At 04:44 pm 21/06/2006 -0400, you wrote: >Terry wrote: > >>Now, things may have changed since then. However, at that time, he was >>confident in it (effectively) self running. If that still stands, it would >>make verifing his claims somewhat simpler... >> >><><><><><> >> >>Indeed it would! >> >>The problem has been finding a low speed efficient generator. > >In the previous message, he discussed running it for hours with the >energy stored in a capacitor. Running from a small battery or a >capacitor would be nearly as convincing as full self sustained >stand-alone operation, because one can estimate approximately how >much energy it takes to run the thing, and the amount of energy in a >battery is known with precision. > >Rather than moving on to a full self-sustaining mode, I suggest he >should do a demonstration on video with a battery or capacitor. An >ordinary dry cell one-use (non-rechargeable) battery would be best, I >think. The trick would be to demonstrate approximately how much >friction and air resistance the thing is encountering. There should >be some simple first principle method of doing that. I would start by >spinning it up by hand and letting it coast until it stops, then I >would spin it with an ordinary electric motor and monitor the power >consumption, to calibrate. > >- Jed
Yep. I had come to a similar conclusion before I read the above. A simple string and pulley system with a falling weight would show how much windage and friction there was and the energy needed to keep it going for three hours could be easily calculated. I don't think any reasonable person could argue against such a demonstration. If he can keep it going for 3 hours on his capacitor, I'll buy shares. 8-) Frank
