CORRECTION RE Georgia State University Hyperphysics Incorrect DC Water Curcuit Analysis

1. Subject: CORRECTION RE: Georgia State University Hyperphysics Web Page Incorrect DC Circuit Water Analogy...
From: <thaneh@potentialdifference.ca> Date: Tue, November 11, 2014 2:47 pm To: RodNave@gsu.edu Cc: ajay.agrawal@rotman.utoronto.ca, "Daniel Auger" <d.j.auger@cranfield.ac.uk>, "Michael Steinitz" <msteinit@stfx.ca>, "James Kirtley" <kirtley@MIT.EDU>, "Wolfgang Ketterle"<ketterle@MIT.EDU>, ehsani@ece.tamu.edu, "J. hin" <jshin@alcor.concordia.ca>, "Nathaniel Lasry" <lasry@johnabbott.qc.ca>, ottawamorning@cbc.ca, petriu@uottawa.ca, rhabash@uottawa.ca, zahn@mit.edu Hello Dr. Nave, Please find enclosed a CORRECTION to your Hyperphysics web page regarding the Incorrect DC Circuit Water Analogy... http://slidesha.re/10W3iZE. This analogy does not 'hold water' so to speak when the battery is replaced with a hand cranked DC generator rather than a battery... Kind regards Thane
Thane C. Heins President & CEO Potential +/- Difference Inc. R & D "We generate solutions" Email: thaneh@potentialdifference.ca YOUTUBE http://www.youtube.com/user/pdicanada1 Linkedin http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=107557432&trk=tab_pro slideshare http://www.slideshare.net/ThaneCHeins
“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." ~ John F. Kennedy

2. There is a scientific myth which is being mimicked by all scientists without any independent thought which states that:  FREE WORK CAN AND IS BE PERFORMED INSIDE ALL ELECTRIC GENERATORS because,  "Free Torque (and free work) is being performed inside ALL electric generators without ANY energy being present whatsoever."
Yes it's true... and this myth stems from a faulty Newtonian Mechanical Physics application where electric generators are concerned suggesting that;
"only electric generators can produce torque without energy."
The 1st miracle of science is that this faulty perception has existed for so long even though it is so untrue and obviously faulty to any average person but NOT to you... The 2nd miracle of science will be if you learned humans take the necessary steps required to correct this faulty perception - step out of your comfort zones and help save the planet Earth... because NO one else can or will... Please find below an email exchange that could have been written by any one of you scientists (indeed ALL of you) who have allowed your scientific curiosity to be replaced by a bureaucratic path of least resistance.
What is being discussed is how science proposes that: torque can and is being produced inside an electric generator without any energy. (the "free torque" relates to the free counter- electromotive-torque produced inside all electric generators for free without energy... that all scientists hold to be true)
Which would be like getting something for nothing or a free lunch i.e. FREE WORK (free torque) being performed without any energy...
Kind regards Thane
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke

3. 11:11:11 How 2 Miracles of Science can END the MYTH Regarding the NEED for the War in Iraq, Syria, Iran etc. etc. TODAY...!
Dear Mimic,
Well that certainly got you all bent out of shape! Calm down...it's not like you haven't been challenged or criticized before. I didn't say anything you haven't heard before either.
Sorry not bent out of shape at all - shouldn't have used caps... and I know I've heard it all before and it's all wrong...
Here is what mainstream science (and you) are incorrectly saying since the genesis of electricity discovery. 1. If you turn the lug nut on your car's wheels to the left it requires torque and energy. 2. But if you turn them to the right it requires torque but no energy is needed to produce this torque. 3. ... and when and electric generator produces an electromotive-torque it does so in the absence of energy... 4. So all electric generators produce torque (without requiring any energy). 5. But energy IS required to produce a torque in every other system on the planet but NOT in inside electrical generators (how convenient!) I don't have to be an EE, PhD or otherwise to question that.
Agreed you don't have to be a PhD or EE to know that:  in order to produce torque energy IS required... Why do you persist in believing that it is possible to; produce torque without energy - when you know (by simple common sense) that it isn't true...?
It is also true that I may be intimating that you don't know how to adequately explain the experimental results that you and many others have observed, because that may well be true.
I am not intimidated at all and I certainly DO know how to explain that torque (in any direction) requires energy and so does the scientific community they have all been doing it for years since Newton's time.
The problem is the scientific community (and you as well) blatantly ignores it's own laws of physics when it says,  "that an electric generator's on load induced electromagnetic counter torque is produced in the absence of energy." HERE IS WHERE SCIENCE GOT IT ALL WRONG... (ready :-)
Science equates the flow of current with the flow of water and this has always been totally wrong.
Imagine a hand crank on the water pump analogy below...

4. 1. As the resistance in the pipe increases, 2. the water current flow rate decreases 3. and it gets harder and harder to turn the pump handle until at 4. INFINITE RESISTANCE all pumping action and current flow ceases and it is 5. impossible to turn the pump handle. Now imagine equating the battery pictured below with a hand cranked electric generator in the very same scenario... 1. AS THE RESISTANCE IN THE WIRE INCREASES, 2. THE ELECTRICAL CURRENT FLOW RATE DECREASES 3. AND IT GETS EASIER AND EASIER TO TURN THE GENERATOR CRANK HANDLE UNTIL AT 4. INFINITE RESISTANCE ALL CURRENT FLOW CEASES AND IT IS 5. EASIEST TO TURN THE PUMP HANDLE. Science got it ALL wrong when it: 1. INCORRECTLY equated electrical current flow in a wire with 2. water flow in a pipe and 3. incorrectly equated an electrical system at the genesis of electricity discovery with 4. Newtonian Mechanics because it was all they knew at the time... In an electrical system: 1. THE MOST ENERGY IS REQUIRED to crank an electric generator when the electrical current flow rate magnitude is MAXIMUM 2. and easiest when the current flow rate magnitude is MINIMUM. Whereas in a mechanical system: 1. the most energy is required to crank a pump when the water current flow rate is at a minimum 2. and easiest when the water current flow rate is maximum.
DC Circuit Water Analogy: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/watcir.html

5. OK SO WHY IS THE MAXIMUM CRANKING ENERGY REQUIRED IN AN ELECTRICAL GENERATING SYSTEM WHEN THE WIRE RESISTANCE IS MINIMUM AND WHEN THE ELECTRIC CURRENT FLOW RATE IS MAXIMUM?
Because:  Inside the electric generator energy is being created that produces an electromagnetic torque which resists the cranking of the generator hand crank and makes it harder to turn.  (and everyone knows that energy is required to produce torque... )  The magnitude of counter-electromotive-torque produced by the generator is based on the magnitude of current flow so  the greater the magnitude of electrical current flow  the greater the magnitude of the energy produced in the magnetic field around every current bearing wire and  the greater the magnitude of torque created. (and everyone knows that energy is required to produce torque...) So as the resistance in the wire approaches infinity it gets easier and easier to turn the generator's hand crank...
But as the resistance in the pipe approaches infinity it gets harder and harder to turn the pumps hand crank...
Therefore; Science's Electrical / Water Analogy is incorrect and always has been...

6. I further suggest that talking about your invention as the answer to world conflict, specifically, the conflict that revolves around oil, is detrimental to your very cause.
“One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror. ” ~ George W. Bush “The number of people killed by the sanctions in Iraq is greater than the total number of people killed by all weapons of mass destruction in all of history.” ~ Noam Chomsky
“First Afghanistan, now Iraq. So who's next? Syria? North Korea? Iran? Where will it all end?' If these illegal interventions are permitted to continue, the implication seems to be, pretty soon, horror of horrors, no murderously repressive regimes might remain.” ~ Daniel Kofman, A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq
“Thomas Jefferson once said: 'Of course the people don't want war. But the people can be brought to the bidding of their leader. All you have to do is tell them they're being attacked and denounce the pacifists for somehow a lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.' I think that was Jefferson. Oh wait. That was Hermann Goering." ~ Jon Stewart at the New York Waldorf-Astoria, June 6, 2006
You may be unaware of how radical you really sound, at least when you write.
IF PEACE IS A "RADICAL" IDEA THEN I AM COMPLETELY UTTERLY AND TOTALLY RADICAL...
I am still interested in a demo...I just wanted to see one that will be readily viewed by others as conclusive.
Everything above is conclusive and has been viewed by others as so... that's not the problem.
In closing, I wasn't aware of a journal publication. What journal? I'd like to review that.
Read any physics text book regarding electric generators, Lenz's Law, Work Energy Principle etc.
PS. I am not the enemy.
“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." ~ John F. Kennedy

8. The reason for the war in Iraq. Oil flowing to Israel. This secret pipeline is buried deep underground and encased in cement

9. DC Circuit Water Analogy: http://hyperphysics.phy- astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/watcir.html
In a direct current (DC) electrical circuit, the voltage (V in volts) is an expression of the available energy per unit charge which drives the electric current (I in amperes) around a closed circuit.
Increasing the resistance (R in ohms) will proportionately decrease the current which may be driven through the circuit by the voltage.
Each quantity and each operational relationship in a battery-operated DC circuit has a direct analog in the water circuit.
The nature of the analogies can help develop an understanding of the quantities in basic electric circuits.
In the water circuit, the pressure P drives the water around the closed loop of pipe at a certain volume flowrate F.
If the resistance to flow R is increased, then the volume flowrate decreases proportionately.
You may click any component or any relationship to explore the the details of the analogy with a DC electric circuit.

10. WORK - ENERGY - POWER:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html#wep
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rotwe.html
TORQUE:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/torq.html#torq
TORQUE AS A VECTOR PRODUCT:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vctorq.html#vvc6

11. Work
refers to an activity involving a force and movement in the directon of the force. A force of 20 newtons pushing an object 5 meters in the direction of the force does 100 joules of work.
Energy
is the capacity for doing work. You must have energy to accomplish work - it is like the "currency" for performing work. To do 100 joules of work, you must expend 100 joules of energy.
Power
is the rate of doing work or the rate of using energy, which are numerically the same. If you do 100 joules of work in one second (using 100 joules of energy), the power is 100 watts.
Work-Energy Principle The change in the kinetic energy of an object is equal to the net work done on the object.

12. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: ReGenX Input vs Output... Date: Mon, November 10, 2014 6:38 pm To: thaneh@potentialdifference.ca
Hello Thane,
Well that certainly got you all bent out of shape! Calm down...it's not like you haven't been challenged or criticized before. I didn't say anything you haven't heard before either.
I am not equipped to debate you on motor/generator theory/technology, or many other topics either. That's not the point. The point is that I have read your writings and heard your words directly about "energy creation" and INFINITE EFFICIENCY and I don't have to be an EE, PhD or otherwise to question that. It is also true that I may be intimating that you don't know how to adequately explain the experimental results that you and many others have observed, because that may well be true. Either way, the proof is in the pudding...that is a product that clearly does what you claim and sells. I further suggest that talking about your invention as the answer to world conflict, specifically, the conflict that revolves around oil, is detrimental to your very cause. You may be unaware of how radical you really sound, at least when you write. I am still interested in a demo...I just wanted to see one that will be readily viewed by others as conclusive. In closing, I wasn't aware of a journal publication. What journal? I'd like to review that.
PS. I am not the enemy.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:40 PM, <thaneh@potentialdifference.ca> wrote:
Hello Mimic,
My comments in CAPS BELOW... just delete this email if you don't like debating facts...
Thane, If what you were claiming to do was to eliminate phases of counter-torque in a gen that would be one thing, but you actually claim to make energy.
1) NOT ELIMINATE BUT REVERSE.
2) I DON'T CLAIM TO MAKE ENERGY... I CLAIM THAT:
WHEN AN ELECTRIC IS PLACED ON LOAD A COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE TORQUE IS PRODUCED AND
TORQUE IS WORK AND WORK REQUIRES ENERGY IN ANY DIRECTION.

13. IN ORDER FOR TORQUE TO EXIST THERE MUST BE ENERGY BEING PRODUCED SOMEWHERE IN THE SYSTEM.
THE ENERGY IN THE CLOSED SYSTEM (ELECTRIC GENERATORS) THAT DOES THE WORK CREATING THE COUNTER-TORQUE COMES FROM THE MAGNETIC FIELD "ENVIRONMENT" THAT IS PRODUCED AROUND ALL CURRENT BEARING WIRES.
The only place for energy to come from in a close system is from the environment (or the materials in the system that have stored energy that came form the environment).
MAGNETIC FIELD ENVIRONMENT.
There is only energy conversion, not creation...at least for us mere mortals anyway.
IF THAT IS (REALLY) TRUE THEN GENERATORS WOULDN'T PRODUCE AT COUNTER-TORQUE WHEN PLACED ON-LOAD AND YET THEY DO.
SO IF ENERGY ISN'T BEING CREATED TO PRODUCE THIS COUNTER-TORQUE THEN IT IS ENERGY FREE TORQUE WHICH CAN'T BE POSSIBLE.
PRIOR TO THE DEMO - PLEASE SHOW ME TORQUE WITHOUT ENERGY AND I'LL YIELD - BUT YOU NOR ANY OTHER MERE MORTAL WILL BE ABLE TO DO IT BECAUSE IT SIMPLY ISN'T POSSIBLE.
BTW GENERATOR COUNTER TORQUE AKA GENERATOR ARMATURE REACTION IS ALSO REFERRED TO AS MOTOR ACTIN IN A GENERATOR...
I will view the demo with an open mind, but it will still be within the context of known science.
ALL ELECTRIC GENERATORS THAT CREATE AN ON LOAD COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE TORQUE (AND THE ENERGY REQUIRED TO DO SO) DO IT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF KNOWN SCIENCE...
I sense there is an explanation for your empirical results, but I don't think a number of science laws will need to be re-written to develop it.
YES THE EXPLANATION IS VERY SIMPLE AND OBVIOUS - SCIENCE GOT IT WRONG AND ENERGY CAN AS IS BEING CREATED INSIDE ALL ELECTRIC GENERATORS WHEN THEY ARE PLACED ON LOAD BECAUSE ENERGY IS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE A COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE TORQUE OR TORQUE IN ANY DIRECTION COUNTER OR OTHERWISE... NO MERE MORTALS REQUIRED.
THE ONLY OTHER VIABLE OPTION IS TO CONCLUDE THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO PRODUCE A TORQUE WITHOUT ENERGY... AND THAT CANNOT BE SHOWN.

14. HOWEVER IN THE DEMO WHEN WE SEE A COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE TORQUE BEING PRODUCED WE WILL HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE IS ENERGY BEING CREATED IN THE SYSTEM AS WELL...
Mimic PS. I would love to be proven wrong!
WELL CONSIDER YOUR WISH GRANTED THEN BECAUSE THE VALIDATION HAS ALREADY BEEN ACHIEVED BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN THE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN, PEER REVIEW, ADVERSARIAL REVIEW, INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY REPRODUCTION OF RESULTS, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION AND JOURNAL PUBLICATION.
Cheers Thane
On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 7:06 PM, <thaneh@potentialdifference.ca> wrote:
Hello Mimic,
I hope you are enjoying your weekend...
I had a short meeting with Chris today and he suggested that as part of your personal evaluation you are interested is seeing the "input" vs "output."
Please allow me to state that the input to an electric generator is; the power in the drive shaft which is the driveshaft TORQUE x driveshaft SPEED.
As we discussed previously a drive shaft that is: 1. Accelerating has positive torque and power and can drive a generator and deliver generator output power. 2. Steady state = zero net torque and zero power and cannot drive a generator and deliver generator output power without an increase in drive shaft power. 3. Decelerating has negative torque and less than zero power and absolutely cannot drive a generator and deliver generator output power without an increase in drive shaft power. What you will see in the pending demo is a drive shaft that is already decelerating on no- load - meaning the drive shaft's net torque is negative (i.e. less than zero).
The torque graph below shows that the induction motor prime mover's maximum supplied drive shaft torque occurs at 1600 RPM and decreases down to zero at synchronous speed at 3600 RPM.
This graph is very important for your analysis comprehension because we activate the generator coils at 3000 RPM.

15. When the conventional generator coil is engaged; 1. the system decelerates and the generator output decreases, 2. the induction motor prime mover responds by drawing increased stator coil current which you will see in the demo. 3. When the stator current increases the motor drive shaft supplied torque is also increasing but you will see system deceleration because the load is selectively designed to completely overpower the motor even at maximum stator current draw (actually the system will stall completely). When the ReGenX generator coil is engaged; 1. the system accelerates and the generator's output increases BUT 2. the induction motor's drive shaft supplied torque is decreasing BUT 3. the NET drive shaft torque is increasing because the system is accelerating while the induction motor's input current drops... Cheers Thane
http://www.slideshare.net/ThaneCHeins/selfaccelerating-regenerative- acceleration-generator-torque-analysis
http://www.slideshare.net/ThaneCHeins/magna-international-sept20-th-2009-generator- torque-testing?related=1

17. Thane C. Heins President & CEO Potential +/- Difference Inc. R & D "We generate solutions" Email: thaneh@potentialdifference.ca YOUTUBE http://www.youtube.com/user/pdicanada1 Linkedin http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=107557432&trk=tab_pro slideshare http://www.slideshare.net/ThaneCHeins
Technology Endorsements & Industry Comments "The [Regenerative Acceleration Generator coil current 45 degree] time delays violate Newton's Third Law [and the Law of Conservation of Energy] because even an infinitesimal time without the second force violates the idea of force-pairs and hence of Newton's Third Law." - Professor Nathaniel Lasry, Physics John Abbot College (2012) "Of course it accelerates when a load is applied...! This represents several new chapters in physics, that is why we are consulting MIT." -Dr. Habash, University of Ottawa (2007)

18. "I saw it. It's real. Now I'm just trying to figure it out. 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." -Markus Zahn, Ph.D., M.I.T. Professor of Electromagnetics and Electrical Systems (2007) "A number of your experiments are not lying in the field of Maxwellian electrodynamics? That is fascinating! From the mathematical point of view what's going on in your experiments is the break of SO3 symmetry in fundamental tensor of Yang Mills equations that makes it obvious to see the flaws if Maxwell electrodynamics. I will inform you on any progress that i'll make along with reports." -Dr. Evstigneev N.M., Leading Scientist, Department of Chaotic Dynamics, Institute for System Analysis, Russian Academy of Science (2009) "Your claims seem to violate the law of conservation of energy and Maxwell's equations of electro-magnetics." I will send you a short proposal, including my plan of work, estimate of cost, etc. Then we can sign a short agreement and proceed." -Mehrdad (Mark) Ehsani, Ph.D., P.E., F.IEEE, F.SAE, Robert M.Kennedy Professor & Director, Power Electronics and Motor Drives Laboratory & Advanced Vehicle Systems Research Program, Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Texas A&M University (2008) "This is absolutely fascinating stuff you are doing!" -Joseph Shin, Electricity and Magnetism Professor, Concordia University (2011) "If possible would like to meet with you to discuss your approach to the Association and of course to get a better feel about the physics behind your invention. I would still like to see what you are doing and perhaps we can include some of your material on our website newsletter?" -David Mann, Canadian Association for the Advancement of Science (2009) "Thane, Your Press Release was most interesting to me as a physicist and an engineer. The level of technical detail was adequate to tell me that you probably have made a very significant advance in applied physics and in safely and successfully handling a new source of electric power. Congratulations!" -Dr. Stanley Townsend, University of Toronto & Former Managing Editor of the Canadian Journal of Physics (2006)
"As I'm concerned this is a work of GENIUS (and a rather major one at that)." - Les Virany BSEE MIT Former USPTO examiner and Registered Patent Agent

19. "This is the Holy grail for generators." -NRC Scientist Doug Hartwick at Ottawa University (2009) "As a mechanical engineer I'm here to explain how it works and why it works. And it does work; over a dozen of us were witness to that last Monday(as well as a film crew--filming in 3D no less!)." -Mike Brace, Tech Editor EV World (2012) "This is a freakin' game changer!" -Mike Elwood, Chairman Electric Mobility Canada at Ottawa University (2009) "We are interested in using the ReGenX technology in our LinkVolt Project to reduce roadside refueling." -Neil Young, LincVolt Project (2011) "The magnetics lab here at Goddard expressed some interest in having you come down to do a colloquium." -NASA (2008) "We really are more interested in developing its use and application for military power requirements." -US Air Force (2009) "I have asked Mr. Gilles Brassard, A/Director, Spacecraft Payload here at the Canadian Space Agency to look at your technologies and to visit your laboratory." -Canadian Space Agency (2009) "I am writing to ask you to submit what you feel would be an appropriate document to describe your regenerative acceleration technology for circulation to our Committee members." -Al Cormier, Executive Director Electric Mobility Canada (2009) "You seem to have made an interesting discovery. Our internal physics experts review this information and have determined that it is very interesting work." -Mike Simpson, Transportation Analyst Rocky Mountain Institute (2009) "Thanks for providing technical information. If the effect of your invention is really true, I am sure there will be strong needs in the market." -Nissan Japan (2012) "I would like to know why you are not the toast of the town... this technology can be offered as a range extension option to our clients." -Thomas Fritz, Vice President Electric Vehicle Operations, CODA Automotive (2012)

20. "The technology looks really interesting and is revolutionary. I would like to learn more about the technology. Is it possible to organize a demo or a lecture in the USA?" -Chrysler Electrified Powertrains (2012) "This sounds interesting. I'd like you to connect with our Fuel Economy Learning Program manager, to schedule a time for you to come in and share the technology with us. We need to know more about the Physics behind it." -General Motors (2012) "It would be fitting for the inventor of the automobile to be first with your revolutionary technology and for me to play a role in that would be awesome!" -Mercedes-Benz (2012) "Would you be willing to contribute an article on this technology to the Journal for Engineering and Public Policy?" -Donald Wallace, Executive Director Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy (2009) "When we finally understand what Thane Heins has discovered, we likely will have to rewrite the laws of electromagnetism." -Mike Brace EV World Tech Editor (2010)