Steorns December 2009 Demo

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > Motors > Pulse Motors > Steorns December 2009 Demo

2024-11-26, 22:29:38
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8

« previous next »

Author Topic: Steorns December 2009 Demo (Read 102202 times)

poynt99	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #25 on: 2010-01-02, 13:21:53 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	MH, There must be some mechanical work being done to maintain rotation? Indeed some replicators are showing real torque as well, and with no added input power over a no-load condition. If Sean is claiming 3 times the power off the generator coil than what is going in to pulse the motor, then the measurement to determine OU or not is academic (well almost). Load the generator coil with an appropriate resistive load, and obtain a scope measurement of the input power using the diff and I-probes, and obtain an output power measurement with a true-RMS meter, scope, filtered-shunt, etc., and compare. Then you'll have your answer. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

BEP	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #26 on: 2010-01-02, 14:04:31 »
Group: Guest	There IS work being performed. work = force X distance The magnetic attraction is the force The distance is the amount of rotation during the attraction (assuming this thing actually cancels attraction at the right point). Let Steorn provide his so-called proof. I'm not really concerned until then, just interested. EDIT>> Here is an interesting thought: The is also force and distance involved in realignment of the magnetic domains of the ferrous toroid. I wonder if these and the rotational movement of the rotor will equal null? Is this Huygens correcting Descartes all over again? « Last Edit: 2010-01-02, 15:00:04 by WaveWatcher »

ion	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #27 on: 2010-01-02, 18:31:26 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	It is important to not confuse instantaneous torque with steady state torque. You can take a small toy electric motor and use it to rev up a heavy flywheel, if you are patient enough. The motor will integrate energy into the flywheel much the way a capacitor is charged. The motor BEMF will cause the current from the supply to drop drop off as terminal speed is acquired. The resulting power input losses will be air friction, bearing friction, ohmic and brush contact losses, magnetic material switching losses. In the unloaded or lightly loaded case, however BEMF is a good thing. The instantaneous torque will be large, but steady state torque very low. I have not seen any steady state torque measurements of the Steorn device along with the respective power input draw, but plenty of people touching the wheel after it is revved up and saying "lots of torque here". When you try to extract torque from the flywheel, the motor current will rise to meet the torque demands, but the toy motor is limited in how much actual torque can be supplied. The motor will quickly heat up and probably burn out if steady state torque is drawn in an attempt to match the instantaneous torque. It is simple to rotate a large disc with very low current draw. The Steorn device appears to be a very inefficient motor. If I am wrong about this please provide the link showing actual running torque measurements of the Steorn device and respective input power requirement. We can then do the simple efficiency calculations. Kind regards....ION --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

poynt99	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #28 on: 2010-01-02, 18:51:04 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	I think you are correct ION in regards to standard pulse motors or DC brush motors. However, this orbo motor works on a slightly different principle; i.e the torque imparted to the rotor is due to attraction to a core. In this motor, drawing a load off the rotor does not draw more power from the source as does a conventional motor. At least this is how I understand it. I have seen it demonstrated where a finger is dragged on the rotor. Of course the rotor slows down a significant amount, but it is doing some work in this case. It's not just inertia as this can be maintained continuously. The work is coming from the interaction between the permanent magnets and core(s). The coils are simply allowing this work to be performed in such a manner to obtain continuous rotation of the rotor. Still not OU I feel, but it may not be as inefficient as it appears to be. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

poynt99	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #29 on: 2010-01-02, 19:06:30 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	One certain limitation that will come into play in the orbo motor, is when it accelerates beyond the threshold at which the core can be polarized and de-polarized fast enough, and without significant core loss. With no load present on the rotor, that threshold should become quite obvious, especially if the rotor mass to attraction force ratio is low. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

BEP	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #30 on: 2010-01-02, 19:19:17 »
Group: Guest	I'm not quite sure how this should be applied to the overall calculations (if we ever see enough data) but here goes: While the amplitude of the voltage and current do not appear to be increasing during the finger-drag tests - one thing does increase - pulse width. This alone is indication of more power being drawn. Even though the time increase is only directly due to rotor position and not drag, more energy IS being applied during drag. Granted, this only makes sense when you look pulse by pulse and not overall duty-cycle. It is 'work' to realign and maintain alignment of the toroid's magnetic domains. The longer this work is done the more energy is required to do it - from the battery. To go beyond this, I think some clever figuring is required using the hysteresis curve of the toroid and applying the right 'release' pulse height and width for best efficiency. In-short: this thing is not as simple as it may appear. When (and if) they declare OU AND provide proof then I may jump on it for a snack. If it is real my engine replacement problem for my truck is solved. I have some toroids weighing in around 10 lbs each and the same in magnets. I'll just throw them under the hood and use the gas tank to store beer.

BEP	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #31 on: 2010-01-02, 19:20:44 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: poynt99 on 2010-01-02, 19:06:30 One certain limitation that will come into play in the orbo motor, is when it accelerates beyond the threshold at which the core can be polarized and de-polarized fast enough, and without significant core loss. With no load present on the rotor, that threshold should become quite obvious, especially if the rotor mass to attraction force ratio is low. .99 I think this may be the reason for the RPM oscillation.

poynt99	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #32 on: 2010-01-02, 19:28:23 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010-01-02, 19:19:17 I'm not quite sure how this should be applied to the overall calculations (if we ever see enough data) but here goes: While the amplitude of the voltage and current do not appear to be increasing during the finger-drag tests - one thing does increase - pulse width. This alone is indication of more power being drawn. Even though the time increase is only directly due to rotor position and not drag, more energy IS being applied during drag. Indeed true. I over-looked that. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

BEP	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #33 on: 2010-01-02, 19:35:15 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: poynt99 on 2010-01-02, 19:28:23 Indeed true. I over-looked that. .99 Yea. Them little whatchamagiggies will get you every time. Sometimes they are late but they always come back to bite. Any material out there with dual speed hysteresis? Easy to flip but slow to recover but only in one direction? Until then we only have an interesting motor.

MileHigh	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #34 on: 2010-01-02, 20:38:28 »
Group: Guest	Hi Rosemary, Poynt and Wavewatcher: Rosemary: Quote I watched the video and my only question is why do they claim that the 'slowed' rotation due to his finger brake - would produce back emf? Surely this would only happen if the rotation was entirely stalled? Can someone answer this? That's another misconception and it was part of Sean's "hands-on" demo clip. Since the Steorn motor is a pulse motor where the toroidal drive core is supposed to be "immune" to external changing magnetic flux something seems fishy here. In my opinion the claim of "no back-EMF when loaded" doesn't even make sense. Some replicators verified that when you spin the rotor by hand with no power applied that the toroidal coil produced no EMF which seems to make sense. Then other tests were done where the same thing was done where DC current was flowing through the coil and some EMF was produced. That may indeed make sense because the flux from the magnets may act as a "disturbance flux" that causes a change in the net amount of flux flowing through the core with respect to time. In my opinion Sean and company are mixing up pulse motor and regular armature/stator motor concepts here and it is confusing, and possibly deliberate. I hope to do a posting that is a formal rebuttal to Sean's "hands on" clip soon. Quote I think the toroidal winding presents the closest equivalent to a magnetic monopole that can be realised in our physical world - outside of an electron or a proton particle. I would love to know which face is presented by those banks of static magnets on the rotor wheel. The toroidal coil + ferrite core still produces magnetic lines of flux that form closed loops so there is nothing really special there. For this motor, it doesn't matter if the magnets on the rotor face north or south outwards, either way they will be attracted to the unenergized ferrite cores. Poynt and Wavewatcher: Quote There must be some mechanical work being done to maintain rotation? Indeed some replicators are showing real torque as well, and with no added input power over a no-load condition. Yes there is mechanical work to maintain rotation but it is all overhead to maintain rotation - it is not useful output work. It all goes back to my energy analysis. The torque produced by the motor is used to "overcome" and remain in balance with the back-torque cause by the bearing friction and the air friction. In other words, the motor is doing "work upon itself" and the net result of that work is that the motor is generating heat - pure heat and nothing else. This is a notion that people seem to have trouble with. Another thought experiment: You have two calorimeters, in one you put a big fat resistor and in the other you put a Steorn eOrbo. Assume that you supply voltage to both devices and they consume the same amount of power. After 20 minutes both calorimeters have recorded the same amount of heat production. Neither system produced any useful output work except for the the heat energy that they produced. You cannot distinguish between the two setups, they both do exactly the same thing. Now, if you put your finger on the eOrbo rotor and slow it down so that it runs at a lower steady-state RPM, then everything changes. Now you are getting useful output power (torque x angular velocity) from the eOrbo and it just so happens that you are turning that into heat with the friction from your finger. In other words you are using that useful mechanical output power to heat your finger. Note that the bearing resistance and wind resistance go DOWN in this case, and now the electrical power supplied to the motor is now split into useful output power and useless internal heat power. Just to make it clear: No load, electrical power consumption 2 watts: 100% of the supplied electrical power becomes 2 watts of heat power that is no different from a resistor. 0% efficiency. With a load, electrical power consumption 2 watts: 90% of the supplied electrical power becomes 1.8 watts of heat power that is no different from a resistor. 10% of the supplied electrical power becomes 0.2 watts of useful mechanical output power (torque x angular velocity). 10% efficiency. In the latter case you have decided to take the 0.2 watts of useful mechanical output power and use it to heat your fingertip. Note that internal to the motor, the power lost to internal friction has gone down because the RPMs have gone down and therefore the bearings are dissipating less power. The same thing applies to the air friction, you loose less supplied electrical power as air friction power that becomes heat power because the RPMs are lower. In summary: Any motor that is spinning all by itself and not producing any mechanical output power that is going into an external load is 0% efficient. It is nothing more than a glorified electrical resistor. You cannot make a distinction between the electrical motor inside a black box and an electrical resistor inside a black box. MileHigh « Last Edit: 2010-01-02, 21:00:07 by MileHigh »

poynt99	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #35 on: 2010-01-02, 21:45:23 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	I guess we can analyse the heck out of this thing, and we'll all have our opinions. I'm with WaveWatcher however, and the bottom line is I'm not going to expend any more energy on this thing until someone can show that there is more out then in. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

MileHigh	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #36 on: 2010-01-02, 22:44:37 »
Group: Guest	Ion: You made some interesting comments and I am going to perhaps expand on and clarify them a bit: Quote It is important to not confuse instantaneous torque with steady state torque. You can take a small toy electric motor and use it to rev up a heavy flywheel, if you are patient enough. The motor will integrate energy into the flywheel much the way a capacitor is charged. The flywheel will integrate the energy supplied by the toy electric motor and store it. You are absolutely right that spinning up the flywheel is like charging a capacitor. In fact, the flywheel IS a mechanical capacitor: voltage = angular velocity current = torque capacitance = moment of inertia of the flywheel (1/2 * C * v-squared) = (1/2 * moment_of_inertia * angular_velocity-squared) (i = C * dv/dt) = (torque = moment_of_inerta * change in angular velocity with respect to time) <<< the rotational version of force = mass * acceleration>>> So a spinning flywheel that a motor spins up is storing energy just like a capacitor is storing energy. More importantly, a spinning rotor in an electric motor is ALSO a flywheel that is storing energy just like a charged capacitor is storing energy. Quote The motor BEMF will cause the current from the supply to drop drop off as terminal speed is acquired. The resulting power input losses will be air friction, bearing friction, ohmic and brush contact losses, magnetic material switching losses. In the unloaded or lightly loaded case, however BEMF is a good thing. This is true with one slight clarification. The toy motor will generate some BEMF, but just enough BEMF so that electrical power continues to flow into the motor. That electrical power flowing into the toy motor is used to overcome the all of the mechanical friction and electrical losses that you describe above such that everything is in balance and the motor runs at a constant RPM. If there are more mechanical and electrical losses, the toy motor slows down even further, which means it generates less BEMF. Since there is less BEMF, more electrical power can flow into the motor to overcome the heavier mechanical and friction losses resulting in everything being in balance at a lower RPM. It's important to state that the above comments apply to a regular toy motor with a rotor, commutator, and stator. They do not directly apply to a pulse motor like Steorn's eOrbo. However, when a pulse motor is running at a steady-state speed the principle of electrical power in being in balance with the electrical and friction losses out still applies. Quote The instantaneous torque will be large, but steady state torque very low. I have not seen any steady state torque measurements of the Steorn device along with the respective power input draw, but plenty of people touching the wheel after it is revved up and saying "lots of torque here". The "instantaneous torque" is large, but the point is it is not actually torque. It is just the rotational inertia that you are feeling which is related to the fact that the rotor is storing the electrical energy that you put into it during the rotor spin-up phase: torque = moment_of_inerta * change in angular velocity with respect to time The angular velocity came from somewhere, during the spin-up phase. The high instantaneous torque you feel is your hand "discharging the capacitor" of the spinning rotor. It is not torque that comes from the electrical energy that is running the motor. The bottom line is this: You see a clip where somebody grabs a Bedini motor rotor shaft and says, "This motor has a lot of torque!" In fact, when the Bedini motor is running at it's steady-state speed it has ZERO torque. At the steady-state speed, all of the available torque is being consumed in the friction losses. Here is the real answer for a Bedini or a Steorn eOrbo motor: 1. Whenever you measure torque it has to be when the rotor is running at a steady-state speed. If the rotor is decelerating when you "measure torque" you are just feeling the discharge of energy associated with decelerating the rotor. 2. You can make a plot of the torque vs. angular velocity of the motor (steady-state). At maximum steady-state speed, the available torque from the motor is zero. As the steady-state speed decreases, the available torque increases. Therefore, the average torque from a pulse motor (assuming a constant supply voltage) is a function of it's steady-state rotational speed. At the maximum steady-state speed the available torque is zero. This is in accord with my statements about looking at a free-spinning eOrbo pulse motor; it is running at zero percent efficiency and all of the electrical power being supplied to it is being dissipated internal to the motor itself, it is doing zero useful work. I know that I am being very verbose, but these concepts are important to understand to get to the real deal about the eOrbo motor and Steorn's claims. If all of this is sinking in for some of the readers, then they will be able to distinguish the real statements about the eOrbo from the blarney. MileHigh « Last Edit: 2010-01-03, 00:10:53 by MileHigh »

MileHigh	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #37 on: 2010-01-02, 23:18:50 »
Group: Guest	Poynt: Quote One certain limitation that will come into play in the orbo motor, is when it accelerates beyond the threshold at which the core can be polarized and de-polarized fast enough, and without significant core loss. Thanks for mentioning that. I neglected to mention that there will be losses in the ferrite core itself. It will start to heat up as it cycles back and forth through its magnetic polarizations and de-polarizations. This represents more electrical input energy ultimately being turned into waste heat energy. In a related point, there is a lot of talk about the width/height/thickness of the BH curve a.k.a. "hysteresis loop" for different toroidal core materials that can be used for an eOrbo replication. Please note that the hysteresis loop represents LOST energy. The area inside the hysteresis loop determines the amount of lost energy. So when you travel around the full loop, you loose energy. I am not going to explain any more than that, you can look it up. In a similar vein, some people think that magnetic viscosity is the "key" to free energy in the eOrbo. Please note that "viscosity" is associated with friction in fluids and represents LOST energy as heat. Therefore magnetic viscosity is associated with loosing energy and not gaining energy. With respect to Steorn's claim and patents, they are claiming that the "effect" is not noticeable at low RPMs but begins to manifest itself at higher RPMs. They claim that there is a "sweet spot" for the RPMs where something like the toroidal magnetic fields and the rotor magnetic fields start to "mesh" or "add together producing extra energy." I am not being specific here and only taking in general terms and I will state up-front that I haven't read the patents. Everyone should remember that patents can mean almost nothing and you can get a patent for goobly-gook because the patent officers can't be experts in every field. By the same token I will say that it smells like pure bullshit to me. Steorn is making the classic "secret sauce" claim in their patents where the effect can only be seen if you have the secret sauce. This gives them the ability to rebut every replication that shows under unity because the replicator does not have the "parameters just right to bring out the secret sauce effect." In fact, they could even use the same line of "reasoning" if they are called out and the DSO measurements on one of their own demo setups shows under unity. Sean can say, "We had it going at our offices but it requires very fine tuning but somehow in moving the setup over here to the exhibition hall we lost the fine tuning." Sure Sean, perhaps it is the lighting that is too hot or the fact that your setup is over water and the building is vibrating imperceptibly from the wave action. Don't fall for this, in my opinion it is pure crap. MileHigh « Last Edit: 2010-01-03, 01:52:39 by MileHigh »

MileHigh	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #38 on: 2010-01-04, 04:18:41 »
Group: Guest	Well, I can see that on the "other channel that we can't mention" that I have kicked up a ruckus. It's a healthy debate peppered with some trash talk and I will try to cover all the issues. Stephan: Quote 3. <rotor energy after pulse>.......................... rotor now spinning with 150 units of energy as the bigger magnets have done attaction work= force x distance You imagine that the rotor picks up 50 units of energy from the magnets. For starters, I suggested a test to measure this to prove or disprove your assumption. Read posts #14 and #18 in this thread. Perhaps one of the builders will try to implement a test setup like that. For the following example, imagine a rotor setup with one magnet and you are looking down on it. The magnet on the rotor is at the 9 o'clock position. The toroidal coil is at 12 o'clock. You push the rotor at the 9 o'clock position with a starting speed, it accelerates past the toroid at 12 o'clock, then you fire the pulse, and then you measure the final rotor speed at 3 o'clock.... The other problem can be explained with a thought experiment: If you have no pulse, you know that even with a strong magnet you will not get more rotational energy. The magnet approaches the toroidal core, and the rotor speeds up. Magnetic potential energy is transferred into the rotor. For every degree of rotation, there is a toque x one degree of angle. That is work, force x displacement or in this case torque times angular displacement. As you add up the work done for each degree of angle, that tells you how much the angular velocity of the rotor must increase because the rotor is integrating the magnetic potential energy and the result is faster rotational velocity, a.k.a. rotational energy. At top dead center there is no more torque and you are at maximum rotational energy. As the rotor passes top dead center then the magnetic potential starts to increase again. For every degree you move you are now subtracting work from the rotor - torque x one degree of angle. When the rotor finally gets to the opposite side at the 3 o'clock position you are back where you started, the rotor is back to it's original speed. I assume that everybody would agree with this when there is no pulse? We are ignoring friction here. So now do the same test, but you only do a very small pulse into the toroid after the magnet passes top dead center. The pulse is so small that you know that it will only affect the rotor a little bit. So what do you observe? When the magnet reaches the 3 o'clock position it is moving a bit faster than normal because of the pulse that you did into the toroid. Then you do a slightly larger pulse into the toroid and you notice that the magnet is going even faster. This all makes sense. When the toroid is on, you are not subtracting work anymore from the spinning rotor. You are not slowing it down. Some of the rotational energy is not sucked out of the rotor so it does not slow down as much. Now, take a step back. This is for Broli and especially for Markzpeiverson: Here is what this experiment is telling you: 1. Yes, we are gaining energy from the magnetic attraction. In more scientific terms the rotor is doing an integration on the torque it is experiencing and speeding up or slowing down. 2. You observe that when you do an electrical pulse of energy the rotor ends up with more rotational energy in it. You can clearly see a cause and effect: Small pulse -> faster. Bigger pulse -> even faster. Both of these things are true. I am using the terminology associated with the second point. To quote Markzpeiverson: Quote MH showed gross ignorance or outright lying in his post on another forum (copied here with rebuttal by Stephan). His stepwise analysis COMPLETELY fails to mention the attraction of the rotor magnets to the stator core as a source of input energy to the rotor, which Stephan points out. That statement is complete nonsense. I am asking all of you to look at what I am saying and take it seriously and at face value. I am giving you a more accurate description of what is going on in the energy interaction between the magnet, the rotor, the toroid, and the pulse. To claim that "(he) fails to mention the attraction of the rotor magnets to the stator core as a source of input energy to the rotor" is NOT true. Go back to my step by step energy analysis posting that Stefan just reposted and read the two or three paragraphs before the step by step listing and see what I say about the three flavours of pulses. Here is the copy/paste: >>> The issue of how the Steorn motor is driven can be simplified also. Simply forget for a while that it is a system where a magnet is attracted to a ferrite core and then the ferrite core is made to "disappear" when the toroidal coil is energized. The only thing that you need to know is that you put a pulse of electrical energy into a coil, and the rotor speeds up, it is as simple as that. It is no different than having a conventional pulse motor and either generating an attraction pulse before the rotor magnet reaches top-dead-center, or generating a repulsion pulse after the rotor magnet has passed top-dead-center. My gut feeling is that the conventional attraction and repulsion pulses are more efficient than the Steorn "core disappearing" pulse but the true answer to that would require testing or simulation. I am going to repeat this again because I know this simple fact will "upset" some of the readers here: It DOES NOT MATTER if it is an attraction pulse, a repulsion pulse, or a "core disappearing" pulse, they all do fundamentally the same thing: You expend electrical energy by pulsing a coil and the net result is that the rotor speeds up. Let that sink into your brains because the statement is absolutely true. You pulse electricity in and you end up with the rotor spinning a bit faster for ALL THREE FLAVOURS OF PULSE. Some of the electrical pulse energy gets stored as rotational energy in the rotor, some of it is lost as heat. Let this fact sink in. >>> All I am asking you to do is look at the motor from a different (and better) perspective. All of you can grasp this one basic fact just by looking at it run: You have to pulse electricity into it to make it run. YES the magnetic attraction is there - but that is a TWO WAY street. AND electrical pulses make it run. You cannot ignore this basic fact and only focus on the magnetic fields. I am NOT ignoring the magnetic fields I am fully aware that they are there and I am fully aware that the pulse is there. Let's go back to the thought experiment: So you keep on pulsing larger and large pulses into the toroid and you can see that the rotor is getting faster and faster at the 3 o'clock position. Now you get to a problem point. First of all you know that with the small pulses the fastest the rotor was spinning was when the magnet was at 12 o'clock, top dead center. If you completely make the toroidal core disappear when you energize the toroidal coil, then if it is an under unity device when the rotor hits 3 o'clock, it can only be going at the same speed it was going at top dead center, 12 o'clock. If you completely make the toroidal core disappear when you energize the toroidal coil, then if it is an over unity device when the rotor hits 3 o'clock, the rotor will be going at a faster speed than it was going at top dead center, 12 o'clock. Look at that, there is a test for over unity right there! You can try pulses of different sizes and see what happens. You can simply count how many turns the rotor takes to spin down after you do you pulse. Right there, an easy over unity test. Any builders out there? Here is what will happen, the part that makes poor Broli's blood boil: When you do the test you will never see the rotor spin faster than it spins at 12 o'clock, top dead center. Here is where you are looking for the elusive "extra energy" - this energy: Quote 3. <rotor energy after pulse>.......................... rotor now spinning with 150 units of energy as the bigger magnets have done attaction work= force x distance I know that so many of you want to believe that it is there. When the toroid disappears because of the pulse that you did into the toroid, the rotor has ALREADY picked up the maximum possible energy from the magnetic filed. The magnetic field power that so many of you want to believe in has it's limits. You are welcome to do this simple test to check for yourselves, I am not stopping you. If you make the pulse as long as possible, you are going to hit a wall. The rotor will never speed up past a certain maximum speed. You actually have the value of the maximum speed right there to measure, it's when the rotor magnet is at 12 o'clock and all of the available magnetic potential energy has been transferred into the rotor as rotational energy. There are three big points to remember here: 1. Stefan's guess or hope that an extra 50 units of energy are given to the rotor from the magnetic attraction is not true. You know what the maximum energy is and where it comes from. The 50 units of energy cannot come from "nowhere." You can run the test that I just described to confirm or deny this for yourself. I also made reference to another test with a linear track and a camera to test for the same thing. 2. You have to expend electrical energy to make a pulse. You know that the motor will not run without pulses. Therefore electrical energy makes the motor run. 3. You have to compare how much electrical energy you expend to make the pulse with how much rotational energy the rotor picks up after the pulse. I didn't really talk about this but I discuss it in length in posting # 14 and #18. This is another test for over unity or not. If you were serious about your building and testing you would devote as much energy to this and other suggested tests (or develop your own) as you would to discussing toroid materials, configurations, and RPMs vs. current consumption. If you got what I just said in this posting and other postings, you will realize that building a motor and measuring RPMs vs. current consumption is not giving you complete data to test for over unity. The thing that that is TRULY telling you is how much electrical energy is required to overcome friction for a certain RPM. It is all very nice, to see builds that run very fast for a limited amount of electrical power in, but you can't tell anything about if the motor is over unity or not. For the people that say I am intentionally lying, Stefan, Markzpeiverson, and I think Broli: I reject that completely and I view it as low-life trash talk. I think a lot of it stems from a lack of understanding. I read these ridiculous rants against me like you are all children and having hissy-fits. I am telling you the truth and you are taking this ridiculously polarized position (especially Broli and Markzpeiverson) such that you make yourselves look like "bad guy" caricatures in a bad Kung Foo movie. This has to stop. I can't believe that you are so nasty and viscous. STOP acting like free energy Moonies from hell. MileHigh « Last Edit: 2010-01-04, 04:52:52 by MileHigh »

MileHigh	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #39 on: 2010-01-04, 06:12:13 »
Group: Guest	Broli: Let's talk about JP Naudin's clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqAF_c5ThoI Before I get into it I will say this: I would not be surprised if what I am about to say will be something that nobody on OU realized for themselves after looking at the clip. When some of you read it you will agree with me. Broli, I will point out the problems in your analysis and I will give you my analysis of what is going on in this clip. If you agree or partially agree with me and it gives you some new insight, then be a man and post that fact. When you say. "Please leave his mindless posts away, there's nothing anyone can learn from them" that is total bullshit and it's offensive and in my opinion you are making yourself look like a fool. I have good reverse-engineering, energy, and electronics skills you you should listen. Quote Basically when the permanent magnet is close to the core the dipoles of the core are "held" in place. When you energize the coil at this moment in time the coil will act like an air cored coil, that is permeability = 1. This low permeability will cause the current to have a very fast and high rise time if not limited by resistance. It's not exactly like an air coil. All of the magnetic domains have already been put in an ordered configuration by the external magnet. This represents stored energy. There is a specification for different ferrite materials for the amount of magnetic energy they can store per unity volume and this is related to the maximum flux saturation that the core material can sustain. When you energize the toroidal coil, some of the magnetic domains, let's say 1/2 of the core, are already more or less aligned so that part of the core look like it has permeability of 1. However, the other half of the core has magnetic domains that are in the opposite direction. The field generated by the coil has to "fight" these magnetic domains and that requires EXTRA ENERGY. Once the "opposite" magnetic domains are "neutralized" then that side of the toroid has to be energized and the permeability looks normal, say 1000. That takes ENERGY also. It does NOT look like a simple air core. Extra work has to be done by the pulse to finally get the toroidal core fully saturated in the presence of the magnetic filed. It is NOT as simple as you think. Go ahead and setup a test apparatus. You can try something to JL Naudin's concept. You will see that the time constant on the scope to charge up the coil with current INCREASES when you bring the magnet closer to the core of your coil. If you use a regular cylindrical core, then it will also depend on the North-South orientation of the magnet to the coil. One way it will look like the permeability is 1, and the "opposite" or "fighting" way you will see the apparent size of the inductor based on the time constant increase above and beyond what the coil inductance looks like without the magnet near the core. Quote Now as the magnets move away the dipoles are no longer held by the magnets so they relax but only to find themselves in yet again another magnetic field (of the coil). When the magnet is fully away the coil will have a certain current and inductance, this equates to a certain amount of energy given by Energy=0.5Current^2Inductance. Yes the magnet moves away and you no longer have the interference that it caused in the ordering of the magnetic domains inside the toroidal core. So you can capture the energy in the discharge if you want. So, let's look at this situation with respect to time. When the core was first energized, the inductance in fact looked much larger because you had to overcome the influence of the magnet on the core's domains. But after the magnet has moved away the inductor looks normal and smaller. So if you want to capture the coil discharge energy, you get less back from the discharge than you put in to do the charging of the coil in the first place. So you think there is a mechanism at play to gain energy, when in fact you loose energy. You had to expend real work, volts x amps to charge the "apparently larger" coil, and when you go to discharge you get less back. That energy that you "lost" was not really lost. It ultimately went into your hand. What do I mean my that? When you brought the magnet to the core (holding it in your hand), the magnetic attraction pulled on your hand and you gained energy. The magnet "gave" force x displacement to your hand. Then you energized the coil, and you could pull the magnet away from the core with almost no energy expended. The electrical pulse going into the core gave your hand a "free pull," and the source of energy for the "free pull" came from the pulse energizing the core. I know this is long but I hope that you can appreciate this. That's what's happening with the real eOrbo setup. You are expending extra electrical energy to reorder the magnetic domains in the toroidal cores by pushing extra hard to get current to flow through the toroidal coils and overcome the magnetic disturbance. The toroidal coils look like bigger inductors than they really are, and then net result of all of this is that the rotor gets a "free pull" to keep it spinning, actually paid for by the electrical pulse. Quote Imagine when the magnet is close by the coil acts like it has 1H of inductance. And assume that we let the current rise to 10 A. This will give us a total Energy input of 50 Joules. Now when the maget has moved away the inductance has increase but the current remained the same. Let's say the inductance increased a 100 fold which is moderate, this now gives you a total inductive energy of 500 Joules. This is an increase of 100x to the inputted energy. This statement is completely and totally wrong and I will give a relatively short and sweet explanation why. As I explain above, you have it backwards with respect to the apparent size of the inductance. But the other point is this: If you have a variable inductor in a circuit and you increase the inductance while the inductor is in the circuit, the current flowing through the circuit will go DOWN. Think of the equivalent situation for a capacitor: Increasing the capacitance of the capacitor while the capacitor is in a circuit will result in the voltage going DOWN. Still don't get it? Let's switch to an air tank capacitor: Make an air tank larger the pressure in the tank will go DOWN. Broli, that was a "tell tale" mistake that separates the "men from the boys." To think that having a dynamic inductor with respect to time will be a magic source of free energy makes you look like a glazed-eyed fool. I won't talk tough like this again, and on your part I want you to stop the trash talk about me. You just got EXPOSED and all of your bashing of me is mean-spirited nonsense. I don't pretend that I am perfect but I have VALID points to contribute. Quote You see as the magnet comes closer the rise time stretches out which would indicate an increase in inductance and as the magnet moves away the rise time becomes much shorted which indicates a decrease in inductance, this is opposite to what I said above. No kidding it is the opposite of what you say above. There is one other thing going on in the clip, the thing that I suspect nobody is seeing: The magnet is vibrating, you can hear it. That means that mechanical energy is being transferred into the vibrating magnet from toroidal coil. There is sound energy being emitted and there is heat from the vibration being generated in the wheel. The source of this energy is the electrical pulsing of the coil. Most importantly, you can see when the sound is the loudest, the time constant for the coils is the longest. This is demonstrating the same effect that I described above. The apparent inductance of the toroidal coil is the LARGEST when the sound is the LOUDEST. It is showing you that EXTRA WORK is being done by the pulses to charge the inductor because the coil is apparently larger. The coil inductance looks artificially large when the inductance is not really that large. It is the result of energy flowing OUT OF THE COIL and INTO THE WHEEL. You PAY A PRICE to do this in expended electrical energy because the inductance appears to be larger than it really is. That is a HUGE CLUE telling you that a similar type of process is happening when the toroidal coil ultimately transfers energy into the spinning rotor. MileHigh

BEP	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #40 on: 2010-01-04, 13:24:55 »
Group: Guest	MH, I'm going to say the same to you that I have said to Poynt99: I don't understand why you have put some much energy into this. Are you two the actual source of perpetual energy? I agree with every point in the cases you present. However, I think there is more to severing the spring-like action of magnetic attraction than meets the eye. Quote No kidding it is the opposite of what you say above. It has become a comedy I think the term 'counter intuitive' was used by the other party. Intuition should have nothing to do with it. It can be and is usually wrong. Even with the shark feeding frenzy of guesses at 'replications' going on, I think there is something unique to the Orbo. Not new, just unique. The concept of nulling a magnetic repulsion/attraction should have been used in magic motor attempts a long time ago. Especially since that concept has been used for some decades in other devices. I still wait for some proof of less in than out. I think the only chance of it happening is if magnetic reconnection is happening. Right now I can't think of how that could be of benefit or how it could be employed at such slow rates of movement/change.

MileHigh	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #41 on: 2010-01-05, 19:48:11 »
Group: Guest	Hi Wavewatcher and the untold anonymous masses: Yes, I put some energy into this and I know that I am guilty of some long postings. I don't think that there is anything unique about the Orbo. I see that JB himself has chimed in. I don't think there is anything unique about the Simplified Schoolgirl/Monopole motor either for that matter. You know that satisfying sound of an electronic flash charging? The Japanese must have learned the secret about inductor discharging from a UFO crash incident that happened in Japan in 1961, way before JB burst upon the scene. I suppose that I will just muse a bit about the drawn-out drama. You notice in one of TinselKoala's clips he removes his air shield and the RPMs drop from the increased air friction and the power consumption stays exactly the same. His digital ammeter shows that. As Poynt taught me, the multimeter can make a very very accurate measurement of the average current in this case where the current waveform is a repeating pulse, as long as the frequency is above a certain threshold. Now the reason the power consumption stays exactly the same is that the on/off duty cycle stays exactly the same so the average current consumption stays exactly the same. I am mentioning this to bust another myth where some people are saying that when you put a load on the motor the power consumption does not increase and that is something special. In fact it is not special, that's what is supposed to happen. It's fun to bust myth bubbles! On a related note, it all goes back to the spinning eOrbo replications doing nothing more than turning 100% of the electrical input power into heat power. Note that the vast majority of replications at this point do not have any energy recovery systems. For TK's clip, when he removes the air shield more of the input power goes into overcoming air friction as compared to bearing resistance power. The energy pie goes from a 50/50 air friction/bearing friction split at 2000 RPM to a 70/30 air friction/bearing friction split at 1400 RPM, for the same total power dissipation (approximate values for illustrative purposes). Another claim is that if the eOrbo takes all of it's input power and turns it into heat, that is somehow proof of over unity. Sean made reference to this and lots of people gobbled it up. As I stated in a long posting or two, that's exactly what is supposed to happen. It's an example of a 0% efficiency motor. It is certainly not proof of over unity in an way, shape, or form. Another myth bubble burst! MileHigh

MileHigh	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #42 on: 2010-01-05, 20:19:25 »
Group: Guest	Just a few thoughts on actually building the thing: Memo from a non-builder to the builders: About those pesky toroidal coils.... The most basic test that you want to be doing is checking how much current you need to saturate your core for your particular toroidal coil configuration. To my non-amazement, I have seen zero discussion about this incredibly important topic. For a given core we know that at a certain point it will be 100% saturated. To saturate the core you can play with two variables, the amount of current going through your coil, and the number of turns of wire in your coil. Amperes x turns = "amp-turns." For a given core a certain number of amp-turns will saturate it. Therefore high current times a few turns would be equal to low current times a lot of turns. The more turns you add the higher the resistance of the coil. The more turns you add the higher the measured inductance of the coil up until you saturate the core. The more turns you have, the lesser the required current to hit the saturation point. After the core is saturated for either case (low or high number of turns), then the inductance looks like a normal air-core inductor, where it is proportional to the square of the number of turns in your coil. So how do you test the toroidal coil to know that it is saturated? Simple, you connect it to a variable power supply and vary the voltage while you check how much attraction you feel with an external magnet near it. The point where the attraction drops to its lowest point is your saturation point. Make a note of the voltage/current required to saturate your coil. Probably most replicators are using a fixed 12-volt power supply and they are over-saturating their coils for no reason. It simply represents wasted energy. For those replicators that have variable bench power supplies, then they can adjust their power supplies to the right voltage after making the proper measurements on their toroidal coils as outlined above. For those replicators that are real keeners with bench power supplies, what they can do is set up their power supplies as current sources instead of voltage sources. They can simply dial up the correct amount of current to go into their coils. This will give their motors a slight advantage in that the core will "disappear" just a little bit faster than if they set up their power supply as a voltage source. So I hope that was a good lesson for all of your builders. Every toroidal coil you build has a certain saturation current value that you can measure. There is a very good chance that a 12-volt supply will be overkill for your toroidal coil and your best bet is to use a variable current supply to energize the coil, and using a variable voltage supply is almost as good. Or, you can listen to my good friend Broli, who claims that I am a complete and total idiot and I should not be listened to. MileHigh « Last Edit: 2010-01-06, 00:17:06 by MileHigh »

MileHigh	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #43 on: 2010-01-05, 21:22:25 »
Group: Guest	Another builder's discussion from a non-builder: Lets's discuss the latest JL Naudin clip because I would not be surprised if it is misinterpreted and will cause untold confusion and pandemonium: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdg74E0xkA So, you can see that the measured inductance is at a minimum at roughly +/-10 degrees off from center with respect to the alignment of the magnet with respect to the toroidal coil. I can envision a lot of replicators getting all excited about this. They will be thinking, "Wow, the inductance is low when the magnet is near the toroid and then increases as you move the magnet away. Therefore, you can charge up the toroid very easily when the magnet is near top dead center because the inductance is low and then when you switch off the coil the inductance is very large and you can recover a big back-EMF spike and gain some energy!! Broli was right!!!" This would be a classic case of misinterpreting what you are seeing. Everything stated above is wrong. Here is the real explanation: At +/-10 degrees the maximum amount of flux from the magnet is passing through the toroidal coil. This is reordering the magnetic domains inside the core. When the inductance meter is measuring the inductance in this case it is seeing that the core has been rendered mostly non-functional because of the rearranged magnetic domains. These domains have been "taken out of the equation" by the external magnetic filed. Therefore the effective inductance of the coil has been reduced and the inductance meter shows this. So what happens when you energize the toroid with a pulse when it is 10 degrees away from the magnet? The answer is that the pulse has to work harder. When you switch on the pulse, in the beginning the current has to "fight and overcome" the influence of the external magnet's field and has to push extra hard on the magnetic domains that are already aligned with respect to the external magnetic field. Only after this is done can the current in the pulse start to make the core "disappear." This extra voltage x current represents EXTRA energy that the pulse has to put out to do the disappearing trick. Going back to the graph at the end of the JL Naudin clip, you see that at top dead center the measured inductance is in a valley. So if you energize your pulse at top dead center, as the rotor turns there will be an "invasion" of extra external magnetic flux forcing your pulse to work even harder to saturate the core. This extra work that the pulse has to do, this extra electrical energy, is ultimately turned into kinetic energy in the spinning rotor. This extra electrical energy can NOT be recovered with a back-spike from the toroidal coil when you shut it off, it is lost and gone forever. By the same token, after the toroidal coil is fully saturated, we all saw in the Steorn demo clip that for 95% of the time, the current going through the toroid is non-changing DC current. At this point the coil is acting like a resistor and burning energy. Some of this burnt energy is useful, it keeps the coil "disappeared" and prevents the rotor from slowing down. However, the vast majority of the energy during this part of the pulse is simply resistive heat energy, and that is also energy that is lost and gone forever. This is exactly what is happening in the Steorn eOrbo also. So you know it takes juice to run the motor, and between the pulse energy that is expended to "flush" the core before you can start saturating it, and the pulse energy that is a pure resistive loss, something really extra special had better be happening if the eOrbo really is an over unity device. For me, you are looking at an up-hill battle and I smell Mother Nature winning over Sean and Co. It all comes back to the same old question: After the pulse does it's work and factoring in the inefficiencies as described above, does the rotor kinetic energy increase more than you expended in pulse energy? That is the $64,000 "Steorn investor's question" that we can all contemplate. Let the drama unfold and we will see what happens! MileHigh

poynt99	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #44 on: 2010-01-05, 21:34:53 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Hi MH. Some worthy points to note there indeed. I'll also add this one tidbit: More turns used on your coil will result in lower power required to de-polarize the core, however, there will be more resistive losses, and the de-polarization time constant will increase, even though tau decreases. Thanks, .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

MileHigh	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #45 on: 2010-01-05, 23:05:58 »
Group: Guest	Hey .99: Thanks for your comments. I am being covertly spied upon! You are welcome Ben! lol Keep your rig up! You know that we are all going to be depending on you guys after WWIII! Let's look at the Bedini "response" clip! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYh8W3_EZjc This setup is sort of like a "poor man's" eOrbo setup. By placing the energizing coil horizontally underneath the vertical wheel you get a facsimile of a toroidal coil. When the magnets pass by the horizontal coil, the magnetic lines of flux are cutting through the coil sideways (more or less) and therefore relatively little changing magnetic flux is being "seen" by the coil and hence relatively little EMF is being induced in the coil. You can clearly see the EMF in the voltage ripple on the scope trace. Assume the maximum torque is being imparted on the rotor at 4 and and 8 o'clock where the top of the rotor is 12 o'clock. Assume the magnets are all north facing outwards. If the coil is energized then the south side of the coil will pull on a north magnet at 4 o'clock making the rotor turn clockwise. On the opposite side of the coil, the north side will push on a north magnet at 8 o'clock making the rotor also turn clockwise. When the coil is air core, it has a lower inductance as compared to when it has the added iron pipe core. The air core coil charges up faster and starts to act like a resistor faster. With the iron core, the coil charges up with current more slowly because of the higher inductance, and it stores more energy. Because it is storing more energy, you see a much bigger back-spike in the voltage when the coil is switched off. So why does the current consumption go down and the rotor increase in speed very slightly when the iron core is added? John Bedini is only showing you the voltage waveform, he is not showing you the current waveform. The current waveform when the iron core is in place has a much longer rise time. Because the current rises more slowly, less total current flows through the coil for each pulse. Another way of stating this is to say the impedance of the coil is higher when the iron core is in place. Higher impedance = less energy going into the coil for a certain fixed pulsing voltage, as simple as that. The rotor does not really change speed between the two setups, so what is that telling you? It's telling you that when you are running air core, a lot of the supplied energy is being burnt resistively in the coil, and only a mall amount of the supplied energy is making the rotor turn. If about 1.3 watts are going into the coil in the air core case, then about 1.2 watts are being dissipated resistively and about 0.1 watts are being burned off in the rotor itself through bearing and air friction. If you switch to the iron core, now the setup might be consuming 0.2 watts, and 0.1 watts is being dissipated in the coil resistively and 0.1 watts is being burned off in the rotating rotor. Obviously these numbers are just for illustrative purposes. Why does the rotor turn slightly faster when the core is in place? The most likely explanation that I can think of is that the slower generation of the magnetic field due to the higher inductance causes the coil's magnetic field to interact with the rotor's magnetic field's so that the timing hits a better "sweet spot" and the rotor spins slightly faster. As the rotor turns there is an ideal angle to get torque imparted onto it from the energized coil and with the core in place you are better aligned around the ideal angle. Also, when the iron core is in place the coil can generate a stronger magnetic field, and that will impart more torque on the rotor. That a pretty decent breakdown on John Bedin's latest clip. He demonstrated a variation on a pulse motor that has some similarities to the eOrbo setup with respect to minimizing induced EMF. However, the drive mechanisms for the two setups are totally different. There is nothing special going on here. There is a comical moment in the clip before he is about to put the iron pipe into the core for the first time. He says, "I don't really like to do this!" as if it were something dangerous to do or something. You saw the bigger spike on the scope trace, so his setup could either take that spike or not. It was a pure "show business" moment to inject some fake drama. MileHigh « Last Edit: 2010-01-05, 23:23:57 by MileHigh »

MileHigh	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #46 on: 2010-01-06, 00:02:00 »
Group: Guest	A few comments about the field generated by a toroidal coil with a ferrite core: Most of the magnetic flux travels through the core and that creates no external magnetic field. Let's assume that the magnetic flux is traveling in a clockwise direction. Outside the body of the toroidal coil there is a vestigial magnetic field traveling in a counter-clockwise direction. This field is much lower in intensity and field density and travels throughout all space. This means that when you energize the toroid, this vestigial field can be lined up to give the rotor magnets a very light extra push or a very light extra pull when they fly by. It all depends on how you orient the coil and the magnets. There is another vestigial field associated with the net current flow around the coil when you look at the coil along its axis. In terms of the "big picture" the fields from the coil are added to the Earth's magnetic field, which you imagine as a weak field of parallel lines all running horizontally lined up with the North magnetic pole. This means that the toroid creates its own small "magnetic bubble" within the straight flowing lines of the Earth's magnetic field and creates a slight bulge in them. A regular cylindrical coil will create a much much larger magnetic bubble in the Earth's magnetic field and a much larger bulge external to the bubble. That's a bubble that I can't burst! lol MileHigh

MileHigh	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #47 on: 2010-01-06, 02:00:22 »
Group: Guest	Memo #2 to the builders from a non-builder: I will talk about energy pick-up coils. I think I saw that Ossie had a clip where he put big "Princess Leia" pick-up coils around the rotor in his new build. By the way, Ossie does awesome builds. He builds solid stable platforms with great bearings. I think he took that particular clip down. There is probably a thinking out there that bigger coils with more turns are better. This is not necessarily true. What you want to ideally do is get a a high slew rate in your output voltage. The output will look like a "single heartbeat" sine wave, then go flat until the next magnet flies by to generate the next "heartbeat." To get this you want a tight coil close to the magnet that is just a little bit larger in diameter as compared to the magnet itself. For Ossie's build, he could make some wooden disks 1/2 cm larger in diameter than the magnets, and then wrap 20 or 30 turns of wire around the wooden disk and make the width of the coil as narrow as possible - 5 turns with 6 layers. Mount the wooden disk on an L-bracket and position it perfectly for the magnet fly-by. That would be "tight" and give you the best possible slew-rate on your voltage pulse. The giant "Princess Leia" coils in comparison will generate a slow low-voltage pulse with a somewhat irregular sinusoidal shape. This tight pick-up coil configuration will pick up the same amount of energy per pulse as the big massive coils but the output will be more efficient for transferring energy into your load. Some of you may have seen TK's clip where he plays with a pick-up coil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-ceZw9jp-4 Note that he connects the pick-up coil output directly to an ammeter. This is nearly a short-circuit so there is almost no electrical power going into the load. That is why the rotor barely slows down. Going back to Ossie's setup and imagine that he has the improved pick-up coils in place. If the pick-up coil is open circuit then there is no load so the rotor will spin at full speed. Some of you might be surprised to learn that if the pick-up coil is short-circuited, there is still almost no load and the rotor will slow down just a tiny bit. There is no impedance match between the pick-up coil and the load in both cases so almost no energy is transferred. If you start playing with load resistors across your coil you will see the RPMs change. With the optimal impedance-matching load resistor you might start to hear thunks from the rotor and there is a decent chance that the rotor will slow down and grind to a halt. If you want you can try to measure the power being dissipated in the load resistor and compare that to the input power to check for over unity. You can use thermal profiling here to overcome the problem that the waveform is irregular and will be difficult to measure unless you have a true-RMS meter. You don't need to do the whole full-wave bridge rectifier if you don't want to, especially if you have a true-RMS meter. If you want more voltage for whatever reason, you don't necessarily have to keep on adding turns to your coils. The coils get too big and you start to get the "Princess Leia" effect again. Suppose that 30 turns gives you an output waveform that's 20 volts peak-to-peak at your top RPM. You could simply connect that to a 12-volt transformer input with a 10:1 turns ratio and all of a sudden you have an output voltage that's 200 volts peak to peak. This transformer changes the impedance match for extracting power from the motor. You will now notice that a much higher-value resistor will give you an impedance match. In all likelihood this will be way better than trying to make a 300-turn coil, with the added bonus that it is much easier to do. MileHigh P.S.: Notice I did not mention taking the output from the generator coils and running it back to the main battery at all. The point is to keep it simple for starters. A resistor is used as the load in place of the charging battery. This allows you to measure the true real power that you can get back from the pick-up coils. Once you understand that, then you can move on to deciding how you want to take that juice and charge your battery. The battery has a charging impedance and there is the issue of how you want to FWBR/whatever the return energy into the battery. Start with something SIMPLE, and understand how changing the load resistor value affects the motor and measure the input power and the output power. « Last Edit: 2010-01-06, 02:24:02 by MileHigh »

BEP	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #48 on: 2010-01-06, 12:19:04 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: MileHigh on 2010-01-06, 02:00:22 Some of you may have seen TK's clip where he plays with a pick-up coil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-ceZw9jp-4 Note that he connects the pick-up coil output directly to an ammeter. This is nearly a short-circuit so there is almost no electrical power going into the load. That is why the rotor barely slows down. I can confirm this statement and do so because I can imagine many experimenters will consider it 'counter intuitive'. Shorting the coil with the ammeter reduces the magnetic field buildup within and around the pickup coil (reduces overall inductive reactance). This reduces the voltage output of the coil and therefore the power delivering capabilities. A good example is an ICE driven electric generator. Short the output before starting the engine. The engine has almost no load on it until you remove the short and apply a better matched load. BTW: Congrats to ION for being the first person, after three pages of postings on OU, to read the Bedini ammeter correctly.

vpo20	Re: Steorns December 2009 Demo « Reply #49 on: 2010-01-06, 12:38:36 »
Group: Guest	I am planning to describe here soon the orbo motor operation and reveal where energy is taken from. I have it modelled in MicroCAP 9 using magnetic core model. ORBO is clearly not an overunity watch this space for explanation. For me a dream of overunity is still alive but some people turn it into sort of religion and become offended when I am used to explain why it clearly will not work. I am apply only physics, no personal remarks even there is some indication of fraud. I use to point out where the source of energy may be concealed. There is one Norwegian calling himself "Perpetuum Mobile Artist" his name is Finsrud. Amazingly he seems not actually claiming his machine to be overunity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us7YB7eiOeQ Demonstrated in Kinetica museum, London. Admiring the whole idea (also using autophasing method normally found in charged particle accelerators)I found it is a very simple driving method propelling balls around taking little power from a battery. Minimum electronics - one transistor. One owner of the perpetuum mobile ideas collection site was clearly offended by my revelation of operation principle saying: "If you reveal mechanisms like this we will never achieve actual working overunity". My 5 or so posts on ORBO official youtube site were blocked all by "pending approval" pop-up and never been displayed. What sort of discussion it is? Barring my posts on youtube just because they are disclosing technical details and making truth out is dishonest to say the least. I think it violate code of conduct for youtube and this user must be warned or even barred if such behaviour persists. It smells like greedy pursuit not like research. VPO20

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u

2024-11-26, 22:29:38

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2