Harnessing Back EMF to create “free” energy?
I expect this post to generate lots of diverse commentary, and I expect I’ll be flamed in the process and called irresponsible by some (engineers, scientists, etc.) for writing about somebody and something attached to claims of perpetual motion and broken laws of physics. But screw it! My job is to tell balanced stories, and this is a balanced story in my view worth telling and in need of further independent scrutiny.
The story, published in the Toronto Star today, takes a look at an Ottawa-area inventor who stumbled upon a way of making electric induction motors work, at the very least, more efficiently. At most, he believes he’s figured out a way to manipulate magnetic fields so that instead of slowing down a generator (according to Lenz’s law in physics) it speeds it up. In fact, it gets caught in a positive feedback loop, resulting in a dramatic acceleration without any change to power input.
The story is divided into two links. The first is more about the inventor’s journey, the second is a closer look at what he has found.
Normally I would shy away from covering such stories, but three things convinced me it was worth telling: 1) The University of Ottawa has opened its doors and is currently putting the invention through tests; 2) A respected MIT electromagnetics engineer/professor who recently saw a demonstration admitted to me afterwards that he was stumped, and while he didn’t admit (or deny) it broke any laws of physics his reaction was telling: “It’s an unusual phenomenon… But I saw it. It’s real. I’m just now trying to figure it out.”; 3) The inventor, Thane Heins, has conviction and understands that what he has found seems, on the surface, ludicrous. He wants to find out what’s going on as much as the next guy. He is no scammer, in my judgement.
As a reporter who isn’t an engineer or physicist, I’m in no position to say I believe Heins claims. I’ll leave that debate up to people smarter than, but hopefully as open-minded as myself. I will say I believe that Heins believes, and that several well-trained, highly respected academics he has demonstrated it to can’t seem to explain it. At least not yet.
In a nutshell, here’s how Heins sets up one of his demos (to see a video of the demos click here):
He takes an induction motor and connects its steel draftshaft to a steel rotor that is lined with small circular magnets. Opposite the rotor is a wire coil that generates electricity as the magnets on the rotor spin past it. When he applies a load to the coil, like a lightbulb, it increases the magnetic field around the coil. This field would normally create magnetic friction (Back EMF) against the approaching magnets on the rotor, causing the rotor to slow down. But because the rotor and the driveshaft are both steel, they conduct the coil’s electromagnetic field and direct it to the heart of the induction motor. The magnetic friction that would normally be in the air-gap between the rotor magnets and the coil has now been harnessed inside the induction motor, boosting the motor’s existing magnetic fields that are used to spin the draftshaft.
As more load is put on the coil, a larger magnetic field is created and directed to the induction motor, making the motor go faster. This creates a positive feedback loop as the load on the coil increases.
That’s my simple explanation, and I’m sure it’s imperfect. Again, here’s a link to some video demos here.
The weird thing about it is that you normally wouldn’t hook up an induction motor to a generator — i.e. you would normally operate a generator as part of a fuel-combustion process. That’s because it doesn’t make sense to use electricity to spin a motor to spin a generator that creates electricity. Heins only set it up this way to test his design, and because the driveshaft and rotor happened to be steel, they were able to conduct the electromagnetic field.
Now, I’m eager to open this up to civil debate. So be nice. Apparently, what Heins did can be easily replicated. Would be interesting if others tried.
Tyler Hamilton is senior energy reporter and columnist for the Toronto Star, Canada's largest daily newspaper. In addition to this Clean Break blog, Tyler writes a weekly column of the same name that discusses trends, happenings and innovators in the cleantech market. This blog is a personal project started in April 2005. It is not an official blog of the newspaper. Tyler can be reached at tyler@cleanbreak.ca
February 4th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Tyler, I’ve followed similar type claims for a while with interest, foolish hope, and amusement. I’m open-minded — I don’t think it is reasonable to assume that our present knowledge of physics is complete — but do subscribe to the quaint notion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
The fact that this is being looked at, and apparently is stumping, legitimate experts is interesting. But if he really has something that violates the First Law, why not just set up a demo in some public place and let it run? It would be nice to have a theoretical explanation of the physics, but, really, if you’ve got a perpetual motion machine all you have to do to prove it is set it up with a load and no external power source and let it run and run and run.
James Randi would be interested in testing this claim, and passing Randi’s challenge would be a pretty powerful validation, which would generate more than enough interest and publicity. Randi’s organization has stated that perpetual motion claims are acceptable for their million dollar challenge.
Seriously, if the goal is to understand the phenomenon, then you’ve got to get experts to explain it. But if the goal is to commercialize it, all you’ve got to do is prove it works. Give the world a clear demonstration of a useful and impossible phenomenon, and you’ll have investors falling over themselves to fund it and physicists falling all over themselves to work on the explanation.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
I’m no scientist and like I you know just enough to question these kinds of claims of which several constantly float around the web claiming big oil and Gov are suppressing the truth. I’m constantly hounded by a conspiracy guy who want me to read all this stuff and I just keep saying “when a Gov lab or University recreate, and measure the phenomena I’ll look at it with or without a violated law of physics. ”
I’m quite glad a university is at least willing to check it out and if we’ve been wrong and there is a free lunch GREAT, if not at least we don’t look closed minded or feed the conspiracy frenzy.
It obvious we don’t know it all, so why don’t we verify or debunk rather than just slam such claims?
February 4th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
First of all, I’d like to say that the line from your article, “The creation in question is a new kind of generator called the Perepiteia (see “Holy crap,” page B3)”, is hilarious. I wonder if an editor from the New York Times would have let that in?
Many of the claims for tapping an unknown energy source come down to measurements that are near the noise floor of the experiment (think cold fusion). I’ve spoken with an engineer who works for a firm that tests such claims. He said that often when he refines an inventor’s idea to subject it to a more precise test, the “effect” goes away. Many inventors will however continue to insist that the effect is real and just beyond the lower noise floor of the new experiment.
This seems different. The effect is macroscopic and obvious, well “out of the noise”.
I hope that this design can be given a fair hearing. It really puts academicians outside of their comfort zone.
Any idea whether the patent has been published? I didn’t find anything at the Canadian Intellectual Property Office.
Stephen_B
February 4th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I agree, anything that makes the scientific community defend their long held beliefs is healthy, too often they scoff and dismiss like church scholars being told that the earth was not the centre of the universe.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
It’s interesting, I’ve had several e-mails today that were not unexpected. Some questioning my training as a journalist. Others saying the story should have been published for April Fool’s Day. Why don’t some people “get” that this is a STORY about an individual’s journey into controversy? Why do some feel that just because such a story gets ink it somehow gives the claims credibility?
The fact is, I get e-mail every day from people making similar claims and I never write about them. People reading this blog or my Toronto Star stories have no idea how much I must sift through. This one particular story caught my attention, for obvious reasons. And if the effects observed are enough for an MIT professor to explore them further, then why is it so hard for some people to allow such exploration rather than slam it down?
It’s funny, this whole science versus religion thing, because when I hear from some people it seem like science is their religion and they just won’t have such blasphemy.
Regarding one comment on why Heins doesn’t do a public demonstration, I would guess that if anybody wants to give him the venue he would take up the offer. I don’t get the sense he has anything to hide.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
His conclusions don’t seem to correspond with your description. If the back EMF is not wasted but used, then he’s created a more efficient motor. But I don’t see any reason in your description why energy would be created – it just isn’t wasted as much.
I’d have to spend more time on his site to try to figure out exactly what he’s doing, but my first guess is that he’s missing something in his measurements.
My first question would be: is this device ever plugged in to anything but itself?
February 4th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Hi, good questions.
There is power going into the induction motor, and yes, as I mentioned in the piece it would at the very least seem to suggest that a more efficient motor has been created. I guess the whole broken law of physics part has to do with the fact that it accelerates when the back EMF is harnessed. Perhaps this isn’t breaking any laws, but Heins claims the amount of power going in remains constant while the output from the generator increases, based on measurement equipment he has used. I believe what they’re trying to do is set it up at the University of Ottawa with their more advanced equipment so they can get more accurate readings.
If you read the story, you’ll see that a more simple demo is done by putting a permanent magnet on the driveshaft of an induction motor. It apparently accelerates, and this is what Prof. Zahn at MIT witnessed and couldn’t explain. He said the DC magnetic field from the permanent magnet should have had no effect, but it did.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
His claims should be very easy to validate or reject. Measuring the power in and power out is quite easy, of course. It will be interesting to see how this story plays out.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Tyler, seriously, thanks for bringing this story out, it is certainly an interesting human interest story if nothing else.
Free energy scam artists hide behind “the closed-minded scientists are threatened by this” almost as much as “the oil companies are suppressing this.” Scientists generally do not take such claims seriously because the claimants always adamantly insist they have proof of their exceptional claims, yet there always seems to be some reason why they just can’t provide it. Non-disclosure agreements, patent issues, fear of black helicopters, the effect only works on Tuesdays, etc. I can sympathize though, as I have the power to make myself invisible, but it only works when no one is watching.
An overunity device is an easy thing to prove. Might be hard to explain, but not hard to prove. If Heins has it, I hope the proof will come out quickly. The scientific community will happily investigate such a remarkable thing, as long as there is evidence that there actually is something to investigate.
In any case, this guy is getting his device looked at by some pretty serious university experts, so it’s hard to see how he’s being ignored by closed-minded scientists. And it is encouraging that folks from respectable universities seem to think that he’s got something worth looking at.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Agreed. I actually think Heins is taking the responsible approach by seeking help from those in the scientific community who are sympathetic and willing to set the record straight — whatever the outcome. Apparently during the MIT demo a freelance writer for Wired/Popular Science was there, so it will be interesting to see if they write something up.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
An interesting story. I sent it to an old friend and teacher who is a retired professor of material science. His comments seem to cover the situation:
If the experiment was to run an induction motor against a light load and watch it accelerate when the permanent magnet is moved to a certain position, that’s interesting. Presumably measurements would reveal that the electrical power going into the motor increased when the acceleration occurred. It’s (barely) believable that a contorted and asymmetric magnetic field within the motor, being the superposition of the regular field from the field coils and the additional field from the permanent magnet, caused an increased power output from the motor. If the increased power output occurred without increased electrical input that would mean an increase in efficiency, which would be real news. If the increased power output was accompanied by increased electrical input that would still be news, and possibly of interest, since it might be possible to boost the output of a motor 10-20% without a corresponding increase in cost of the motor.
Bruce
February 4th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Thanks Bruce, that’s an interesting reply.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Hi,
If it works as described explaining why it works is not necessary. The Wright Brothers didn’t write books explaining why its possible to fly, they built a plane. Just build a motor and use it in something that takes advantage of the extra energy. An NEV would be a good choice for this purpose.
Best Wishes
,
Mitch
February 5th, 2008 at 12:02 am
I am an engineer, so I’ll represent the profession and give you the scolding you assumed would come your way… shame on you, Tyler.
Just as I don’t believe there is a necessity to give equal coverage to climate change deniers that are 6 sigma out in their views… I don’t think it’s necessary to lend credence to perpetual motion machine inventors who are probably out to scam money from investors. The mere fact that he suggests he has created free energy, makes me 99.9% certain even a claim of efficiency gain is bogus.
If you want to follow a really interesting story of a scientist bucking conventional wisdom… try googling Dr. Bussard. He was an assistant director of the Atomic Energy Commission at one point in his career overseeing research on Tokamak fusion reactors. He later came to the conclusion that Tokamaks were a dead end technology, highly unlikely to ever be economically feasible. He went on to research a type of fusion reactor called inertial electrostatic confinement fusion. One of the earlier investigators of this type of fusion was the person that invented the TV, Philo Farnsworth. Just like the Tokamak they have long been shown to achieve fusion (having even been built as high school science projects)… but also yet to do it for sustained periods. Dr. Bussard has long had to fight for funding because of the entrenched government bias towards Tokamaks. Though he died last Oct, the company due to recent publicity from a talk he gave at Google has been refunded by the Navy. They are working on a test which MAY give the answer as soon as a few months from now as to whether this could result in a viable fusion reactor. If it works, this could actually be something that results in commercial reactors in a decade, unlike Tokamaks which have perpetually been at least 25 years in the future. Now that’s exciting out of the box science.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Interesting story.
I think i am open minded but a part of this story still leave me skeptic. I don’t understand that anyone raised the fact that no videos show the “perpetual” energy generation proof or anything approaching it. Every demos show speeds that have “topped” at some point.
I think that an autonomous system (at least, once “started”) could have been easily created…. even if such system is created (and that would change the world, for sure), we need to consider any possible energy sources, even the unexpected ones. Ex. the magnetic “force” variations of the permanent magnets used in the system, any “chemical” reaction between the materials that could have been “catalyzed” by side effects of the system, and even “weight” variation of the system “before” and “after” the test, who knows if this is a fabulous way to transform matter into energy…. All this could be a part of a wonderful energy storage system, but energy “creation” can’t get into my mind.
On the other side, he seems to have found something that increase electric motors efficiency, and if that increase in efficiency is what we need to double the electric cars autonomy, that would still change the world, at least, my world….
February 5th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
While improving the efficiency of an electric motor would be a noble goal, doubling it is to suggest a perpetual motion machine. Current electric motors are 80-95% efficient. Hopefully it actually works, but I don’t see how.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Is power factor entering into any of these observations? If the power factor is not recorded, current can stay the same and the amount of energy consumed can still increase on any inductively driven device. Sorry if I am stating the obvious.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:02 am
More efficiency, possibly. perpetual motion? no. Some of the ‘free energy’ could be just energy stored in the magnet. After some time of operation, the magnets will weaken and the machine will stop working.
In addition, turning the magnetic field back into the rotor does not eliminate other resistances, such as air friction in the rotor or electric resistance in the coil, so any added energy will have to be higher than that.
Just from reading the article it seems like he has invented a hybrid AC machine/permanent magnet machine. Nothing more. I don’t know why a professor would be stumped when a lowly engineer like me gets this, unless there’s something that is not told in the article.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:45 am
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
February 6th, 2008 at 10:58 am
I was looking for more info on this phenomenon and I ran into an explanation.
It has something to do with a hysteresis brake.
I will point you to DMBoss’ posting on the http://www.overunity.com forum:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4047.45.html
Everyone breathe now, the Laws have not been broken just bent.
Darklamp
February 6th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
“More efficiency, possibly. perpetual motion? no. Some of the ‘free energy’ could be just energy stored in the magnet.”
It does take energy to magnetize a magnet (basically you put magnetic material inside an electromagnetic coil and turn on the current for a period of time), but so far no one has ever figured out how to get that energy back. I would be surprised if the magnets are losing strength. Normally they only do that when subject to an external magnetic field that permanently realigns their domains — not the case here.
Stephen_B
February 6th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Also, let’s keep in mind that the demonstration with the permanent magnet is just to demonstrate an effect. If you attach an induction motor to a generator and harness the electromagnetic energy from the back EMF when a load is added, then presumably the electromagnetic field will remain as long as the motor is spinning. Add load and the field gets larger, making the motor spin even faster.
It’s this loop that boggles the mind.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
I did watch the videos and I saw that the power the generator was drawing went down as the speed increased. Have you done a power budget analysis to put some numbers on the motor efficiency before and after? What happens at higher RPMs?
It seems like this would work in reverse too, if a mechanical power source were turning a generator, as in a wind turbine.
Thanks!
Stephen_B
February 7th, 2008 at 5:56 am
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
February 7th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Thane, you’re a hard man to try to locate! Please email me if you’d like to discuss some ideas for how to spread the word about your idea: binaryloop@yahoo.com
February 7th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Hi Thane
Have you thought of creating a small version that lights up a light bulb.
P. Champagne
February 8th, 2008 at 5:22 am
Well done on writing this post – regardless of whether or not this experiment proves successful or is just another entry in the endless list of failed perpetual motion machines, its still worth exploring some of these claims from time to time.
Obviously this is more likely than not to end in disappointment – Steorn’s attempted demonstration last year being a classic example – but I don’t think it hurts to be open minded (as opposed to simply credulous)…
February 8th, 2008 at 10:04 am
95%? I’d like to see that!
Common induction motors are around 60% efficient, with lots of eddy currents and heat produced, especially if you drop them outside of their design speed. Using refined materials, you can raise that efficiency, but it makes the motor really expensive.
Permanent magnet brushless DC motors/ECMs are around 80% efficient at most speeds. If they really can tap into the back EMF, that’d be great. Of course, these BLDCs use the back EMF to sense rotor position and commutate correctly without using a Hall sensor…pretty complex stuff. If you could just stumble across this effect, you’d think they’d have done it when developing back EMF sensing.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Look in a motor manufacturer’s catalog. Large (>500hp), high efficiency three phase induction motors are in the 95% range, if my memory serves. It has been a while. Certainly small (<10hp) single phase induction motors are in the 60% range, or lower. But generally the larger the motor, the higher the efficiency because in 24/7 industrial applications the energy savings pay for the extra costs of the high effciency rather quickly.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:21 am
If Mr. Heins wants to get publicity for his motor along with all the FREE third-party verification he could ask for ($5000 to Zahn to watch a demo?!?!), all he has to do is hook up the output back to the input so that the device is self-sustaining.
That is what anybody would do asap after realizing that he had something so unusual; yet, like all the inventors of these wonderful devices, all Mr Heins does is come up with ambiguous videos.
Just based on such amazing behavior, I would guess that there is nothing unusual in what Heins has, and that consciously or unconsciously, he knows it.
February 9th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
It does seem a premature boast to state right up front in the boldest of fonts that physics is being turned on its ear. Why the pomp when with the next breath comes bewilderment?
I don’t understand why are we just hearing about this in 2008. Haven’t people hooked up generators to induction motors via steel shafts prior to this? It is certainly interesting; for instance why does the magnetism only head down the shaft when the system is under load and not all the time? Not to detract from what he seems to have discovered, but a similar phenomenon can be achieved by placing ones hand over the nozzle of one’s vacuum hose; the motor will speed up, seemingly while under a severe, short-circuit even, load. But I think with the dust-bunny analogy, making no air move at all is actually de-loading the system, since one is not allowing any work to be done, therefore the motor enjoys a holiday from its occupation and therefore speeds up. Like the wife reminds its owner, playing around by blocking the nozzle gets no work done!
February 9th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I like the Wright brothers airplane and the light bulb suggestions. If you really have something Mr. Thane then make it do some work. Who cares about validation from PhDs. Who cares about the physics of why this is happening. If it’s really then make use of it and explain it latter.
This is the exact same as Steorn’s claims: Please prove us wrong and explain what we’re seeing. We can’t get funding.
Nonsense.
To many of the rest of you, stand back and be practical. You’re being to afraid of not being “open minded” and of saying “the king has no clothes”.
Simple requirements for validation (no PhDs required):
1. Build a machine that does work. The light bulb is fine. How about a water pump. Then we (a) measure the electrical power INPUT taking into account quality factor and (b) we measure the OUTPUT work done by measuring heat & light from the bulb OR potential energy change in the water moved. (If you have to get down to measuring energy lost to heat friction then maybe you have a cold fusion effect to begin with, but this can also be done. This is supposed to be a dramamtic effect right?)
2. Build a device that you can sell. I’d personally like an eternal motion generator for my house. I’ll supply the batteries to start it, if you can get your machine to continuously generate eletricity for me after that. No? OK, how about just generating electricity at a significantly measurable increase in efficiency? No again? OK, bye now. (“Hey what time does tv go off the air?”)
Mr. Thane, if you’re smart enough to build this stuff, then your smart enough to hold down a good job or otherwise contribute to western civilization in a meaningful way. Make your invention useful or admit it’s a useless curiousity and get on with your life.
Dr. Zahn, stick with theory and get help from a good engineer or technician for the practical stuff. You’re not very practical.
Tyler, I’m not trying to be rude here. Just direct and to the point. (I did poke fun some. That should be fair.) The lack of proof and Dr. Zahn’s confusion had me going there for a while too.
February 9th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Just to set the record straight, I didn’t say that to be critical of you Mr. Thanes.
I just believe that (as other said so), an actual closed system generating something valuable (light bulb is one or heater or charging a battery, you name it) will be quite a powerful medium.
I understand that I don’t know much about how your system works exactly hence, don’t know how difficult this could be replicated in a relatively small portable format but that’s something to consider I believe.
Thanks
Phil
February 10th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Heins will do everything possible to avoid doing the obvious thing of using the supposed OU output to power the device and make it self-sustaining. He will have excuse after excuse that the voltage is wrong, the current is wrong, you name it.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:52 am
c’mon guys. it is obviously a hysteresis brake, as someone already pointed out.
the brake is in effect BEFORE the coils are shorted. after shortening the coils the brake ceases to be in effect and the system accelerates. what is not snown on these videos is that the system will again decelerate after a while (either that or power consumed by prime mover will increase). the videos are just not long enough to show that.
it is pity something so basic and easily explainable creates so much hype this days …
February 12th, 2008 at 4:05 am
“The Wright Brothers didn’t write books explaining why its possible to fly, they built a plane.”
The Wright Brothers airplane was a result of heavy research of airfoil theory and measurements in wind tunnels. They didnt just build the plane, they did understand how a plane was supposed to work and they introduce working steering systems.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
I’ve watched the videos (a few days ago now so this isn’t a frame-by-frame critique), and here’s what I recall: The induction motor generates very little torque at startup. In fact Mr. Heins always gives it a helping hand to get spinning. Once running, with the open circuited generator coils, the speed seems to be low, but slowly increases when the generator coils are shorted. There are two explanations for motor acceleration; either the load has dropped, or the motor is making more torque (being more efficient). In either case there is excess torque available to accelerate the rotor. An induction motor, as Mr. Heins indicates, works by the rotor turning at a speed that is slower than the synchronous speed of the stator field. It is this difference in speed that induces the current in the rotor (hence the name induction motor) and generates a magnetic field. One thing that was not apparent from the videos is the rated speed of the motor, versus the slow(ed) speed, versus the higher speed. An induction motor cannot go faster than the synchronous speed of the stator field, so there is an upper limit to an induction motor’s speed. How do these speeds compare?
I cannot explain why the effect works only when a steel shaft connects the induction motor to the generator, and I suspect this is what intrigued the MIT prof, Dr. Zahn. Whether this is a useful effect is uncertain, but there is no indication that either free energy or back emf are at work here. If applying an external magnetic field to an induction motor’s shaft increases its efficiency, then I have to ask: By how much? What was the motor’s efficiency before and after the magnetic field was applied? Does this work on three phase induction motors that are already very efficient, or only on single phase motors that are relatively inefficient?
Contrary to what is suggested by the videos, it does not take more energy to spin an induction motor faster. If a motor speeds up while its input power drops, then it is due to either a reduction in losses (improved efficiency) in the motor, or a reduction in the load. If it is an improvement in efficiency, then less energy is lost as heat and more is translated into torque. More torque results in acceleration. More often though, acceleration is the result of a drop in load. It is a characteristic of all induction motors that they will speed up and approach the synchronous speed, taking less input power, as load is removed.
Also, the videos suggest that shorting the coils places the maximum load on a generator. Umm, no. The maximum load is placed on a generator when it is generating the most watts and doing the most work. When you short the coil, the current is limited by the inductance of the coil, and the only work that is being done is the heating of the coils via resistive losses. This is almost certainly not the maximum load on a generator. You need to drive a resistive load, an incandescent lamp will do, to properly load up a generator. The size of the load required will depend on the generator characteristics. The claim that shorting the generator coils produces the maximum load on the generator is incorrect.
As to the claim that the generator power goes up as the speed and motor power goes down, I saw no such behaviour. The open circuit voltage of the generator went up as the speed increased. Voltage is neither energy nor power. Until you start to do work with it, voltage is just potential. I suspect the voltage output of the coils is proportional to the speed of the magnets, so of course the voltage would increase as the speed increases.
I’m not ready to jump on the hysteresis brake bandwagon just yet because it does not explain the change in behaviour from a brass shaft to a steel shaft. Nevertheless, unless it can be shown that a high efficiency motor can have its efficiency further improved at low cost, I expect the observed effect probably only has a use as an interesting means of torque control.
February 15th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Dear Thane,
After so many years and efforts you put into your Perepiteia, no wonder you are so jumpy. But let me tell you a story:
A migrating bird was surprised by a sudden blizzard and almost froze to death. As it happened a big elk passed by and discharged some stools on the bird’s head. Getting warm again the bird made a hole through the dung and started to sing happily. A hungry wolf was attracted by the sound and ate the bird.
Three morals: One who pours shit over you is not always your enemy.
The one who pulls you out of the shit is not always you friend.
But what is sure: f you are stuck in shit- don’t sing!
I am sorry for the use of “shit” but this is how I learned the story.
what I mean here is this: Not all who seem teasing or ridiculing you here are wrong. Some should be listened to very carefully. On the other hand, not all who seem sympathetic are your friends. I am sorry to say that looking at the videos I see so many things that have to be improved and simple tests that can still be done before dragging you all the way to MIT. A distinguished professor should know these things.
But what is sure: You did the right thing to make the world aware of your work. As I see it you have got something but I’m not sure whether it is what you consider as your main claim.
But then, who am I? A friend or a foe? You’ll have to see for yourself if you contact me, as I can’t find how to contact you. I believe you were forwarded some message from me through a third party, with some suggestion for authentication. Hanan.
February 25th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Dear Sir,
I must say you live in a world of fantasy if you believe the university is going even to look at an OU device.
They simply claim that it cannot exist and therefore do not want to even look at it. However then we got lucky, and an someone did had the guts to evaluated and even agreed with the results.
He is not at the uni anymore.
Regards
February 26th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
I have my doubts about what the inventor has claimed. I have a background in “magnetic particle inspection “. This is a “NDT” process in which a magnetic fields is applied to a given part made of ferromagnetic material to detect subsurface defects. All metals have a saturation point…. once full that’s it…A shaft`s diameter of an electric motor is very small and a few small magnets would never reach this saturation point or even come close to adding to the internal magnetic field enough to change its rotational speed. The only thing that I can see, since working in the electric motor industry in the past is that when a magnet is brought close to the shaft of the motor it causes the internal rotor field and the stator`s magnetic field to slightly misaligned which could affect the rpm…The thing that I noticed in one of his videos is the clicking sound. This is the centrifugal switch kicking in and out. The purpose of this switch is to de-activate the starting winding when the motors reaches its kick-in speed and then continues running on the secondary winding. To me, the close encounter with the magnets is causing the shaft of the motor to become polarized and in turn triggering the centrifugal switch to activate below the kick-in speed. This switch might have been modified to react to the external magnetic field, allowing the motor to increase the rpm and dropping its current, and this is not free energy. Sorry to say, but I too can do the same thing with a regular household vacuum cleaner motor, but with no magnets at all. I can show in a simple demonstration how to increase the rpm and drop the amperage to the motor at the same time and with no addition energy input….its so simple you will be surprised. I would be happy to demo it for you. It would be nice to believe what he has is true, but I really have my doubts….Free energy is in the eye of the beholders….or is it…..the big companies are keeping it under wraps……Mr. Lorrie Matchett
May 27th, 2008 at 3:44 am
Our present knowledge of physics is just at the begining ! we have to learn a lot , we keep learning till we die !
December 29th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Heres the real truth….telsa had this all figured out when he invented the motor,it was free energy,it’s simple it’s in front of you,yet you can’t see it and your goverment is’nt about to let you have it,just like old man westinghouse would’nt fund tesla if it did’nt change his model back then…stop thinking in the box that these are the laws and they can’t ever be broken,your wrong….wake up…
February 13th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
A detailed scientific explaination for this technolgy can be found in the book written by Norberto Keppe entitled, The New Physics Derived from the Disinverted Metaphysics. Discover the Keppe Motor, (a much, much simpler motor than Hein’s) and the princples that make it function, all based on Tesla’s discovery of scalar energy nearly 100 years ago. http://www.keppe.motor.com
March 12th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Thane Heins effect is indeed factual reproducible and indisputable. we have been dealing with the repairs and assembling various induction motors for nearly twenty years and very acquainted with how induction motors work . Naturally we were very curious when we came across Thane Heins motor effect seen in U Tube . We tried to reproduce Thanes Heins motor effect ,However to no sucess .Since the Lenz counter emf would always counter the cause.However on continous trial and error experimentation to our astonishment when the motor was modified according to what we saw described in Heins patent, the rotor did gain tremendous momentum even under heavy loads condition. Its now an easily reproducible phenomena, It may be due to the electromagnetic field assuming a kind of self conjugative state to put it in laymans term the electromagenetic field copycat or xerox its own action in mirror form. it can either negate the cause or help the rotor with extra momentum depending how the motors are modified. furthermore we have found how the Heins effect can be applied to heavy resistive loads sucessfully for example any two thousand watt electric heaters.which is an indisputable capability of the Thane Heins effect . for information on on how to use the Heins effect in any resistive loads of two to three thousand watt or more, contact david_sungoh @yahoomail.com
March 12th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Thane Heins does not need to waste time ,trying to continously convince and proof his discovery on how to improve the effeciency of induction motors. by the effect that he had discovered. But should try negosiating and give licsence for manufacturing rights of his devices and machines with actual reliable blue print of designs that can be manufactured industrially and comercialise at least for some domestic use anywhere in the world.
March 12th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
If you apply this concept to the Bedini(Jim Watson) generator you will generate as much free electricity as you need. Do a torrent search on:Bedini Free Energy Generator E-book.
For more information go search for it on the Panacea University website under John Bedini.
March 21st, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Can you supply the correct email for David Sungoh as the one above does not work
April 18th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Hi,
I have been working in many fields of energy for many years, I have found ways to get more energy out then what goes in to a basic coil.
this is one of those experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KICRqPkeTM4&feature=channel_page