Mark E
you work in sanitation now...... garbage in Garbage out??

Actually some of us can read too...
there is no bottom line yet ,just some adjustments and further experiments....


this is typical of actual experiments into unknown regions.


the coming months, Eagleworks plans to upgrade their equipment to higher power levels, use vacuum-capable RF amplifiers with power ranges of up to 125 W, and design a new tapered cavity analytically determined to be in the 0.1 N/kW region. The test article will be subjected to independent verification and validation  at  Glenn Research Center , the ]Jet Propulsion Laboratory , and the Johns Hopkins University  Applied Physics Laboratory [14


sorry it does not meet your higher "experimental sanitation" standards ,perhaps you should apply for a consulting Job over there and show them how its done??

We do have some acquaintances over there...I'll put in a word for you ?


PLEASE ??


thx
Chet

Hi everyone,

I know you're all at the edge of your seats waiting for someone to build a test device and post the results, so today I made an effort to get mine done and as I'm writing this a video demo with basic test results is being uploaded.

I must say even though the video has some interesting results I will ask those who have hope this device is the real thing to please stay calm and not jump to the conclusion this is a free energy device until we have done many more tests and I'm ready to make that claim.

I'll explain a little why I ask this.
When I first tested the device I used the drill press (prime mover) at the slowest speed and when I connected the load it consumed the exact power from the prime mover that the load delivered. So I thought this device isn't working and was going to post the video that way.

However, just before uploading the video I had the idea to try a higher RPM just to see what would happen.  So I went up two speeds and to my surprise it now was delivering power to the load without affecting the prime mover. So then I went up another speed and now it actually uses less power when under load.
So I shot the video of that and at the end of the video I said I would try a higher load resistor to see what happens and used a 12.5 Ohm load instead of the 1 Ohm load and it delivered 30 watts to it but also used 30 watts from the prime mover.

So there's something interesting going on but we need to take our time to better understand it.

Also, some weeks back I posted that I had the feeling this was similar to the ReGen-X effect and after seeing today's results I'm still thinking the very same way. So lets work together in a caring way so we can improve this effect as a group effort.

Link to video demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZXFns8PZ38

Help ever hurt never

Luc

Hi everyone,

I know you're all at the edge of your seats waiting for someone to build a test device and post the results, so today I made an effort to get mine done and as I'm writing this a video demo with basic test results is being uploaded.

I must say even though the video has some interesting results I will ask those who have hope this device is the real thing to please stay calm and not jump to the conclusion this is a free energy device until we have done many more tests and I'm ready to make that claim.

I'll explain a little why I ask this.
When I first tested the device I used the drill press (prime mover) at the slowest speed and when I connected the load it consumed the exact power from the prime mover that the load delivered. So I thought this device isn't working and was going to post the video that way.

However, just before uploading the video I had the idea to try a higher RPM just to see what would happen.  So I went up two speeds and to my surprise it now was delivering power to the load without affecting the prime mover. So then I went up another speed and now it actually uses less power when under load.
So I shot the video of that and at the end of the video I said I would try a higher load resistor to see what happens and used a 12.5 Ohm load instead of the 1 Ohm load and it delivered 30 watts to it but also used 30 watts from the prime mover.

So there's something interesting going on but we need to take our time to better understand it.

Also, some weeks back I posted that I had the feeling this was similar to the ReGen-X effect and after seeing today's results I'm still thinking the very same way. So lets work together in a caring way so we can improve this effect as a group effort.

Link to video demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZXFns8PZ38

Help ever hurt never

Luc

Thanks Luc! Good to be cautious. Great video as always. I couldn't tell from the vid do you think the prime mover rpms are the same under load?

  Good work, Luc.  More power to you!


  Just as one would not pre-judge Luc's experiments, so we might be patient with the experiments in progress by NASA and colleagues re: EMdriver.


QUOTE
NASA/JSC Advanced Propulsion Physics Laboratory (Eagleworks)[[/size]edit[/font][/size]]A NASA team at the Advanced Propulsion Physics Laboratory (informally known as Eagleworks)[/size][26][/font][/size] located at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) under the guidance of physicist [/size]Harold G. White[/font][/size] is devoted to studying advanced propulsion systems that they hope to develop using quantum vacuum and spacetime engineering. The group has investigated a wide range of [/size]fringe proposals[/font][/size] including the EmDrive, and related concepts listed below.RF resonant tapered cavity thruster (EmDrive)[[/size]edit[/font][/size]]In July 2014, the group reported positive results for an evaluation of a RF resonant tapered cavity similar to Shawyer's EmDrive.[/size][14][/font][/size]Testing was performed using a low-thrust [/size]torsion pendulum[/font][/size] capable of detecting force at the micronewton level within a sealed but not evacuated [/size]vacuum chamber[/font][/size]; the [/size]RF power amplifier[/font][/size] used an [/size]electrolytic capacitor[/font][/size] not capable of operating in a hard vacuum.[/size][14][/font][/size]The experimenters recorded directional thrust immediately upon application of power.[/size]NASA's tests of this tapered RF resonant cavity were conducted at very low power (2% of Shawyer's 2002 experiment and 0.7% of the Chinese 2010 experiment), but a net mean thrust over five runs was measured at 91.2 µN at 17 W of input power. A net peak thrust was recorded at 116 µN at the same power level.[14][/size][/size][/font][/size]The experiment was criticized for not having been conducted under vacuum, which would have eliminated thermal air currents. The researchers plan to replace vacuum-incompatible components.[27][/size][/size][/font][/size]In the coming months, Eagleworks plans to upgrade their equipment to higher power levels, use vacuum-capable RF amplifiers with power ranges of up to 125 W, and design a new tapered cavity analytically determined to be in the 0.1 N/kW region. The test article will be subjected to independent verification and validation[/size] at [/size]Glenn Research Center[/font][/size], the [/size]Jet Propulsion Laboratory[/font][/size], and the Johns Hopkins University [/size]Applied Physics Laboratory[/font][/size].[/size][14][/font][/size]
UNQUOTE


"Independent verification and validation" - is something that should be looked for and lauded, not pre-judged and condemned. 

Hi Luc-great video. I would like to see what the drill press draws without the coil and core under it-but leave the magnetic gate in the chuck.What i believe you will find is that without the coil and core under the rotating gate,your current draw by the drill press will be even less than it is when you have your load resistor placed across your inductor. I have found that the core's act much like a battery,and the alternating magnetic flux is what charges these batteries,and in your case,the battery is shorted. When you hook up the load to your inductor,this magnetic charge then go's through your coil,and thus current flows through your resistor,so your magnetic power(if we can call it that)is no longer trying to charge your shorted battery,and thus you see a load drop on your prime mover when you place your load resistor across the coil.Maybe placeing a load on your inductor is some how relieving the eddy current stress in the core,and this is the very thing i have been working on-eddy current stress relief.

Anyway-as alway's-great work.

Hi Luc-great video. I would like to see what the drill press draws without the coil and core under it-but leave the magnetic gate in the chuck.What i believe you will find is that without the coil and core under the rotating gate,your current draw by the drill press will be even less than it is when you have your load resistor placed across your inductor. I have found that the core's act much like a battery,and the alternating magnetic flux is what charges these batteries,and in your case,the battery is shorted. When you hook up the load to your inductor,this magnetic charge then go's through your coil,and thus current flows through your resistor,so your magnetic power(if we can call it that)is no longer trying to charge your shorted battery,and thus you see a load drop on your prime mover when you place your load resistor across the coil.Maybe placeing a load on your inductor is some how relieving the eddy current stress in the core,and this is the very thing i have been working on-eddy current stress relief.

Anyway-as alway's-great work.

Thanks Brad

I agree with you mate and why I wrote to hold off on declaring this a success. Lets hope the coil output will be just a little more then the losses.

I'll post a new video with such a test tomorrow.

Stay tuned

Luc

Luc:

It's a very nice build, but you are dealing with essentially the same issues as were seen in your generator clip using the Dremel.

The efficiency of the drill press is unknown.  So you have about 150 watts of power consumption and about 5 watts going into the load resistor.  It's simply too difficult to know how many mechanical watts are going into the rotor because that is "buried" in the unknown efficiency of the drill press setup.  One thing that we do know is that the faster electrical motors run, the better they tend to perform.  That likely explains your observations when the drill press runs at a higher RPM.

When you disconnect the load resistor the power draw of the drill press goes up.  When current is flowing through the generator coil, that reduces the cogging.  We see from the beginning of your clip that the cogging is very strong.  When you disconnect the load resistor you actually hear the cogging kick in.  That's the main reason the power draw increases, because of the nasty cogging acting like a disturbance torque on the motor.

Note that you have two conflicting trends.  When you add a load resistor in theory the power draw from the prime mover increases.  In reality that does happen.  But at the same time, adding a load resistor results in current flow, and that reduces the cogging resulting in a decrease in power draw from the motor.  Even though in theory the cogging is energy-neutral, in practice you can literally hear the increased stress on the system when the cogging is happening.  These two conflicting trends make it nearly impossible for you to get the real data that you are looking for.

So, you can make measurements, but between the unknown and variable efficiency of the drill press setup, and the conflicting trends of adding a load resistor and at the same time time decreasing the cogging, it will make it essentially impossible to extract any useful data.

Note that Thane Heinz's experiments suffer from a similar problem.  The power inefficiency of his transformer setups is ignored and he just focuses on his differential power measurements.  He ignores the power inefficiency that does nothing more than produce a lot of waste heat.  His differential "efficiency improvements" are buried by all the inefficient waste heat being produced.  The waste heat is always larger than his actual power measurements.

So what is the solution?   I certainly don't know the best solution but I do know a tried and proven solution.  It's the same old thing:  If you had a big flywheel on a very good bearing, and you knew the moment of inertia of the flywheel, then you could use that as your power source.  Doing this completely eliminates the unknown efficiency of the drill press setup.  When the flywheel drives the rotor you can make a precise measurement of its deceleration.  Then you crunch the numbers and calculate the mechanical power being output by the flywheel for various test setups.  If the flywheel is large enough, then you will not have to worry about the cogging at all.  The energy-neutral cogging will not affect the flywheel like it affects the motor.

Perhaps somebody has a better idea, but the only way I can envision extracting real data from your tests is to do flywheel spin-downs.

MileHigh