@hveeder,

At some point in the curve, yes.

How I'm relating to this:
Diesel generator short circuit test using MIL STD 705C methods....
Short the generator stator leads out to confirm other things but when doing so the poor engine RPM shoots sky-high. If it wasn't for the fuel control the engine would throw more than magnets out.

I don't see yet how he is reaching that point in the curve. Is this happening while the motor is under a conventional load?

Hi DMBOss,
many thanks for your insights, but you seem to have missed somepoints.
The open circuit voltage of the 175 Ohm DC resistance output coil in video 1
is about 75 Volts .
So that gives us in the shorted case an output power of Voltage^2 / 175 Ohm= 32 Watts.
So if he closes the switch he heats the coil?s DC resistance with 32 Watts if you neglect
any AC phase shift angle.

So also he has about 600 Watts of driving power, 120 Volts x 5 Amps,
again if you neglect cos phi phase angle, so it could also be much lower..

So do you still think he is just making impedance matching with his system ?

I had a closer look at the original MPEG movies and it looks like
he is not using solid iron cores but laminated iron cores,
so the eddy current losses should be small.

Quote from: Groundloop on February 06, 2008, 11:21:02 PM

@All,

Just want to say that tests done on MY pulse motor gives the oposite result as stated by DMBoss!

When I run my rotor and put a unshorted (open) coil (with a ferrite core) up to the spinning rotor then
the RPM stays almost the same. When I short the coil and put it up to the rotor the RPM is going DOWN!
A shorted coil is a break for the rotor.

Groundloop.

Well Groundloop:

You are comparing apples to oranges!  Exactly my point in chiding people posting results without doing their homework!

Ferrite cores, have exceptionally small core loss per pound of material and are virtually non-conductive so there is almost no eddy current loss.  And that's why we can use ferrites for extremely high frequencies, and cannot use steel above 400 Hz!

it's because steel, has very high core loss and so can't be used at higher freqs.  Not only is your test irrelevant to the issue at hand, i.e. Heins used bulk steel blocks as cores and you used ferrite (one has 15 watts per pound core loss at 60 Hz and the other has a few tens of milliwatts per pound at 60 Hz), But you fail to grasp energy/power balances!

Just because the rotor speed falls does not tell you anything about what and where power is going!  If you had a few turns of heavy wire on that shorted coil with ferrite as core - that would make a LOT of current and then the I'2R of that coil could be 20 watts!  This by itself with slow the rotor down, irrespective of a core loss change.  So you could have really large coil heating output placing a load torque on the rotor in excess of the miniscule core loss change of your ferrite core.

To make your blanket statement with authority, you'd have to measure torque, speed, True Power, and Rms voltage and current and crunch some numbers.  You'd also have to know the rotating mass friction at particular speeds being measured too, along with coil's DC resistance.

If however you had a gazillion turns of really fine wire as it appears Heins has, and shorted them, a miniscule current will flow and only a few tens of milliwatts will be dissipated by the coil heating, and the very large core loss change will be evident in rotor increase in speed!

To spell it out for you:

Your improper comparison using ferrite core, has a teensy core loss reduction upon shorting the coils, and this core loss reduction in drag, is less than the increase in drag due to the I^2R output of the coil heat. (yours is teensy because a 90% reduction in a core loss that starts at only 100milliwatts is teensy by comparison to a 90% reduction in steel core loss that starts at 5 or 50 watts!)

Heins' system has solid iron or steel bars as core, with a huge core loss value.  he also used a LOT of really fine wire to wind his coils - he shows one having 175 ohms DC resistance!  This miniscule current will flow to completely take the B in the core down to near zero as evidenced by the near zero voltage induction value.  So say he has 50mA flowing - into 175 ohms - that is then 437 milliwatts of coil heat adding drag to the rotor.  But he obviously has anywhere from 50 to 300 watts of drag in his system at no load, a large percentage of that being core loss - so if core loss were even a mere 5 watts no load, and it dropped to 1 watts when coils are shorted, the rotor will speed up because this lessened drag of 4 watts, is 10x higher than the increased drag from coil heating of 437mwatts!

Sorry your argument is nonsense.

DMBoss

@

DMBoss,

I never said you where wrong. All I said is that MY pulse motor slowed down when you load it. This was to show people that this is the normal thing for a motor to do. So it is easy to be fooled by lossy cores.

OK?

Groundloop.

Even with laminated core materials, the hysteresis braking effect will occur if he is using carbon steel for the laminations.

I don't know if this would even be relevant to the current discussion but you may want to check out this patent, "Method and Apparatus for Increasing Energy." In it, they talk about adding a DC bias winding to the rotor in an AC motor to increase the output. Might be worth a look:

http://www.google.com/patents/pdf/METHOD_AND_APPARATUS_FOR_INCREASING_ELEC.pdf?id=lYA3AAAAEBAJ&output=pdf&sig=nhE0OQ-Zg7JP66IqJR_cIWTN8NI

God Bless,
Jason O

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=H7KrlDZ5Hkw

Just a little light entertainment 

Excellent choice RunningBare I love this group.

Here is another good one that speak of the changes to come: http://www.mp3tube.net/musics/Mamas-and-the-Papas-Age-of-Aquarius/16501/

Stay tuned for more.

Luc

@canam101,

Also read the two posts done by the inventor:

SNIP
Re: Harnessing Back EMF to create "free" energy?
by Thane Heins on Wed 06 Feb 2008 05:45 AM EST  |  Permanent Link
Dear Tyler,

Isn't it interesting that you ask a QUESTION, "did Thane
Heins invent....blah, blah" And virtually everyone reads it
as a statement of fact (everyone so far I've seen so far at least)
when in fact your article went to great lengths to conclude that
the QUESTION is still UNANSWERED.

How can we humans anything new if we don't start with and aren't afraid
to ask "WHAT IF"? I would suggest all your bloggers read this interesting
article: http://www.lightshift.com/Inspiration/monkey.html

Our MIT financial budget to have the question answered
is $20,000.00 USD. Our trip to Cambridge alone cost 5
grand. I can assure you that Dr. Zahn would not agree to
take our money and waste one second of his valuable time if the design
was obviously flawed in any way. BTW he is NOT stumped but pleasantly
surprised and interested. Our main goal is to have a third party evaluation performed
to provide due diligence for any future investors to protect their money,
maintain our corporate integrity and serve science and humanity in the process.

As far as putting the demo in a public place it already is (on the internet)
and anyone who wants a demo can come to Ottawa U and get one
ANYTIME. In fact we have 2 business people coming next week from
Toronto who may end up being strategic partners and the Ottawa Skeptic
Society is coming on Monday.

Finally to clarify another point - the motor power goes DOWN as the system
speed increases while simultaneously the generator output goes UP. This
what we have observed and can demonstrate and claim.

Is this phenomenon perpetual motion or perpetual nonsense - only time
and effort and tell along with a willingness to try and ask the difficult
questions (in the face of adversity) while those who don't continue eating dirt.

The man who says it cannot be done - should not interfere with the one doing it.
Chinese Proverb

Cheers
Than

Re: Harnessing Back EMF to create "free" energy?
by Thane Heins on Thu 07 Feb 2008 05:56 AM EST  |  Permanent Link
Dear Stephen B,
Yes and in part 5 I think; I briefly show the input power when coil 2 is producing about 220 no load volts while the other coils are shorted AND DRIVING the motor - then I use ONLY the motor to accelerate the system up to 220 no load volts on coil 2 and the motor is drawing more than 50 more watts of power than in the first case.

I know the demo is very boring for most people so it is not as technical as it ought to be. Here is an explanation I gave to someone else yesterday (who wanted to know about a mechanical rather than electrical load) which might be useful to you as well.

The prototype uses an induction motor as the prime mover. The speed increase is due to the
magnetic coupling of the generator Back EMF - MMF's to the induction motor's rotor. Without
this it would operate as a conventional generator prime mover scenario and decelerate under
electrical load.

When an induction motor accelerates - the slip angle between the stator and rotor decreases.
The slip angle dictates how much current will be drawn by the stator coil.
Maximum slip angle at startup RPM = 0 = maximum motor current.
Minimum slip angle at full speed = max RPM = minimum motor current.

The induction motor's current draw is in direct proportion to the RPM of the rotor. As the
motor speeds up the slip angle decreases and the motor draws less and less current. If you talk about one you are also talking about the other.

Shorting out a CONVENTIONAL generator = maximum electrical load = maximum RESISTIVE magnetic load = maximum counter torque = maximum deceleration.

Shorting out a MAGNETICALLY COUPLED generator = maximum electrical load = maximum ASSISTIVE magnetic load = maximum complimentary torque = maximum acceleration.

The point is, for physics a load - be it mechanical or electrical is NOT supposed to cause
acceleration.

In this case a mechanical brake would produce deceleration because a brake does not produce a
magnetic field like a salient pole coil of wire does which is the "not so secret recipe" for success
here.

Concerning your wind turbine question, look at Part 4 of the Demo which uses the Toroid Coil configuration - this was specifically designed for wind generators to reduce and ultimately eliminate "motor action" inside the generator.

I hope this helps for now.

Cheers
Thane

Thane C. Heins
Co-Founder - Potential Difference Inc.
Perepiteia Generator Inventor

"Credibility can't be invented, it has to be earned"
Tyler Hamilton - Toronto Star Columnist

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."
R. Buckminster Fuller

END SNIP

What Thane Heins is claiming:

"Finally to clarify another point - the motor power goes DOWN as the system
speed increases while simultaneously the generator output goes UP. This
what we have observed and can demonstrate and claim."

Groundloop.