The bistander thread

[BroMikey]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT_bTnkwLuE&t=26s

Great video Bro, thanks.

I thought you guys all might like that group. It's not like the rest of us don't understand the brain freeze centered around perpetual whatever.

[Quantum_well]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT_bTnkwLuE&t=26s

Great video Bro, thanks.

[BroMikey]

This has to be the worst thing I've ever seen, I had to switch it off!

https://youtu.be/IX21Kq4YU-Y

[alexelectric]

I shared the document, so that it will be studied and valued, by everyone, whether favorable or unfavorable, agree or disagree with Thane, their observations or conclusions.

That is, each one makes and exposes his conclusions, and evaluations.

We are all interested in studying and researching.

I read all the comments and positions, Research, conclusions, and I do not agree with everything, in others if I agree, and so on.

There is much to review, assess and experience.

Well, you read and you already gave your point of view and assessment, that's interesting.

So others will have the opportunity to express themselves, and we will learn something from everyone.

I check the point, and then I comment on it

[bistander]

https://www.slideshare.net/PDiCEOTha...eans-164624806

Alex,

His second sentence is false. He doesn't understand physics. You don't believe it, put a torque sensor between the motor (or prime mover) and the generator, run at no load on the generator, read the torque. It is not zero. Be smart. Don't believe anything Thane Heins has to say. Go to a reliable source for true information. Benchwork is nice, but it is easy to misinterpret results (be fooled) when you don't know what you're doing.
bi

[BroMikey]

This has to be the worst thing I've ever seen, I had to switch it off!

https://youtu.be/IX21Kq4YU-Y

That is because you started learning in the middle. You have to start from the beginning. Your assignment for this week. This might be to much to handle for you since all of the board talks are way over your head. I can't stand those preset online data cruncher that tell me it can't be done before I plug in all the numbers to hit enter. Just torquing around I only use them to get good grades in schools. "Here are the answers and you will pass" God I sure miss John B.

[Quantum_well]

This has to be the worst thing I've ever seen, I had to switch it off!

https://youtu.be/IX21Kq4YU-Y

[Quantum_well]

Thank you Alex. He was in a lot of pain overnight and went for surgery this morning. The surgeon was able to make a repair and so far he's OK.

[BroMikey]

Turion,

This is all superfluous as is doesn't affect the armature

debunker video is accurate for what it is. It was shot in 2013.

Thane Heins' claim by showing the bifilar coil, at load, was no better than the standard monofilar coil under the same load and same conditions.


Regards,
bi

Always talking and always wrong. Build one? Is that to much to ask? Then you can be the big wig. For now you are the guy being paid to make a mess.

[alexelectric]

Farms are dangerous places. Yesterday one of my brothers had an accident in the cow yard. He managed to phone for help. The emergency services said they would be as quick as possible but had another farm accident in the same area. Anyway they got hìm to the hospital and his leg is broken. He was supposed to have an operation today but it was not possible so hopefully they will do it tomorrow. As for the other poor fellow, he was killed when he fell into a machine.

What news, Se ,. May his brother recover soon, may he be in good health

[bistander]

Except that the speed up under load coil is obviously SPEEDING UP THE MOTOR. He SHOWS the increase in RPM's from the "speed up under load coil", so it is not operating at the "Null point where, under load, it neither speeds up nor slows down the motor. That is what I have said all along. Therefore it is NOT giving its max output as a generator coil and it is INTERACTING in a negative way, which he shows, FAR MORE than at the proper frequency.

EVERY COIL has a specific frequency dependent on core material, number of magnets on the rotor, RPM of the rotor, size of the wire, length of the wire, number of strands in parallel and connected in series. That is ALSO what I have said all along. MANY, MANY times. HE indeed swept through the frequencies until the motor sped up under load, and measured at THAT frequency. Which is the WRONG ONE. He SHOULD have measured at the frequency where it did NOT speed the motor up under load nor did it slow the motor down under load. THAT is the frequency he should have tested at and he did not. I have said this from the first time you brought up that video. I could not have been more clear. I have said the same thing three different times in the last few posts. I have to repeat the same things over and over and over. That was NOT AN ACCURATE TEST of the potential of that coil as compared to a standard coil. It was DESIGNED to make that coil look bad, not to search for the TRUTH about that coil.



No. I have a single coil all set up to test the output. It is the standard coil with the iron core that I have been using. I have been waiting for the one amp AC in line panel meter I ordered so I can get the most accurate reading of output amperage at the correct RPM, and I have NOT established what the RPM is for these coils with the new rotor for the "Null" frequency. I have hopes that I may be able to put more strands in parallel. Six would be nice, but four would be an improvement. I also have a tach on order that uses a hall sensor so I will have a more accurate measurement of RPM than the little hand held laser tach I have been using. Working tonight on putting the permalloy coil together. Working with that wire is a pain in the butt.

Turion,

This is all superfluous as is doesn't affect the armature at load anyway. But, the debunker video is accurate for what it is. It was shot in 2013. The earliest I recall you posting about speed-up-under-load and coil winding/testing on this board was 2015. At that time, 2013, the video was attempting to gather data to help understand what was really happening when the speed-up-under-load occurs. It accomplished that. Just because you don't want your coils to speed-up-under-load doesn't mean that video was inaccurate. Back in 2013 Thane Heins was touting regenerative acceleration which is essentially speed-up-under-load, is it not. The video was made to debunk Thane Heins' claim by showing the bifilar coil, at load, was no better than the standard monofilar coil under the same load and same conditions.

It'd be nice to see an accurate A vs B comparison test under the same load and conditions for the Turion coil vs an equivalent conventional coil.

Regards,
bi

[Turion]

What frequency was his coil designed to operate? I though he wound the bifilar coil and swept through speeds until he found RPM to give a suitable frequency such that the coil would cause the speed-up-under-load effect, thereby matching the frequency to the coil design. That is what he was looking to test. He found it, tested it, then tested an equivalent monofilar coil under the same conditions. Recorded and presented the data. I don't see anything inaccurate about it.
bi

Except that the speed up under load coil is obviously SPEEDING UP THE MOTOR. He SHOWS the increase in RPM's from the "speed up under load coil", so it is not operating at the "Null point where, under load, it neither speeds up nor slows down the motor. That is what I have said all along. Therefore it is NOT giving its max output as a generator coil and it is INTERACTING in a negative way, which he shows, FAR MORE than at the proper frequency.

EVERY COIL has a specific frequency dependent on core material, number of magnets on the rotor, RPM of the rotor, size of the wire, length of the wire, number of strands in parallel and connected in series. That is ALSO what I have said all along. MANY, MANY times. HE indeed swept through the frequencies until the motor sped up under load, and measured at THAT frequency. Which is the WRONG ONE. He SHOULD have measured at the frequency where it did NOT speed the motor up under load nor did it slow the motor down under load. THAT is the frequency he should have tested at and he did not. I have said this from the first time you brought up that video. I could not have been more clear. I have said the same thing three different times in the last few posts. I have to repeat the same things over and over and over. That was NOT AN ACCURATE TEST of the potential of that coil as compared to a standard coil. It was DESIGNED to make that coil look bad, not to search for the TRUTH about that coil.

Cool. Have you measured any core by itself yet?
bi

No. I have a single coil all set up to test the output. It is the standard coil with the iron core that I have been using. I have been waiting for the one amp AC in line panel meter I ordered so I can get the most accurate reading of output amperage at the correct RPM, and I have NOT established what the RPM is for these coils with the new rotor for the "Null" frequency. I have hopes that I may be able to put more strands in parallel. Six would be nice, but four would be an improvement. I also have a tach on order that uses a hall sensor so I will have a more accurate measurement of RPM than the little hand held laser tach I have been using. Working tonight on putting the permalloy coil together. Working with that wire is a pain in the butt.

[bistander]

I see, so as long as I define my testing as measuring the gas mileage of two vehicles, it is ok to measure the gas mileage of one constantly traveling downhill while I measure the gas mileage of the other one constantly going uphill and that's a fair comparison in your book. Got it. The multi-strand coil is designed to operate at a SPECIFIC frequency and he is not operating it at that frequency. I don't consider that an "accurate" test.

What frequency was his coil designed to operate? I though he wound the bifilar coil and swept through speeds until he found RPM to give a suitable frequency such that the coil would cause the speed-up-under-load effect, thereby matching the frequency to the coil design. That is what he was looking to test. He found it, tested it, then tested an equivalent monofilar coil under the same conditions. Recorded and presented the data. I don't see anything inaccurate about it.

I don't intend to test my cores for heat with the coils on them. I am doing one test for coil output with the different cores in place in the SAME coil, to compare outputs, and then testing the core material with the rotor simply turning at the correct rpm past the core material in different test bobbins for an extended period of time. Just the bobbin. No wire on it. The way the coil is wired won't figure into the heat test at at all.

Cool. Have you measured any core by itself yet?
bi

[Turion]

Turion,

I never said the debunker was using your exact method. And besides, see the title of the debunker clip, he is debunking Thane Heins and demonstrating the behavior of a bifilar coil vs a monofilar coil. It appears to be accurate data for his experiment, which he defines and executes very well on the video.

I see, so as long as I define my testing as measuring the gas mileage of two vehicles, it is ok to measure the gas mileage of one constantly traveling downhill while I measure the gas mileage of the other one constantly going uphill and that's a fair comparison in your book. Got it. The multi-strand coil is designed to operate at a SPECIFIC frequency and he is not operating it at that frequency. I don't consider that an "accurate" test.

My point is: How do you know the cause of the thermal issue is due to core material? And if mitigation of core loss can solve the issue? I don't need answers from you, although it'd be nice, I'm giving you something to think about when testing those cores. Even though you say your coil doesn't speed-up-under-load, I think the multifilar coil on the core will make it difficult to clearly see changes in watts loss between different core materials.

IIRC, in the debunker video, when he shows how he switches coils, he mentioned doing core only testing. He had a pretty versatile set up. bi

I don't intend to test my cores for heat with the coils on them. I am doing one test for coil output with the different cores in place in the SAME coil, to compare outputs, and then testing the core material with the rotor simply turning at the correct rpm past the core material in different test bobbins for an extended period of time. Just the bobbin. No wire on it. The way the coil is wired won't figure into the heat test at at all.

[bistander]

As I have shared before. This is inaccurate data for one simple reason. He is not running the so called "speed up under load coil" at its "neutral", "null," or "no speed up under load" frequency where it outputs the MOST power and has the LEAST effect on anything. That's like you putting a pig on your back and me claiming I can run faster than you. You could probably run faster than me ANYWAY, but hopefully you get the point.

You're comparing apples to pineapples.

Turion,

I never said the debunker was using your exact method. And besides, see the title of the debunker clip, he is debunking Thane Heins and demonstrating the behavior of a bifilar coil vs a monofilar coil. It appears to be accurate data for his experiment, which he defines and executes very well on the video.

My point is: How do you know the cause of the thermal issue is due to core material? And if mitigation of core loss can solve the issue? I don't need answers from you, although it'd be nice, I'm giving you something to think about when testing those cores. Even though you say your coil doesn't speed-up-under-load, I think the multifilar coil on the core will make it difficult to clearly see changes in watts loss between different core materials.

IIRC, in the debunker video, when he shows how he switches coils, he mentioned doing core only testing. He had a pretty versatile set up. bi