 |
There are currently, 250 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Turning physics on its ear
Posted on Monday, February 04, 2008 @ 21:01:51 UTC by vlad
|
|
Anonymous writes:  Has college dropout done the impossible and created a perpetual motion machine?
Tyler Hamilton
Energy Reporter/ TheStar.com/
Feb 04, 2008 04:30 AM
Thane Heins is nervous and hopeful. It's Jan. 24, a Thursday
afternoon, and in four days the Ottawa-area native will travel to
Boston where he'll demonstrate an invention that appears – though he
doesn't dare say it – to operate as a perpetual motion machine.
The
audience, esteemed Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor
Markus Zahn, could either deflate Heins' heretical claims or add
momentum to a 20-year obsession that has broken up his marriage and
lost him custody of his two young daughters.
Zahn is a leading expert on electromagnetic and electronic systems. In a rare move for any reputable academic, he has agreed to give Heins' creation an open-minded look rather than greet it with outright dismissal.
...
It's now Jan. 28 – D Day. Heins has modified his test so the effects observed are difficult to deny. He holds a permanent magnet a few centimetres away from the driveshaft of an electric motor, and the magnetic field it creates causes the motor to accelerate. It went well.
Contacted by phone a few hours after the test, Zahn is genuinely stumped – and surprised. He said the magnet shouldn't cause acceleration. "It's an unusual phenomena I wouldn't have predicted in advance. But I saw it. It's real. Now I'm just trying to figure it out."
There's no talk of perpetual motion. No whisper of broken scientific laws or free energy. Zahn would never go there – at least not yet. But he does see the potential for making electric motors more efficient, and this itself is no small feat.
"To my mind this is unexpected and new, and it's worth exploring all the possible advantages once you're convinced it's a real effect," he added. "There are an infinite number of induction machines in people's homes and everywhere around the world. If you could make them more efficient, cumulatively, it could make a big difference."
Driving home – he can't afford to fly – Heins is exhausted but encouraged. He says Zahn will, and must, evaluate what he saw on his own terms and time. What's preventing the engineer from grasping it right away, he says, is his education, his scientific training.
Step by step, Heins is making progress, but where it will all lead remains uncertain.
------------
Read the whole article: http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/300042
Note: A perfect example why an organization such as my proposed Xtreme Science Foundation (and its XS-NRG Prize) is necessary and well overdue. The people seem to agree with me - see the Survey. [Vlad]
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 5
Votes: 5
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Post by Thane Heins re upcoming test on Mon in Ottawa (Score: 1)
by vlad on Sunday, February 10, 2008 @ 20:08:01 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | 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 [www.lightshift.com]
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
=================================
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.
--------
Source: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4047.75.html
|
|
|
Re: Turning physics on its ear (Score: 1)
by McKenzie on Friday, February 08, 2008 @ 01:48:31 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | I think free energy is possible and I believe it WILL be with magnets of some type of arrangement. Magnets have become phenomenally stronger just in the last decade.
His invention might just work if it's not a complete scam. I've been thinking of something similiar to his invention but also using wave dynamics and being dynamic instead of a static arrangement like he has.
People always say it's impossible to have but you have large amounts of free energy in magnets. It's simple and sounds stupid, but you don't have to plug in a magnet to attract a piece of steel - that's free energy and it flows magically like water from a rock.
It's only a matter of harnessing it.
And for the skeptics... the world, we found out, isn't really flat. |
|
|
Re: Turning physics on its ear (Score: 1)
by Koen on Wednesday, February 06, 2008 @ 11:58:28 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://no.nl/tesla | Suppose the induction motor contains a hidden permanent magnetic field that slightly hinders the rotor (magnetised motor parts maybe). By placing a visible permanent magnet in front of the rotor that opposes the 'hidden' field of hidden perm.magnet, the two fields cancel each other, causing a slight acceleration of the rotor.
|
|
|
Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine' (Score: 1)
by vlad on Thursday, February 07, 2008 @ 22:49:46 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Thane Heins´ "Perepiteia" generator seems to turn magnetic friction
into a magnetic boost, causing the motor to accelerate in a positive
feedback loop.
Thane Heins knows the track record of inventors that claim to make
breakthroughs in power generation methods, especially when they claim
to defy the second law of thermodynamics. Every so often, a (usually
untrained) scientist comes along with a machine that supposedly creates
more energy than is put in. Every time, the ideas have been rebuked by
real scientists.
Full article: http://www.physorg.com/news121610315.html [www.physorg.com]
|
|
|
Re: Turning physics on its ear (Score: 1)
by RBM on Tuesday, February 05, 2008 @ 16:22:08 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Tom Brearden has written on how even the scientific community various disciplines are not on the same page so 'the problem' is very deep.
|
|
|
Re: Turning physics on its ear (Score: 1)
by modernsteam on Tuesday, February 05, 2008 @ 09:53:27 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | I live in the Ottawa-Gatineau area. I and a friend of mine are trying to replicate a hoped-for "free"-energy device invented in the U.S., but I'm having difficulty with my part of the replication project. What a joy it could be to meet with Mr. Heins, or the principals of Potential Difference to learn about the energy-machine's situation up to to now. There may be some way we could co-operate, with the permission of my inventor, of course, to get a self-running energy machine finally to the engineering prototype stage, where it could be powering a meaningful load for a long enough time period to prove the principle without a doubt. There is always the possibility of mis-measurement at the "front end", of course. But one would think that the electrical/electronics engineers and physicists who witnessed the demonstration would have caught that.
That said, why didn't the "top" people in electrical science and technology at least posit the hypothesis that energy from the vacuum of space or the earth's magnetic field, could be tapped to account for any "overage" seen at the output end of the device? From what I and many others have learned through interaction with the FE "community" is that the problem is not really so much with the concept of Free Energy, but the stubborn refusal of apparently "respectable" scientists to access their supposed knowledge of Quantum Physics - Plank, Dirac, Wheeler, Heisenberg, Sakharov etc. - to ask the required "what if"s about this interesting phenomenon brought forth by Mr. Heins. Hypotheses are indeed permitted at this juncture.
Sincerely
Hal Ade
Gatineau, QC.
|
|
|
Perepiteia Motor is nothing more than a hysteresis brake (Score: 1)
by vlad on Sunday, March 30, 2008 @ 18:49:03 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Original comment by DMBoss:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4047.msg75615.html#msg75615 [www.overunity.com]
Then he ads: ...
there is one thing I neglected to mention in the above link's commentary. That
is this Heins fellow may also get this apparent anomalous rotor speed up
entirely due to the improper use of an AC induction motor.
His related demonstration of putting a strong NIB magnet near
the steel shaft of this induction motor, with said motor's front "C" plate
removed and having it's speed increase is telling.
That is removing the C plate leaves the AC motor's fields
rather open to external influence. And it's steel shaft is magnetically
connected to the AC rotor, comprising steel laminations and several heavy turns
of short circuited windings.
The AC induction motor [in this case a split phase
motor] works by making the stator fields produce a rotating field, which induces
currents and then fields in the rotor windings/core. These rotor fields try to
couple to the 60Hz stator field rotation, and tries to synchronize with them.
An AC motor never completely syncs though, and some rotor "slip" occurs. The
more the slip the more current the stator coils draw, and this tries to lessen
the slip this it automatically "throttles" the current to meet the drag torque
causing the increased slip.
Anyway these things should never use an AC motor as they are
inherently unreliable and non linear regards their power signature vs the output
torque. But this chap is going wildly out of the normal operating envelope for
an AC induction motor on top of that.
That is a 2 pole AC motor tries to run at 3600 rpm, and a 4
pole at 1800 rpm. And he is running at 50-200 rpm. So he has massive slip
between rotor field and stator field. (you can allow a split phase motor to run
at low speed by simply plugging it into a Variac and turning down the voltage
after the rotor's turning, or give it a shove by hand as he does)
Now the force/torque on the rotor is proportional to the B^2
in the air gap. Yes it's alternating, but it is still proportional to the
square of the flux density. Adding an external magnetic field from permanent
magnets could very well provide a DC offset in this magnetic field - as a path
is formed from the motor case to return to the magnet, and from the magnet's
other pole to the shaft, through rotor, across air gap to stators, and into the
motor case. (C plate is removed so you can make a complete flux path out to the
magnet)
This small change in flux levels would make no difference if
force was proportional to flux density. But it is proportional to flux
density squared. So it is plausible that this small offset, applied to the
motor in this very unusual running mode of extreme amounts of slip - has caused
an imbalance in the amount of rotor torque.
In a sense this addition of external flux has made the
coupling coefficient of the rotor to stator higher due to the DC offset and
squared condition. No absolute power gain has occurred, but you have gotten
more of the power applied to make rotor boost torque.
His own numbers belie this - his AC motor if the two stacked
power meters are to be trusted, is drawing some 250 watts to run at this low
speed. While the shaft friction of such a sized device is reasonably estimated
to be below 20 watts, probably below 5 watts of shaft power to meet friction
etc. So his coupling is below 10%. Adding the magnetic path from external
magnets to the AC motor system, could cause say a 15 or 20% coupling to occur.
Making the shaft speed up, but this is NOT a gain in energy!
My initial comments are correct - you can engineer a system
which produces a shaft speed up when you have massive core loss and you short
the generator coils - as this negates much of this core loss - so if the coil
heating upon shorting is low, then the rotor can speed up.
Also his messing with AC motor can be responsible for the
speed up alone or in combo with this generator core loss artifact. But neither
is anything but mundane and neither cause of shaft speed up necessarily
indicates a gain over unity!
DMBoss |
|
|
|
|
