I agree in principle with your skepticism, David - with the proviso that Thanes could be just plain stubborn and completely incapacitated by inventor's disease - by not pursuing the obvious pathway to proof and publishing the results.
This is a transformer at heart, like Bearden's MEG - and most transformers
are already very efficient or should be (in contrast to heat engines), where
Carnot efficiency enters the picture.
There are electric motors available NOW which are 98+% efficient (CSIRO),
and electric generators available which are 95% efficient and they can be
paired at optimal RPM with minimal loss. That much should be a no-brainer.
Most transformers are 98% - so that it does not take a high level mentality
to realize that any intermediary device, like a transformer, which has
minimal gain should allow Thanes to "close the loop" by the simple expedient
of placing his device between the two (paired high-efficiency motor and
generator) and thus to achieve a self-powering mode, which is undeniable
proof!
I must add a "DOH [slaps forehead]" to my objection here - given the
circumstances. Since, over the many years in which some version of this
objection has been raised, Thanes steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that
this simple route to absolute proof even exits, with the expected conclusion
that skeptics believe he is hiding something with every new PR release -
which is the same-old, same-old BS.
However, I am not a total skeptic and think he may have some glimmer of an
anomaly, but if it is a new variation of the Bedini "battery anomaly" then
that puts it in a different category (electrochemical). Bottom line, until
he performs the obvious kind of "real" test and attempts to close the loop
with a self-runner, and publishes the data - then there is no reason to give
him any credit at all.
I can only suspect extreme self-delusion is the problem here. The guy is
obviously talented but in complete denial of how easy it would be to prove
that there is gain, if it is really there. It only takes COP > 1.2 or less -
to absolutely prove real gain with a self powering transformer-type of setup
beyond all doubt ...
Of course, it should be added that Bearden's MEG failed under the same
scrutiny. I would not call that failure of TB to prove anything valid, as
being any kind of "good company" for the failure of TH, however... we expect
more and it is lacking.
Jones
From: David Roberson
I fall into the category of engineers that do not believe in
this device. Someone will need to demonstrate where the energy comes from
that recharges the batteries instead of just stating that it works and that
the laws of physics need to be rewritten.
I viewed one video on the site that described why a
different time constant for the generator inductor was so important. It was
elementary inductor theory and explained nothing at all. They will have a
difficult time trying to get knowledgeable engineers to believe in this one.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Mar 21, 2012 6:52 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
Thane Heins continues with his bold claims.
This is the second video of four videos with a total length
of 3 hours.
ReGenX generator demonstration, Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrk_7MSSQMw&feature=related
At 11 minutes into this video he says his device has been
tested by
the NRC (National Research Council of Canada) and will be
tested again
by the NRC in the first week of April.
The third video includes interviews with five observers,
including the
editor of EV World, a wind power consultant and some
interested
investors.
Harry
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
