEED.   

THE OUTPUT IS THE ELECTRICAL POWER DELIVERED TO THE LOAD.     
 
ALL GENERATORS ARE EVALUATED (EFFICIENCY WISE) BY WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THEY ARE PLACED ON-LOAD NOT BEFORE (DURING NO-LOAD).   
 
FOR EXAMPLE:   
 
THE HYDROELECTRIC GENERATOR ON THE RIVER IN OUR TOWN REQUIRES 500 KW OF MECHANICAL DRIVE SHAFT POWER JUST TO IDLE ON NO-LOAD!     
 
A LARGE WIND TURBINE WOULD BE EVEN WORSE AND REQUIRE EVEN MORE NO-LOAD IDLING ENERGY AND OFTEN THE WIND TURBINE'S GENERATOR IS USED AS A MOTOR TO BRING THE BLADES UP TO SPEED. ALSO OFTEN DONE TO TRICK THE TOWN FOLK WHEN THE WIND IS LOW BUT THE PEOPLE WANT TO SEE THEIR TURBINE TURNING INSTEAD OF SITTING IDLE.   
 
A DIESEL MOTOR WILL POWER A LARGE GENERATOR ON NO-LOAD WITH A LARGE FUEL CONSUMPTION - WITH ZERO POWER IN THE DRIVE SHAFT, ZERO GENERATOR OUTPUT AND ZERO EFFICIENCY.   
 
THE IDLING NO-LOAD MECHANICAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS ARE NEVER EVER PART OF THE EFFICIENCY CALCULATION. IF THEY WERE MOST GENERATORS WOULD BE LESS THAN 10% EFFICIENT AND THIS IS NOT THE CASE.   
 
IT IS THE ON-LOAD MECHANICAL ENERGY INPUT INCREASE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IMPORTANT NOT THE NO-LOAD IDLING PRIME MOVER POWER CONSUMPTION.   
 
I.E. A GENERATOR THAT DELIVERS 0.8 WATTS TO THE LOAD WITH A 1 WATT INCREASE IN ON-LOAD MECHANICAL DRIVE SHAFT POWER OVER THE NO-LOAD STARTING POINT IS 80% EFFICIENT - EVEN THOUGH THE NO-LOAD MECHANICAL ENERGY INPUT MAY BE 500 KW AND THE TOTAL INPUT 500,001 WATTS WITH AN OUTPUT OF 0.8 WATTS!   
 
SO IF YOU HAVE A GENERATOR THAT ACCELERATES ON-LOAD ANY LOAD (AND YOU ARE NOT SOMEHOW REDUCING NO-LOAD MECHANICAL LOSSES IN THE PROCESS THEN YOU HAVE OVER-UNITY) CONGRATULATIONS!   
 
SATURATING THE CORE AND REDUCING ROTOR FLUX PENETRATION WOULD BE A FORM OF NO-LOAD LOSS REDUCTION BECAUSE THE HYSTERESIS EFFECTS WOULD BE REDUCED (BUT THE CORE WOULD QUICKLY OVERHEAT AND FAIL)   
 
AS WOULD LEVITATING THE GENERATOR OFF THE BEARINGS OR SUPERCONDUCTING YOUR COILS ETC. WHEN PLACING IT ON-LOAD.
BTW THE NET MECHANICAL INPUT POWER TO ANY GENERATOR AT ANY STEADY STATE SPEED IS 0.00 WATTS BECAUSE THE NET TORQUE WILL ALWAYS BE ZERO AND MECHANICAL INPUT POWER = TORQUE X SPEED.   
 
IF THE SYSTEM ACCELERATES ON-LOAD THEN THE MECHANICAL DRIVE SHAFT POWER INCREASES (OVER THE NO-LOAD STARTING POINT) + THE LOAD POWER ADDED TOGETHER ARE MORE THAN THE NO-LOAD STARTING POINT ... THE GENERATOR IS OVER-UNIY ALTHOUGH NOT PERPETUAL MOTION.     
 
IF YOU CAN DELIVER SUSTAINED POWER TO A LOAD (OR LOADS) WITH A REDUCTION IN NO-LOAD IDLING INPUT POWER REQUIREMENT THEN EVEN BETTER.     
 
ANY GENERATOR THAT CAN DELIVER 1 WATT OF ELECTRICAL POWER WITH ONLY A 1 WATT INCREASE IN MECHANICAL DRIVE SHAFT INPUT POWER INCREASE (OVER THE N0-LOAD STARTING POINT) IS 100% EFFICIENT.   
 
IT GOES UP OR DOWN FROM THERE... NOT HAVING TO INCREASE THE MECHANICAL INPUT WHILE DELIVERING 0.0000000000000000000000000001^N=INFINITY WATTS IS OVER-UNITY.     
 
THE ReGenX GENERATOR DELIVERS 1 WATT OF ELECTRICAL POWER TO ITS LOADS + AN INCREASE IN MECHANICAL OUTPUT WITHOUT AN INCREASE IN DRIVE SHAFT MECHANICAL INPUT POWER AND INCLUDES A REDUCTION IN PRIME MOVER INPUT.   
 
PERPETUAL MOTION IN THIS CASE REQUIRES AN OVER-UNITY GENERATOR CONFIGURATION WHEREBY THE ELECTRICAL OUTPUT EXCEEDS THE ELECTRICAL INPUT POWER AND ALL THE RESISTIVE LOSSES IN THE SYSTEM WHICH IS A TALL ORDER BECAUSE THE RESISTIVE LOSSES INCREASE AS SYSTEM SPEED INCREASES     
 
BUT IT CAN AND HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE AND WILL BE DONE AGAIN.     
 
REGARDS Thane
ps
THE DAY I CREATED A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE AT OTTAWA UNIVERSITY (ATTACHED)

DeepCut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #747 on: March 20, 2013, 01:37:30 PM »
Very well said Thane.

Does this mean that i am going to rule the world ?


All the best,

DC.


conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #748 on: March 20, 2013, 01:43:03 PM »
Among a ton of words Mr. Thane C. Heins writes:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE 24 COILS ON THE INFINITE RANGE eBIKE PROJECT WILL DELIVER A MINIMUM OF 384 WATTS OR 16 WATTS/COIL.   THE BIKE MOTOR WILL CONSUME A MAXIMUM OF 360 WATTS.   
 
ONCE COMPLETE THE INFINITE RANGE eBIKE WILL RUN "FOREVER" AS PLANNED JUST AS WE DID AT OU (OTTAWA U WITH THE BYONX eBIKE).   
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not a native English speaker but as far as I understand, the alleged OU may be WILL HAPPEN, i.e. may be the case in the future.

Someone will have proven OU once it HAS HAPPENED.

So, lets wait and watch.

The only OU devices I have ever heard of WILL be OU after some improvements. And REGENERATIVE ACCELERATION seems to be in a similar category of OU devices.

It is good to experiment with this effect, but it is pretty unproductive to call it OU without factual proof. Proof by definition (as Mr. Heins attempts) is not very helpful. Words rarely deliver energy, words just deliver a small amount of warm air (in case they are spoken and not written down).

So, let's experiment. Bragging, claiming of rights, name giving and saving of the world should be delayed till proof materialises.

Greetings, Conrad

synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4720
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #749 on: March 20, 2013, 01:43:03 PM »
synchro i'm having serious doubts about this 'magnet as a core'.

Both of my tube magnets are 0.6 Tesla, even having them sitting four inches apart would make it impossible to spin up the rotor magnet.

You have tried this yourself, haven't you ?


atb,

DC.

I get tired of repeating myself. You need to run the rotor up first past threshold speed, then position the magnet core coil. You've made it much more difficult for me to keep explaining this to you then it would be to try it. I'm tired of your insults. This is my final response to you.