Omnibus and the rest of the gang at OU:
All this talk and suppositions will fade away if we can get hold of Sean's December 19th data and observe that indeed, as claimed, all the input power has gone exclusively for Ohmic heating. Finding out whether or not that's the case should be the only focus of attention. Talking about anything else is just a waste of time at this point.
Promptly obtaining and analyzing Sean's data is especially important for those who've set themselves to replicate Orbo because it will save them time and resources if it turns out that the data doesn't support the claim that all the input power goes solely for Ohmic heating. We've gone through a lot of this -- to take somebody's word and only because of that start efforts to replicate the claim -- to find ourselves look like fools pulled into a hoax. Here in this case the resolution is straightforward -- if Sean has these claims he should provide the data, clearly available, to back them up. No more Mylows.
>>>
I agree. That is the main issue.
If Steorn can prove that almost no energy is transferred into the rotor then it will prove they have an OU technology.
Sean said something to the effect of "The energy being supplied to the motor is becoming ohmic heat and that counts as part of the output from the system."
Indeed there is an implication from Sean that anything else you get from the motor is the "free" part, but there is a huge problem here. The only thing the motor is producing is heat. Sean is trying to make you believe that the spinning rotor is the "bonus work" you are getting out of the system but that's a lie.
LISTEN CAREFULLY: The Steorn pulse motor is not actually driving a mechanical load so it is ultimately doing nothing but producing heat. It is a misconception to look at a spinning pulse motor and talk about its "mechanical output" as you see it rotating. All of the energy being fed to the motor becomes heat and there is NO mechanical output. The bearing friction becomes heat. The resistance in the wires becomes heat. The sound it emits in the air becomes heat. The vibrational energy emitted through the table becomes heat. Even the air friction becomes heat.
The spinning Steorn motor does nothing but produce heat and it does some recharging of the source battery. The fact that it is spinning is meaningless. The spinning rotor agitates the air and that becomes heat. The friction in the bearings becomes heat. The rotor is a glorified air heater in this case.
Here is the equation: Electrical power in = heat power + recharging power.
That's it, the mechanical power output is ZERO. The recharging power is a FRACTION of the input electrical power.
The Steorn motor does a fantastic job of producing heat and does some recharging of the battery. The only problem is that is that's exactly what it is supposed to do, it is normal for ANY motor that is not driving a load. The heat is normally considered lost energy and is normally attributed to the INEFFICIENCY of the motor. You want a motor to produce more mechanical power and less heat power for a given electrical input power.
You don't want the motor to produce heat, you want it to produce mechanical work. If you take ANY MOTOR and you don't connect it to a mechanical load then it is 100% EFFICIENT at producing heat. The only problem is that in the real world that's considered inefficiency.
Omnibus: Therefore the data from Steorn will support the claim that the motor produces ohmic heat - and it means NOTHING. There is no point in taking DSO measurements of the electrical input energy and then putting the entire motor inside a calorimeter and seeing if the thermal energy produced by the motor in 20 minutes is equal to the electrical energy supplied to the motor for 20 minutes. If you assume no charging battery then they will be equal, for sure. That's what is supposed to happen and you have learned nothing.
Also, there are replicators here who may have digital storage oscilloscopes. They may be willing to help in this respect -- take the U and I traces at steady-state and dump the data into an Excell spread sheet as well as measure the precise value of the Ohmic resistance of the coils. Something has to be done to have a definitive answer sooner. Not only we don't want this to drag itself as another Mylow or Mike saga but also, unlike many other experiments, to obtain the decisive answer in this case is very very straightforward.
Just measuring the ohmic resistance of the coils does not cut it. You will find that if you take your ((DSO-recorded current-squared) x the coil resistance x the time interval) and compare it to the total heat energy produced by the motor over the same time interval using a calorimeter then the heat energy dissipated in the coils due to ohmic resistance will be less than the total heat energy produced by the motor. The reason for this is clearly outlined above, there are other sources of heat (sound, vibration, bearings, air agitation, etc, that you are not factoring in)
By the same token, if your take your DSO-recorded U and I traces and multiply them together and then multiply that by the time interval, then you will have calculated your total electrical energy supplied for a given time interval. That will be equal to the total heat energy measured by the calorimeter (assuming no charging battery). The ohmic resistance of the coils does not even factor in here so there is nothing that you can do with that piece of data.
If you get all of this, then you are back to two options to verify Steorn's claim:
1. The easy one - get a measurement of the electrical power supplied to the motor and compare that to the electrical power returned to the charging battery. Steorn is claiming three times the amount of power returned to the battery as compared to the power supplied to the motor. In my energy analysis I am predicting less than 30% of the energy supplied to the motor gets returned to the charge battery.
2. The more difficult one - make measurements where you compare the amount of kinetic energy added to the rotor with the amount of electrical energy supplied in the pulse. If the kinetic energy increase is greater than the electrical pulse energy then you have over unity.
The "ohmic heat business" is bullshit. It is a setup by Sean and company to throw you off the trail. Someone will make a convincing measurement that shows that the motor is generating as much heat as the electrical energy supplied and you will all get excited and be convinced that the Steorn pulse motors are over unity devices because they say "anything beyond that is over unity."
The problem is that there is NOTHING beyond that.
To repeat with a charging battery as part of the system: You put 100 Joules of electrical energy into the motor + battery sitting inside a calorimeter over a period of 20 minutes and the calorimeter records 90 Joules of heat energy during that time period. You assume that 10 Joules of electrical energy got stored the battery during the 20 minutes. Somebody from Steorn says, "And the mechanical energy from the rotor is the over unity part."
It's bullshit and don't fall for it - the spinning rotor is producing ZERO mechanical energy.
HOLD STEORN TO THEIR CLAIM - TAKE THE EASY ROUTE:
1. Connect the differential voltage probe across the 1.5 volt source battery.
2. Connect the current probe to the output wire from the battery powering the motor.
3. Push a button on the high-end DSO and get an output power reading.
4. Connect the current probe to the power return wire coming from the generator coils section.
5. Push a button on the high-end DSO and get an input power reading.
6. Compare the power reading in step #5 with the power reading in step #3 to confirm or deny their claim of three times the power being returned to the battery as compared to what was being consumed by the pulse motor.
Don't get fooled with this ohmic heat nonsense.
MileHigh