impressed measured voltage. Although this can be attained by several

means, the ways and means of achieving it bring the whole definition

into question. Is it truly overunity?

In the case of 3 phase alternator inputs showing these effects,

there are reasonable arguments that can be made to show that the

results are only occuring from special considerations. Therefore that

argument can be removed by scaling up the resistance of tested

models. The problem to be determined is specifically this; by the

laws of maximum power transfer it is known that when the load equals

the internal resistance of the source, maximum power transfer occurs,

but it then occurs at 50% efficiency.

This would not be so problematic as a definition, if it were for not

a single perplexing fact, which is that the internal resistance of

the source ACTUALLY appears to change with the common ways it is

accounted for.

By taking the standard definitions of generator action, and

comparing those definitions as compared to what is delivered by AC 3

phase converted alternator, significant deviations are noted. The AC

converted alternator DOES NOT WORK as would be deciphered from book

knowledge. That knowledge will dictate that if a short is placed on

the output, maximum amperage will occur. Book knowlege tells this

with graphs explaining that yes that max amperage does appear, but

when it occurs the voltage of the source will have also dropped to

such a degree that there is ACTUALLY LESS POWER TRANSFER, than would

occur by registered voltage times impressed amperage if the

conditions for maximum power transfer occured.

By shorting out a stator phase and measuring the amperage in this

experimentation at 480 hz, it is determined that on delta short the R

(int) value should be 1/5 ohm. What this further means in actual load

application is that then if the load were actually the same value,

the open circuit voltage should only drop 50 % on that same 1/5 ohm

load. However with the experimentation using those approximate ohmic

resistances in WYE for magnetic cancellation in 3 spirals in mutual

induction, the actual voltage drop from open circuit is far beyond

50%. Thus the impressed voltage is being reduced far beyond what

should be occuring, and with the effect of theorized mutual

inductance we wind up with more amperage on the circuit than can be

explained by the reduced apparent voltage, and its conduction by Ohms

law. To further explain the excess of current we can speculate that

not one, by two emf sources are on on the windings, and the voltage

meter only shows the apparent emf input by the alternator, but

actually each winding recieves additional and beyond source emf by

mutual induction of spiral windings.

To go further here, the actual acting resistance that exhibits that

50% drop in open circuit voltage vs loaded state appears to be about

1 ohm, and not 1/5 ohm. This additionally means that tests showing

excess amperage using 1/5 ohm loads in magnetic cancellation via WYE

spiral mutual inductance are actually tests made with the generator

in OVERLOAD operation, although this was not initially ascertained by

tests of short measured amperages.

Thus in this reasoning, the same tests need to be made again with the

resistances of the wye spirals in magnetic cancellation brought close

to 1 ohm, whereby then if the same effect of excess amperage is

noted, the error brought on by measurements made by generator in

overload may be dismissed.

The next argument is a little more involved, and consists of the same

inconsistancies involved with making amperage observations. Then we

can invent and readily explain those observations by the accounting

for a third dimensional reactance (spatial) coordinate that will

limit the current in a branch, and when combined with its opposite

limitation made by spatial resonance reaction unlock that current,

with the NET result that more current comes out of the branch than

should logically exist. HDN (talking like Spock, quite a rarity)