Well Steorn finally got something spinning, but it's got a big 'ol D cell in it, they claim that the system is able to recharge the D cell producing net gain. They claim that the it's not just a pulse motor but a pulse motor with Orbo tech in it.
Only thing I can say (as others have) is why the hell don't they use a large capacitor instead of a D cell ??? this in my mind is an epic fail as far as a tech demo goes.
One thing I will say is that despite the low loss mag bearing the windage losses on that rotor will be measurable probably milliwats.
At the moment the intro video and link to the live feed of the running device is on their frontpage:
http://www.steorn.com/
What do you all think? blarney?
A subscription to use a Bedini Motor? Fuwa!
The interviewees are all bookends! This business model is from the Internet crash era. One step higer than Magnacoaster. Here is the theory? and what we think is happening? Bunko. Same presentation as MIT wireless. Dipshits.
We will do better as long as there are popup prairie dogs / Yard weasels / Voles.
I already posted the access point for household use with interface, automobile use with interface. I am taking only the rug out from under the standing, pompous idots of the greed machine.
Oh, I just realized: they are selling batteries!
Quote from: Fraser on 2009.12.16, 20:08:32
Well Steorn finally got something spinning, but it's got a big 'ol D cell in it, they claim that the system is able to recharge the D cell producing net gain. They claim that the it's not just a pulse motor but a pulse motor with Orbo tech in it.
Only thing I can say (as others have) is why the hell don't they use a large capacitor instead of a D cell ??? this in my mind is an epic fail as far as a tech demo goes.
One thing I will say is that despite the low loss mag bearing the windage losses on that rotor will be measurable probably milliwats.
At the moment the intro video and link to the live feed of the running device is on their frontpage:
http://www.steorn.com/
What do you all think? blarney?
Yes, I was wondering how much they got paid for the advertisement ;D
They should run the whole thing in a vacuum jar. Less beach-balls to bump into. Then tweak the power down even more and float off into some sort of Steorn nirvana...
Riders on the Steorn
Riders on the Steorn
Into this house we're born
Into this world we're thrown
Like a dog without a bone
And actor out on loan
Riders on the Steorn
Everybody must get Steorned...
Then you can aim a laser at the Orbo spinning in a vacuum jar and have a photocell pick up the reflection... throw in a tiny chip.... LCD display.... and you get... <drumm roll> A cool clock that you can get at The Sharper Image.
MileHigh
QuoteOnly thing I can say (as others have) is why the hell don't they use a large capacitor instead of a D cell Huh this in my mind is an epic fail as far as a tech demo goes.
Agreed........using a capacitor would end the energy "shell game" practiced by Bedini and others. But then they will claim that something exotic like "time tunneling of electrons into a prior state" is occurring in the electrolyte. This was stated over 20 years ago in one of Bedini's first papers (which i purchased...wide eyed as I was). To my study of the subject, it has yet to be proven by anyone.
So the battery shell game continues. Still it is not at all difficult to close the loop on a single battery, especially in JT type circuits.
Well where is the bootstrapped JT circuit that will bring a single nearly dead cell back to full charge? And where is the data?
Yep, selling batteries lol! Never saw what brand it is, prabably duracell. I also noticed that their bastion of an acrylic rig had a handy hole for the battery, i.e. the battery isn't behind acrylic, I guess easy fast batt changes are required, Perhaps they have a stream loop set up so they can nip in and change the batt, like a master diamond thief in some cheesy movie.
I honestly don't see why a 650F wouldn't work on this rig! .....and if it doesn't....why.... useless right?
Quote from: stprue on 2009.12.18, 23:11:35
I honestly don't see why a 650F wouldn't work on this rig! .....and if it doesn't....why.... useless right?
Yup, that about sums it up . In fact no reason a 1F or even 1000uF shouldn't work, after all if net gain then any reservoir will just fill to capacity and the system keep running right? 'twill take more than fancy graphics and celtic music to sway me of exotic behaviour.
I have had the thought (crazy as it might sound) that Steorn is a scam to part the slower witted from their hard earned or inherited wealth?
I've not been following the buzz on this.
I watched the video at Steron.com., and I must say I am dumbfounded as to what the excitement is about. I may have missed something, but I think TK has pointed out well enough in his rebuttal videos that the scope traces don't prove a "no bemf" condition at all.
I am not an expert on motors, but it seems to me this is not the proper testing to prove his claim.
.99
@Fraser
QuoteYup, that about sums it up . In fact no reason a 1F or even 1000uF shouldn't work, after all if net gain then any reservoir will just fill to capacity and the system keep running right? 'twill take more than fancy graphics and celtic music to sway me of exotic behaviour.
In fact, there may be many reasons why replacing the battery with a capacitor is a bad idea, one is that a capacitor is not a battery. Another is the inverse square law, with series capacitors the total circuit capacitance of any capacitors connected together in series will always be less than the value of the smallest capacitor. As well energy in a capacitor E=1/2CV*2 plays a role when a circuit having capacitance as a source has coupled in series with capacitive elements such as coils under transient forces invoking the inverse square law for series capacitance. Whenever there is an issue of transient effects due to abrupt mechanical switching capacitance begins to play a major role as we are dealing high frequency electric fields in which lines of force can terminate on any conductors. I once built a small 6v circuit that could electrically charge any metallic object within two feet of the circuit, in fact up to 1/4 arcs could be drawn from any one of the objects to any other metallic object. In this case what we conceive as "ground" or termination of conductors on the source completely lose their relevance. These are the capacitive effects that must be considered when dealing with disruptive circuits and one cannot just replace components without due consideration. I am not insinuating that the Steorn device works I am only stating that consideration must be given to the components used in any circuit.
Regards
AC
Guys, help me out here.
I am at a loss as to the excitement of the orbo pulse motor.
JLN has done a few videos of a replication, but I see nothing new or novel there either.
Is this not just an attraction pulse motor?
Where or how is the bemf being canceled? There is no appreciable bemf either in this motor, or the repulsion version. The drive coil is open-circuit for most of the rotation, so the bemf is minimal anyway.
Is the toroid coil wound in such a way to negate normal induction from a passing magnet?
.99
<<< Copied over from "The Buzz" a.k.a. Everybody must get Steorned >>>
Hi Eatenbyagrue and all interested in the recent Steorn demo,
Thanks for your comments and I will be an OU Exile on Main Street and I can live with that. Thanks for the info about Omnibus and this posting will be my simplified analysis of the actual power-in/power-out of the Lucite pulse motors that Steorn demonstrated.
Anyone can feel free to copy and paste the following into the OU thread at your own risk. Perhaps posting a link would be less riskier. Anybody can copy this to the Steorn forum if they want also.
For starters, I noticed that K4zep/Ben on the OU forum has basically already given the correct description of the energy dynamics of the motor when running at a steady-state speed and I heartily congratulate him for that. I will be stating essentially the same thing but perhaps with a bit more detail.
So we know that the Steorn pulse motors are attraction motors, and when they are running at a steady-state speed the power in must be equal to the power out. If you look at a finite time interval, then the energy in must equal the energy out. This is a simple fact that is applicable to any type of motor. When you first plug in a motor, the rotor speeds up and levels off at a speed where the power in equals the power out, it is as simple as that.
The power in consists of the electrical power in, and there are no other sources.
The power out consists of the friction in the bearings (heat), the air friction (also heat) and the energy that the generator coils send back to the battery (which becomes stored electrical energy and heat).
To keep things simple, we will lump the friction in the bearings and the air friction together, and call that "friction."
Therefore, (electrical power in) = (the mechanical friction power out) + (the mechanical generator coil power out).
Stating it like this may be a little clearer for some: (electrical power in) - (the mechanical friction power out) - (the mechanical generator coil power out) = 0.
This is what is going on when the Steorn pulse motor is running at a steady state speed. Everything is in balance.
Steorn is claiming that the generator coils are returning three times the electrical power in and sending that back to the battery. We are going to see if this claim is likely true or not true.
I am going to talk about the motor energy dynamics at an abstract level. This means for this discussion I don't care about the specific measurements or the RPM or whatever, I just want to get a handle on what is going on first. If I want to later I can make some measurements and punch in the numbers.
I am going to talk about "units of energy," when I analyze what the motor is doing. It is more convenient to use "units of energy" instead of "units of power" but the analysis either way will be the same. To repeat, these "units of energy" are an abstraction, and they can be considered a "currency" for purposes of the analysis because we know that energy goes from one place to another and changes form. Even though the energy changes form, for the purposes of this discussion everything is expressed in terms of units of energy.
For starters, let's assume that when the rotor is spinning at its steady-state speed, that it stores a minimum of 100 units of energy.
Ben made a very astute observation when he stated that the rotor is always accelerating and decelerating when it turns. The rotor accelerates when it gains energy from the magnetic attraction and decelerates when it looses energy due to friction and when it transfers energy into the pickup coils. This important fact will be critical to the energy analysis.
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.
So, let's look at what is happening in the motor using the abstract "energy units." I can imagine some people out there objecting to this concept. Just go with the flow and perhaps learn something new.
Here is a chronological breakdown of the events relative to the Steorn motor with respect to a single pulse. This can then be applied to all of the pulses. It is all about using your mind to visualize what is really going on, where we will "slow down time" and look at the sequence of events step by step.
1. <before the pulse>..................................... rotor spinning with 100 units of energy
2. <pulse event>........................................... 10 units of electrical energy pulsed into the toroidal coil
2.1 <heat slice of pulse> ................................ 5 units of electrical energy pulse lost as heat
2.2 <useful energy slice of pulse>..................... 5 units of electrical energy transferred into the rotor
3. <rotor energy after pulse>.......................... rotor now spinning with 105 units of energy
4. <friction losses>....................................... 1 unit of rotor energy lost due to friction
5. <rotor energy after friction losses>.............. rotor now spinning with 104 units of energy
6. <rotor energy transferred into pick-up coils>.. 4 units of rotor energy transferred into pick-up coils
7. <rotor energy after pick-up coils>................. rotor now spinning with 100 units of energy
8. <GO BACK TO STEP 1>
The above gives you an absolutely accurate energy breakdown of what is happening when the rotor is spinning at at steady state speed. Even if your tachometer says 2000 RPM, if you have four magnets on your rotor then the above sequence of events happens four times per revolution, every 90 degrees. The rotor is constantly accelerating and decelerating.
So where does that leave us with respect to energy (or power) in vs. energy (or power) out?
You can see that you pump 10 units of energy into the motor and you get only 4 units of energy back from the pick-up coils. We will further divide the energy coming back from the pick-up coils into 1 unit lost as heat due to the diodes in the full-wave bridge rectifier and the charging efficiency of the battery. That leaves us with 3 units of recharging energy going into the battery from the 10 units of electrical energy that we first put into the system, 30% efficiency.
I am giving you an estimate of 10 units in, and 3 units back for 30% efficiency.
Steorn is stating 10 units in and 30 units back for 300% efficiency, an over unity device.
Notice that this analysis has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the energy in the spinning rotor like Omnibus on OU believes. He is absolutely wrong and should take a physics course.
Some of you may want to challenge the 5 units lost as heat when the electrical pulse of 10 units is delivered to the motor. I don't know what the precise split is but with 100% certainty I can tell you that there IS a split. The Steorn attraction motor method looks very inefficient to me. When the magnet is 2/3 away from the saturated toroidal core the attraction forces that you are eliminating are very low, yet you are still energizing the toroid with the full pulse power. Don't forget the toroid gets hot in Ben's clips, and heat is lost energy.
By the same token, where does Steorn get the 30 units of energy back like they claim? WHERE? Look at the sequence of events above again and tell me where the extra energy comes from.
If some of you think that the magic extra energy comes from the "core disappearing" pulse then I have got some news for you. If this was true then it would have been discovered in the 19th century and we would all be living in a free energy Jetson's Age right now as we speak. There is not a chance in hell that the "core disappearing" pulse is a source of over unity and miraculously speeds up the rotor to produce over unity. Anybody that thinks this is true is going to have to prove this with experimentation and theory. Good luck.
So, now that we have an understanding of the energy dynamics of the Steorn motor, all that you have to do is make the measurements and punch in the numbers so that the abstract energy description above becomes real-world measured values.
If you are following what I am saying and you agree with me, then here is the crux of the matter with respect to the Steron demo in Dublin for their Lucite motor setups:
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.
Stop and think for a second. They had all of the measurement equipment in place and it would have taken a maximum of 10 minutes to make the measurements above but they did not do it. Look into your hearts and souls and try to find the answer to that question.
Why didn't Steorn make the above measurements to prove their claim of over unity when the Lucite pulse motors were all there and running off the batteries, and the high-end Tektronix DSO with the differential voltage probe and the fancy current probe were all there and available on site? Why didn't they do it?
The answer is because their Lucite pulse motors were conventional under unity devices and they dared not do it.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on 2009.12.27, 20:39:38
JLN has done a few videos of a replication, but I see nothing new or novel there either.
I watched the JLN replication too. He went through all this effort to corroborate the various claims Steorn made, while ignoring the most important - is it overunity??
I believe this may be an efficient pulse motor, but that's about all.
The novelty perhaps, is the fact that it is an attraction-mode motor that has less drag than one using a standard solenoid coil.
OU? Not very likely.
.99
Well, a good idea just occurred to me for how experimenters can get to the bottom of the whole Steorn December 2009 pulse motor issue - is it or is it not an over unity device?
Let's start with a bit of speculation about how this is going to play out in 2010 with respect to the replicators. The "replicator buzz" has already started. People are trying different magnet and toroid configurations, different numbers of turns, positions, etc, etc, etc, and they are marveling at this new Steorn pulse motor. Already people are playing with the motor configuration in search of higher RPMs, faster accelaration and so on and so on. This is going to go on for nine months to a year, we have all seen this scenario play out before.
There is a huge down side to this scenario. People, the replicators, forget all about the over unity claim and just focus on the building. They stop even trying to make any serious measurements or they make "fake" measurements. They measure the RPMs and current consumptions for different configurations and get all excited about how "efficient" their pulse motors are. Big deal. The quest for over unity gets lost in the shuffle. It's not easy to make measurements to prove or disprove over unity but on the other hand it is fun to build motors and measure RPMs. Before you know it, making a serious attempt to prove or disprove Steorn's claim is lost in the shuffle. This is a huge problem.
On top of all of this, you get people going down other alleys, most likely blind alleys. Notice that Paul Lawrence is off on a "temperature of the magnets" kick. Seriously, what does this have to do with Steorn's claim?
Step #1 is to read my energy analysis of the pulse motor in my posting #11 above. Read it over and over until you understand it.
To confirm or deny Steorn's claim about their pulse motor it is time to think outside of the box.
Going back to my energy analysis, the real issue is this: The amount of rotational kinetic energy that the rotor picks up from the pulse has to be greater than the amount of electrical energy expended to do the pulse.
The generator pick up coils are only there to tap into the "extra energy" imparted into the rotor by the electrical pulse. The generator coils can be completely ignored in your test procedure if you want to, they are nothing but window dressing.
I will repeat: Read my energy analysis in posting #11 and you have to conclude that the amount of rotational kinetic energy that the rotor picks up from the pulse has to be greater than the amount of electrical energy expended to do the pulse if you are going to make a claim of over unity.
So what you can do is strip the problem/replication down to the bone and make the proper measurements.
When you strip the problem down to the bone and you work with the motor, the only thing that counts is to see if when you pulse energy into the toroidal coils, is to check if the rotor ends up with more rotational kinetic energy in it as compared to how much electrical energy you expended to pulse the coils in the first place. That is not so easy to measure but that is what the whole deal is about.
You can play with different toroid and magnet configurations with your Steorn pulse motor replication and have some fun, but what really counts is what I just said above, everything else is unimportant and can be ignored.
Here is how we can strip the problem down to the bone and make some REAL measurements:
Forget about the motor entirely and work with a linear track. Place the magnet on a buggy and place the buggy on a near-frictionless linear track (for example: use a child's train set) and pulse the toroidal coil and measure the increase in speed of the buggy. Use a video camera to do this and look at the video frame by frame and measure the velocity before and after the toroid is pulsed.
If you weigh the magnet-buggy combination, then you can calculate the increase in kinetic energy based on 1/2*m*v-squared. Use your scope to measure the energy in the pulse. You can try different combinations of magnets and toroids on the linear track.
You are going to find that you always have to put in more electrical energy to pulse the toroid than you can get in increased kinetic energy from the magnet-buggy speeding up. However, I know many won't believe me. Fine, don't take my word for it, do the tests yourself.
Does everyone see what I have just proposed? I have just given the replicators a way to bypass all of the bullshit and craziness where for the next nine months people are going to be playing with motor combinations and nobody is actually going to make any real measurements because it is too hard to do it. All that they end up doing is playing with a new type of pulse motor.
Strip the motor away and get it down to its bare essentials - a linear track setup where you actually can make some real-world measurements and see if pulsing the toroidal coil will give you an energy gain or not.
You have to think outside of the box and I just came up with a damn good idea for the replicators and I will cross my fingers that somebody actually does it.
This Steorn stuff is going to result in dozens of replicators playing with magnets, toroids, and motors, and nobody is going to even get remotely close to confirming or denying if the Steorn claim of free energy is true or not. Switching to a linear track, a scope, and a video camera, something that anyone can do, will actually give the experimenters the power to confirm or deny Steorn's claims.
The energy analysis in my posting #11 is the key, and the energy analysis says that the mechanical kinetic energy gained per pulse has to be greater than the electrical energy expended per pulse. Everything else is bullshit and can be ignored. I am also telling you that this will never happen, but don't believe me if you don't want to - just do something that is REAL, the linear track measurement system is REAL, the motor is just a toy that is too hard to make measurements on.
MileHigh
Thanks MH.
I agree with you that the energy gained in the
attraction phase must be greater than the energy expended to
nullify the core attraction. It seems quite clear that this must be the case for OU.
Could you elaborate on your proposed test setup? I'm unclear as to the positioning of the toroid and how/when the buggy is moving etc., a diagram perhaps might be helpful.
QuoteThe amount of rotational kinetic energy that the rotor picks up from the pulse has to be greater than the amount of electrical energy expended to do the pulse.
Is everyone saying that the pulse imparts energy to the rotor? I did not get that impression. Perhaps you meant to say:
"The amount of rotational kinetic energy that the rotor picks up from
its attraction to the core has to be greater than the amount of electrical energy expended to do the pulse." ?
Regards,
.99
A couple comments.
First, the deal with the heat is actually very much to do with Steorn's claims. In the first ad/demo that Steorn released in December (the one that starts with music/blurbs and then shifts to a graphical explanation of the Orbo), toward the end, Sean talks about how when you take into account the heat and other work the motor does, the device is 3:1 overunity, approximately. So the heat is a component, and that's why people are focusing on it.
I think the linear track idea is interesting. You would not even necessarily need a camera. If the track is on an incline, you can simply measure how high the buggy gets. But I do not know how to compare electrical energy in versus kinetic out, if you do not actually make a conversion back via regeneration.
Also, I think the problem right now is people are saying that you already have a unity/overunity situation with the temperature of the coils/core and the kinetic energy of the rotor is just free gravy, thus pushing the device way into the overunity category. This was basically Omnibus's response on OU.com, and there is no way you are going to knock off that position from people without measuring the heat, and how in the world do you do that?. So this leaves a practical underunity device (produces less useful energy than it consumes), but does not clear way the issue of whether the device is technically over or under unity.
But I think maybe you underestimate people. The goal is practical overunity - that is where the glory and satisfaction lie, and so I think alot of guys are going to focus on regeneration. It would be interesting if someone submerged the whole assembly under water, in an airtight container, and measured rise in water temperature. I do not know if that is within feasibility for the garage tinkererer. Certainly I would not know how to do that.
@milehigh
QuoteForget about the motor entirely and work with a linear track. Place the magnet on a buggy and place the buggy on a near-frictionless linear track (for example: use a child's train set) and pulse the toroidal coil and measure the increase in speed of the buggy. Use a video camera to do this and look at the video frame by frame and measure the velocity before and after the toroid is pulsed.
So you are implying that we should build a device which has almost nothing in common with the Steorn device other than a toroid and magnet, ignoring field interactions, motor/generator interactions, phase interactions, transient effect interactions etc... in order to prove that a machine nothing like the Steorn device should in fact act just like it-----is that it? I would have to disagree that this is a good idea.
Regards
AC
Hi Poynt:
Thanks for your comments.
You said:
Quote"The amount of rotational kinetic energy that the rotor picks up from its attraction to the core has to be greater than the amount of electrical energy expended to do the pulse." ?
You are absolutely correct. My thought process was related back to my "energy treatise" posting where I was stating that for all practical intents and purposes a conventional attraction pulse with a standard solenoid setup, or the same configuration but using repulsion, or the Steorn toroidal pulse setup are all essentially the same.
Let me illustrate that for everyone with a simple thought experiment: You have a Steorn pulse motor configration. You put a black shroud over the toroidal coil and rotor so that you can't see one-third of the rotor. You start providing pulses to the motor and you watch it speed up. The only thing that you know is that your electrical pulses are speeding up the motor, but you don't know the actual mechanism because you can't see it. In that sense my statement "The amount of rotational kinetic energy that the rotor picks up from the pulse has to be greater than the amount of electrical energy expended to do the pulse" rings true. Thank you for the clarification.
QuoteCould you elaborate on your proposed test setup? I'm unclear as to the positioning of the toroid and how/when the buggy is moving etc., a diagram perhaps might be helpful.
Let me take a crack at a text-only version for starters.
Take a three-foot length of HO-scale train track and have it supported so that it is one-half inch above your bench. (We are going to imagine the rails are not made of metal for purposes of this illustration) Using a carpenter's level make sure that the track is perfectly level.
You take a flat-car (I think they are called that - a box-car with no box) and put it on the track and then place your magnet on top of the flat car and tape it in place.
You put your toroidal coil underneath the center of the train track and adjust the position of your choice of trigger mechanism (hall sensor/reed switch/optical sensor).
Then simply give the flat-car a nudge and watch it speed up when the attraction phase happens followed by the neutralization of the attraction when the toroidal coil fires.
Record the entire event from a distance with a digital camera set to a moderate zoom. Make a precise measurement of the mass of the flat-car/magnet combination with a digital scale.
You now have all the data you need to record the kinetic energy increase when the system is triggered.
I will not discuss the measurement of the electrical pulse energy but the caveat is that you have to be very serious about this measurement also and be as precise as possible. That is a separate discussion.
MileHigh
Eatenbyagrue:
QuoteFirst, the deal with the heat is actually very much to do with Steorn's claims. In the first ad/demo that Steorn released in December (the one that starts with music/blurbs and then shifts to a graphical explanation of the Orbo), toward the end, Sean talks about how when you take into account the heat and other work the motor does, the device is 3:1 overunity, approximately. So the heat is a component, and that's why people are focusing on it.
I think that you should take Sean's comments with a grain of salt. The reason being that any pulse or other motor that is not actually driving a mechanical load is ultimately doing nothing but producing heat. It is a misconception to look at a spinning pulse motor and talk about its mechanical output increasing as you see its speed increasing. All of the energy being fed to the motor becomes heat. 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 becomes heat. Even the air friction becomes heat.
Personally, I don't believe that the two versions of Orbos demonstrated generated any excess heat. In the context of my previous paragraph and my energy treatise several postings back, the Orbos demonstrated converted somewhere between 70% and 90% (or more) of the input electrical power into heat, and the remaining power went into charging the battery. (Whoops, I think only one of the Orbos charged a battery, so the other turned 100% of the input electrical power into heat power) I don't believe that any excess heat power was generated resulting in over unity.
Note that Sean made a huge engineering gaffe when he mentioned the "work" done by the Orbos. To repeat, the Orbos demonstrated did zero mechanical work. Sean should have known better and I think that he was "playing" to his audience.
QuoteAlso, I think the problem right now is people are saying that you already have a unity/overunity situation with the temperature of the coils/core and the kinetic energy of the rotor is just free gravy, thus pushing the device way into the overunity category. This was basically Omnibus's response on OU.com
I deal with this issue in my energy treatise posting. The kinetic energy in the rotor just represents stored electrical input energy during the spin-up phase. It has no role whatsoever in the COP or energy-in/energy-out calculations and it is not free gravy. When you disconnect the power to the motor, the stored kinetic energy then discharges in the spin-down phase. Naturally, 100% of that energy becomes heat. I am 100% rock-solid certain about this point and Omnibus' statements are wrong.
QuoteBut I think maybe you underestimate people. The goal is practical overunity - that is where the glory and satisfaction lie, and so I think alot of guys are going to focus on regeneration.
They can approach the analysis however they want. Factoring in the electrical regeneration from the generator coils just makes life more complicated. There is no need to do this. The key issue if you are serious about what you are doing, is to go past measuring RPMs vs. current consumption, because that data tells you nothing about over unity versus under unity.
Thanks for your comments.
MileHigh
AC:
QuoteSo you are implying that we should build a device which has almost nothing in common with the Steorn device other than a toroid and magnet, ignoring field interactions, motor/generator interactions, phase interactions, transient effect interactions etc... in order to prove that a machine nothing like the Steorn device should in fact act just like it-----is that it? I would have to disagree that this is a good idea.
You should think about this some more. All that I am doing is "un-peeling" a cylindrical motor configuration and laying it out flat and turning it into a linear motor. The mechanism for converting the electrical energy into kinetic energy remains exactly the same. The field interactions remain essentially the same. The motor/generator interactions have been intentionally removed because you don't need them. The transient effect interactions will remain the same.
For all practical intents and purposes the suggested test bed setup is the same as the actual motor. It does a near-identical emulation of a rotor magnet passing by a toroidal coil in an actual pulse motor and will generate nearly identical electrical and kinetic energy data.
Thanks for your comments.
MileHigh
A worthwhile posting of mine plucked from OU.com:
Let me briefly discuss the voltage generated in the toroidal coil.
Suppose you have a normal coil of wire that has 10 clockwise turns and 10 millihenries of inductance. If you move a magnet in the vicinity of this coil you will see voltage generated across the coil.
If you now add another 10 turns to this coil, but this time in a counter-clockwise direction then the 10 counter-clockwise turns cancel out the 10 clockwise turns. Now the coil will measure 0 millihenries of inductance. When you move a magnet in the vicinity of this 10 turns CW + 10 turns CCW coil you will see that there is no voltage generated across the coil.
So what about a toroidal coil? Supposing you take the magnet's point of view and you are looking edge-on at the toroidal coil like you see in the Steorn demonstration clip.
The magnet sees the left side of the toroidal coil as having clockwise turns. It sees the right side of the toroidal coil as having counter-clockwise turns. Therefore the left and right sides of the toroidal coil cancel each other out just like in the example above. The coils in the center of the toroidal coil do not "see" the changing magnetic flux because they are oriented in the same direction as the magnetic field, there is no changing magnetic flux being "cut" by the coils in the center of the toroidal coil, for both the closer coils and the further away coils. The other coils of wire in the toroidal coil that are to either side of the center line partially cut flux, but they cancel each other out also.
The net result of all of this is that the net changing magnetic flux seen by the toroidal coil in the Steorn setup is almost zero. As the magnets fly by the toroidal coil, all of the changing magnetic flux seen by each individual turn of the toroidal coil, when they are all added together, will nearly completely cancel out.
However, it will not be a perfect cancellation, there will still be a very tiny net change in flux which will generate a very tiny change in the output voltage from the toroidal coil.
So Steorn chose a toroidal coil arrangement to saturate the core inside the coil. This makes perfect sense. We know that by saturating the coil it makes it appear to "disappear" when the magnet is leaving the vicinity of the saturated toroidal coil. Therefore there is attraction when the magnet is approaching the metal core of the toroid which speeds up the motor, and there is no opposite attraction causing the motor to slow down when the magnet is leaving the vicinity of metal core of the toroid because it "dissapears."
However, the whole time the magnet is flying by the toroidal coil of wire that is wound around the metal core, Lenz's Law is inducing voltage and/or current in the coil. It just so happens that the geometry of the windings of the coil are such that very little net change in magnetic flux is seen by the toroidal coil. A toroidal coil is just a variation on 10 clockwise turns being canceled out by 10 counter-clockwise turns.
The real issue underneath all of this is that it takes electrical energy to saturate the coil. You can see it in the Steorn clip and K4zep's clip. The real question is is the electrical energy required to saturate the coil more or less than the rotational energy added to the rotor when the magnet flies by the toroidal coil? That is the key question and in my previous postings on this thread I suggest a way of making this measurement.
MileHigh
Fraser - thanks for the tip re the view expand option. It's given me a new lease on life.
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?
But I'm intrigued with the design. Not sure why the toroidal electromagnets make a difference - and would be glad to find out if this is standard in motors or is this where the departure comes? Poynty? If so, it's very interesting. Also very complex. Anyway. I'm glad they're showing something and I'm inclined to believe the presentations on a live broadcast of the set up. Just have residual suspicions when there are patents all over the place. The actual technology needs to be more transparently presented if they've secured their property rights. Makes me think that they haven't and that it's easily duplicated - which will make a joke of any intellectual ownership. That's actually my beef.
Last point - sorry for the inconvenience - he talks about a live broadcst - I've seen people talk about that 'live broadcast' - but where do I find this? I think I must be the only person on either side of the equator who hasn't yet seen this yet.
EDIT : LOL I forgot to read from the bottom of the page up. Sorry guys. Ignore this post. All questions answered. I've said it before I'm half blind - half idiot. ;D All I need now is a link to the live broadcast number.
By the way - 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. I think that's where the 'trick' is to getting that easy 360 degree turn without BEMF. But I still can't work out how he gets energy back to the battery without generating back emf.
I must say I'm inclined to agree with the general criticisms here. It would have been nice to see some more measurements. I can't help feeling that there's a whole lot of facts that are being withheld. And I still can't see the reason for this if they've really secured sufficient patent protection. Bit of smoke and mirrors here guys. Wish they would show more.
I also agree with AC on his comments about capacitors. Anyway my own argument is that one cannot get a closed system on an electric circuit. Always must be losses - but not necessarily to the supply source. And if this system really works - then they need to show us how.
In their favour is a really neat presentation. And it's on public view. So I don't think they're tricking us on the results. They're just not showing us the why's and wherefores.
Omnibus and the rest of the gang at OU:
QuoteAll 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.
QuoteAlso, 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
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
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?
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
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
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'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.
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.
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
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.
Hi Rosemary, Poynt and Wavewatcher:
Rosemary:
QuoteI 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.
QuoteI 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:
QuoteThere 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
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
Ion:
You made some interesting comments and I am going to perhaps expand on and clarify them a bit:
QuoteIt 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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteThe 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
Poynt:
QuoteOne 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
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:
Quote3. <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:
QuoteMH 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:
Quote3. <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
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.
QuoteBasically 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.
QuoteNow 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=0.5*Current^2*Inductance.
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.
QuoteImagine 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.
QuoteYou 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
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.
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. :P
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
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
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
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
Hey .99:
Thanks for your comments. I am being covertly spied upon! ;D 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
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
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.
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.
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
@vpo20
QuoteI 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.
I have no doubt that you can give us a million reasons why the orbo cannot work, milehigh has posted many pages in reference to why it cannot work and in fact any ordinary person can. Before you post your criticism's you may want to read the title of this forum-----"Overunity Research"----- this would seem to imply we are here in this forum to research overunity yet this forum is more often than not nothing more than the "Critics Corner". I wonder why nobody is willing to offer a single reason as to how it could work? If this is in fact an overunity research forum then why is there literally no debate as to how or why the orbo could work?---I find this very odd. It should be obvious that any ordinary unskilled random person off the street can give reasons why the orbo cannot work but how many here can give me one single reason how it can work? This is not so easy is it? Criticism is a fools game anybody can play but providing real answers to what seems like impossible questions this is not so easy as it requires a great deal of knowledge and understanding.
So tell me, can you think of even one single reason as to why the orbo could really work as claimed by Steorn---anybody?
Regards
AC
The Orbo motor DOES work as a motor, there is no debate about that.
The only question left to be answered is: Does it produce more total output energy than it consumes?
I think even you will concede AC, that Steorn has not yet provided solid proof one way or the other.
If or until that time arrives, I think folks are entitled to analyze and theorize if they wish; skeptics and supporters alike.
.99
@Poynt99
QuoteI think even you will concede AC, that Steorn has not yet provided solid proof one way or the other.
"Even I would concede", LOL, I think Steorn has not shown any proof one way or another but that does not mean they lack substance. I think many people believe I am something I am not, I am not a defender of OU in fact I do not believe in overunity--how could any credible engineer believe you can create something from nothing? As well I am not in the habit of defending anyone, if a person has a point to make and I believe it has merit I will offer my perspective but this does not mean I believe all that they have to say. If I see someone peddling the same old BS and stating this is the way it is and there is no other possible way then I will correct them if needed :).
QuoteIf or until that time arrives, I think folks are entitled to analyze and theorize if they wish; skeptics and supporters alike.
I would agree completely, the wide range of perspectives and knowledge is what makes these forums such a nice place to visit however I think that sometimes this freedom can be taken too far when one perspective overwhelm's all others.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.01.06, 23:56:49
QuoteIf or until that time arrives, I think folks are entitled to analyze and theorize if they wish; skeptics and supporters alike.
I would agree completely, the wide range of perspectives and knowledge is what makes these forums such a nice place to visit however I think that sometimes this freedom can be taken too far when one perspective overwhelm's all others.
Regards
AC
That's one reason I'm glad you're here AC ;)
.99
QuoteBTW: Congrats to ION for being the first person, after three pages of postings on OU, to read the Bedini ammeter correctly.
WaveWatcher:
I haven't posted anything about the ammeter. Please clarify
Regards........ION
p.s. I really believe with, all his instrumentation, he could dig up a more sensitive ammeter than the one in the video....
I saw that message at OU too.
It's a different username, i.e i0n or similar.
.99
AC:
Why don't you post the same question on OU because your question should be answered by contributors there also. Stefan guessed that the magnet was the source of the energy, go figure. That's what Sean says. I rebutted his speculation that there is a magic injection of extra energy from the magnet and there was no reply from anybody. Would like to see some fresh ideas. When in doubt, build.
All:
I looked at the other two new Bedini clips. Just to point out the obvious: Between the three clips he makes a halfhearted claim that his pulse motor runs on no energy about ten times. I groaned and I assume even the diehards around here don't take him seriously. At the same time, I assume that some watched his clips with starry eyes, whereas I cringed. I could do a break-down on his three clips but it wouldn't be pretty. It smells like Bedini wants to kick the competition off of his turf - a free energy ice-cream war.
Bring it on Sean! I heard a rumor it was leprechauns. muhahahaa
MileHigh
Quote from: ION on 2010.01.07, 01:18:49
QuoteBTW: Congrats to ION for being the first person, after three pages of postings on OU, to read the Bedini ammeter correctly.
WaveWatcher:
I haven't posted anything about the ammeter. Please clarify
Regards........ION
p.s. I really believe with, all his instrumentation, he could dig up a more sensitive ammeter than the one in the video....
.99 is probably correct - some variation of your handle maybe.
Yes, amazing. Zero to 5 amp scale... I thought my eyes were going bad. I guess he is used to high output power. :o
Hi Gang,
Easy to tell if ORBO is OU, just put a little AAA battery of same design in there and then monitor voltage with a X.XXX DVM good to 1 mv and let it run. The AAA would just speed up the process but actually monitoring the D cell over time to 1 mv would show the proof in the pudding....There is also a very simple circuit that with a mv or ua meter will show the same thing quickly!
I have 4 different meters that could do that,
Respectfully
Ben
Hi Ben, good to have you with us!
I hope the Orbo thing can be properly measured and put to bed soon, one way or the other.
.99
I will discuss some Paul Lowrance issues related to Steorn:
1. The jury issue:
QuoteHow can the jury say what they said when they never even saw the Orbo?
Whatever allegations are being made by one jury member and whether they are true or not there is a question that must be asked before Paul's question is asked.
If you believe that the jury never saw the Orbo then what was Steorn doing? They arranged for a jury to show them the Orbo. This dragged on for two years. It makes no sense at all. As a reminder, the jury came out and stated that they did not see any excess energy production by the Orbo. It does not smell right with respect to Steorn first and foremost.
2. What's going on with the magnetocaloric effect?
I did some reading and here is the Wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_refrigeration
QuoteIn that part of the overall refrigeration process, a decrease in the strength of an externally applied magnetic field allows the magnetic domains of a chosen (magnetocaloric) material to become disoriented from the magnetic field by the agitating action of the thermal energy (phonons) present in the material. If the material is isolated so that no energy is allowed to (re)migrate into the material during this time, i.e., an adiabatic process, the temperature drops as the domains absorb the thermal energy to perform their reorientation.
In plain English first you magnetize a material by wrapping a coil around it and you keep the DC current on. This actually causes the material to heat up due to the magnetocaloric effect. When you reduce the magnetic field to zero, the material will then cool back down. We have all felt our hands get cold when using a can of compressed air. That's a similar process where the heat energy is "sucked out" of your hand and is used to boil the liquefied gas. In the magnetic material's case the heat energy is used to re-randomize the magnetic domains. So in effect, the process of the randomizing magnetic domains is "sucking heat" out of the material itself.
This is somewhat counter-intuitive but you can think of it like this: For a magnetic domain to fall out of alignment with its neighbours, it has to be "hit" with a pulse of heat energy. The pulse of heat energy gets transformed into a magnetic domain that is now out of alignment. Thus heat "disappears" in the process of randomizing the magnetic domains.
QuoteOne of the most notable examples of the magnetocaloric effect is in the chemical element gadolinium and some of its alloys. Gadolinium's temperature is observed to increase when it enters certain magnetic fields. When it leaves the magnetic field, the temperature returns to normal.
The thing to keep in mind is that energy is conserved and everything remains in balance as shown in the example above.
QuoteSo when a magnet is magnetized, all of the energy from the battery goes into heat and you get extra energy in the form of heat from MCE. This is not terrible difficult to verify experimentally. Place the magnet and magnetizing coil inside a thermal insulated chamber, monitor the amount of input energy from thepower supply, and monitor the rise in temperature, then do the control experiment to get the heat capacity. You will see that the total energy in heat is greater than what came from thepower supply.
That's not going to happen and the total energy in heat will not be greater due to the magnetocaloric (a.k.a. "MCE") effect. There is no "extra energy" coming from the MCE. It is simply an interesting property of some magnetic material that obeys the laws of conservation of energy and operates in both directions equally. The process exchanges heat (temperature) with the amount of alignment or dis-alignment of the magnetic domains in the ferrite material. High temp is to more alignment as low temp is to less alignment. It is a bi-directional process where the energy is conserved.
Paul, you are looking at some interesting and exotic properties of magnetic materials and seemingly blindly assuming that they will fit into some sort of free energy model. In this case it is not true at all.
MileHigh
3. Magnetic viscosity is the key part of Steorn's secret sauce that produces free energy:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F20%2F4252275%2F04252288.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4252288&authDecision=-203
QuoteMeasuring the Hysteresis Loop of Permanent Magnets With the Pulsed Field Magnetometer
Fiorillo, F.; Beatrice, C.; Bottauscio, O.; Patroi, E.
Magnetics, IEEE Transactions on
Volume 43, Issue 7, July 2007 Page(s):3159 - 3164
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TMAG.2007.893536
Summary:We discuss a comprehensive approach to the characterization of permanent magnets with the pulsed field magnetometer. The approach is based on a systematic comparison of the results obtained by this method with those from the conventional closed-circuit and open-sample methods and on the assessment of the dynamic phenomena engendered by the application of the fast exciting field pulse. Such phenomena derive from the thermal fluctuation after effect and the eddy currents, whose contributions to hysteresis loop swelling are brought to light and separately evaluated. We show that the quasi-static hysteresis loop can be retrieved from the dynamically obtained one by compensating for the magnetic viscosity field, found to be proportional to the coercive field, and the eddy-current counterfield. A simple analytical formulation accounts for and predicts the effect of the counterfield.
Note that the "thermal fluctuation after effect" is the magnetocaloric effect.
What they are saying is that the hysteresis loop for the magnetic material increases in area, the "swelling", when you travel around the loop at increasing frequency and this is due to the increasing magnetic viscosity. This is BAD news for achieving over unity. The magnetic viscosity effects INCREASE the heat losses in the magnetic core material, they are the opposite of what you are looking for.
For people that don't know, a hysteresis loop means that you loose energy in a magnetic material when you change its polarity, and it's proportional to the area inside the loop, a.k.a. "BH Curve."
A simple real-world example for a hysteresis loop effect is bending a coat hanger. As you bend it it gets hot, producing heat energy. The energy is measured by the difference in the springiness force of the coat hanger wire when bending and then springing back. The wire spring always pushes back with less energy than you put in, and that difference is manifested in the wire heating up. If you plot force vs. bend angle as you bend the coat hanger and then measure how much it springs back, the plot will trace out a hysteresis loop.
Going back to Paul (and I think Steorn) any claims that magnetic viscosity will produce free energy are incorrect. Magnetic viscosity effects simply produce more heat in the ferromagnetic materials in the setup. That means that they will
slow down the eOrbo.
MileHigh
I see that TK and Sean had a debate today:
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=nr4oLSwiDjM&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3Dnr4oLSwiDjM
For me, the debate about the lack of CEMF in the toroidal coil has been puzzling since this started in December.
Some reminders:
1. The toroidal coil by definition will produce almost no CEMF when the changing magnetic lines of flux cut through it because the is almost no net change in magnetic flux with respect to time. There is an EMF self-cancellation effect due to the geometry of the windings of the coil.
2. CEMF generated in an open-circuit coil will not slow down the rotor because there is no energy transfer.
3. CEMF in an short-circuited coil will not slow down the rotor because there is no energy transfer.
4. When you have a battery connected across the coil, any CEMF will see the battery as a near short-circuit, so it will be almost the same as #3.
From my perspective there seems to be an implication that not having CEMF will not drain any energy from the rotor. Are my assumptions correct? Is there an alleged free energy effect associated with this? How come not a single attempt has been made to explain it, if there is one, by anybody?
What is the reason we should be concerned about the "no CEMF" property of the eOrbo pulse motor?
Sean, Paul, TK, anybody? Why should we be concerned about the CEMF issue? Please somebody give a detailed explanation for this.
You know how some people in the "in crowd" make reference to the "sheeple?" There is that possibility that "we are the sheeple" in this case. Sean said it, so what? Why are we repeating it? Why are so many people talking about this "no CEMF" concept like it means something, without knowing what it really means?
MileHigh
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.01.02, 19:19:17
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.
I think I'm going back to my initial assertion:
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.01.02, 18:51:04
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.
.99
I say this because although the pulse width does increase as the rotor slows, the duty-cycle does not, and therefore the average source power remains relatively constant.
Back to you WW ;)
.99
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.01.09, 23:37:10
Some reminders:
1. The toroidal coil by definition will produce almost no CEMF when the changing magnetic lines of flux cut through it because the is almost no net change in magnetic flux with respect to time. There is an EMF self-cancellation effect due to the geometry of the windings of the coil.
2. CEMF generated in an open-circuit coil will not slow down the rotor because there is no energy transfer.
3. CEMF in an short-circuited coil will not slow down the rotor because there is no energy transfer.
4. When you have a battery connected across the coil, any CEMF will see the battery as a near short-circuit, so it will be almost the same as #3.
MileHigh
For the above points MH, are you referring to a toroid coil only, or all coils?
If points 2, 3, and 4 are referring to a toroid coil, isn't the possibility of CEMF precluded by the fact that the toroid geometry isn't supposed to allow induction from outside the core and winding?
.99
.
This made me think! ;D
North pole of a magnet inside a cylinder of metal.... Where exactly is that blotch wall again?
.
Poynt:
QuoteIf points 2, 3, and 4 are referring to a toroid coil, isn't the possibility of CEMF precluded by the fact that the toroid geometry isn't supposed to allow induction from outside the core and winding?
Yes indeed. I included the points for completeness. The fact that a toroidal coil already has almost no CEMF just nullifies any possible issues associated with points 2, 3 and 4. I never mentioned that there is also a toroidal core. A reasonable assumption is being made that with the core there you still expect the net changing flux with respect to time seen by the toroidal coil to be nearly zero.
As someone pointed out, Sean made a huge gaffe when commenting on the battery vs. capacitor issue.
Darkspeed:
QuoteNorth pole of a magnet inside a cylinder of metal.... Where exactly is that blotch wall again?
When I look at that clip I can make a reasonable estimate of what the magnetic fields look like so I am not surprised to see the coil take a jump with a twist. A good suggestion for people that build coils would be to go to the Dollar store and get a bunch of small kid's compasses and arrange them in a plane. They can glue the compasses to a piece of thin wood and then energize a coil and see the generated fields. A tiny compass held in hand as a magnetic field sniffer would really help out also. By rotating and turning the energized coil you could build up a 3-D image of the fields in your mind while keeping your compasses horizontal.
For the coil in this clip, if the flux inside the coil core is going clockwise, then there is weaker counter-clockwise flux on on both sides of the wide band that forms the coil.
MileHigh
Steorn's second presentation was logged on YouTube and I will add some colour commentary:
Here is the link to the first of four YT clips that document the presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib9u811WXJU
Sean: "Absolutely no back-EMF." - My response is big deal, a toroidal coil will generate very little EMF by virtue of it's geometry. Yes indeed, the small back-EMF created by two toroidal coils in series can be made to cancel itself out. I made a separate posting a few days ago asking anyone to explain the true significance of the lack of back-EMF but so far no replies.
In Part 2 at 4:37 they expand the current scale to show a very slow rise in the current after the voltage is switched on that is not apparent otherwise. Sean attributes this to a "very significant change in the inductance of the core material" but I am not convinced yet.
Sean, "Clearly the rotor is doing work." MY SPIDEY SENSES ARE TINGLING. The only "work" the rotor is doing is creating heat by overcoming bearing and air friction. Thus the spinning rotor is just a subset of the heat "generation" (really dissipation), nothing more than that. Note that this is also a subset of the electrical power consumption. If you measure the electrical power consumption you CAN NOT "add" the "work" done by the rotor to the measurement to calculate the total power dissipated by the device. Again, the "rotor power" is embedded in the electrical power consumption of the device. Real work done by the rotor would be something like lifting a small weight, and clearly no real work is being done by the rotor in this case.
Sean, "The obvious place to look for the energy is in the inductance loss through the interaction." MY SPIDEY SENSES ARE TINGLING AGAIN. You simply never use the phrase "inductance loss," never. The inductor stores energy and releases it when the coil is switched off. This part of the demo smells fishy.
Sean, "It would be expected in terms of classical physics that when you have a motor with no counter-EMF, and the rotor is clearly doing work, (sic) that there must be an inductance loss through the interaction." This is Sean's way of saying when you energize an inductor the current rises slowly to charge the inductor, and that energy becomes a spike when you disconnect it. I am still wincing and squirming at the term "inductance loss."
I am very tired and hope to continue this response posting tomorrow night. The big subject to cover is the "inductance change" issue and my comments may be surprising to some out there.
MileHigh
Okay, the video clips of the second presentation are now on Steorn's official YouTube page.
Starting off with the second Steorn official clip:
http://www.youtube.com/user/SteornOfficial#p/u/1/bSftoc9Pm1U
At 7:07 Sean says that "we have a very significant change in the inductance of the core material" to explain the change in rise-time for the current waveform. For starters, the core material does not possess the property of inductance. I am splitting hairs here and being picky because Sean has to explain what Steorn is doing without any ambiguity. Right now I can't explain why the slope of the current waveform changes so abruptly.
I just backed up and at 6:10 Sean says, "we have a very rapid permeability change of the material." So assuming Sean is implying that the core is fully saturated and that explains the abrupt change in the slope of the current waveform - that means that they are over-saturating the core with about 100 times more current than they need. Why would they do this, it represents so much wasted energy for nothing?
So let's talk about the biggie, the inductance increase when the rotor magnets move away from the toroidal coils. For starters, we are not sure how the inductance meter works. I am going to assume that it sends a sinusoidal signal through the coil and looks at the resulting current and phase angle. Does it do this at different frequencies? I don't know. Does it make "large signal" inductance measurements that may start to "clip" the core so that part of the large-signal excitation pushes the core into saturation? Does it make "small signal" inductance measurements with a low amplitude waveform which you assume will never push the core material into saturation? Is it all user-programmable, or does the device run an algorithm that runs a suite of large-signal/small-signal/different-frequency measurements and then crunches all of the disparate inductance measurements and generates some sort of average? I don't know the answer to these questions. Sean and company should have made it crystal clear how this inductance meter was working because it is crucial information.
Let's look at the case where you assume that the excitation from the inductance meter was a "large signal" excitation. In this case, when the magnet is close to the toroidal core, it affects the core material itself and keeps a small part of it saturated or near-saturated. This will make the large-signal inductance measurement go down, simply because the presence of the magnet makes the core appear to be smaller because a part of it is saturated or near-saturated. So the large-signal inductance measurement goes down the closer the magnet is to the core, and goes up the further the magnet is away from the core, which is exactly what Steorn demonstrated.
Now let's examine this in the context of the Steorn setup:
Here is a basic fact: If you have current flowing through a coil with no power source, just current recirculating all by itself through the coil, then if you dynamically increase that inductance with respect to time, the current in the coil will automatically DECREASE. The current HAS to decrease because you assume that you changed the geometry of the coil while the current was flowing through it to increase the inductance. Now the magnetic field is spread throughout a larger volume and the current has to go down because energy has to be conserved.
So in the case of the Steorn demo we know that the current does not decrease, even through it is "supposed" to decrease. I put "supposed" in brackets because in the Steorn case we have a power supply supplying energy and making the current flow through the toroidal coil. It's the POWER SUPPLY that supplies the EXTRA ENERGY to keep the current at a constant value. As the inductance increases with respect to time, the power supply is right there maintaining a constant current, which effectively results in an increase in energy being stored in the larger inductance.
Sean and Steorn are trying to pull a "fast one." The "extra energy" due to the increasing inductance actually COMES FROM THE POWER SUPPLY. Just by virtue of the fact that the current stays constant and the inductance increases slightly is telling you that the extra energy comes from the power supply.
To get a bit more technical, we know the charging time constant for an RL circuit is L/R. In the case for this demo, L is dynamic with respect to time and R is fixed. Therefore there is a "dynamic charging time constant" of delta-L(t)/R. delta-L for all values of delta-t is minuscule. Therefore the dynamic time constant is minuscule and for all practical intents and purposes you see no change in the current flowing through the toroidal inductor as the inductance increases a total of about 2.4% from the top-dead-center position to the further away position. In other words the power supply can keep up easily with the very slight increase in inductance over time such that the current does not appear to change at all.
To repeat, the "extra energy" is NOT FREE, and Steorn is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Just the fact that the current stays constant for an increasing inductance with respect to time is telling you that the power supply is "filling in the gaps" resulting in the increased energy being stored in the larger inductor.
Also, don't forget at the same time the power supply is supplying a lot of energy that is being poured down the drain as dissipated heat. No matter what Sean tries to tell you, in the real world electrical power in a motor that gets dissipated as heat is LOST ENERGY BEING POURED DOWN THE DRAIN.
MileHigh
Now let's do a rebuttal summary of Steorn's claim about their eOrbo pulse motor:
It has been shown that an Orbo electromagnetic interaction:
1. Suffers no Back EMF.
<<< Big deal, this means nothing, toroidal coils by definition will do a lot of EMF self-cancellation. >>>
2. Produces an Inductance Energy Gain.
<<< WRONG - The POWER SUPPLY is adding the "extra energy" on the sly, see the previous posting. >>>
3. Performs work.
<<< WRONG - a spinning rotor does NOT perform any work, it is just a subset of the total heat dissipation from the supplied electrical power. >>>
The net result is that an Orbo interaction produces more output energy than the energy put into the interaction.
<<< ABSOLUTELY WRONG - The only thing that an "Orbo interaction" produces is heat. You supply electrical energy to the Orbo, and the vast majority of that energy is dissipated as heat in the coils themselves. A small fraction of the supplied energy makes the rotor turn, and that gets instantly turned into dissipated heat in the bearings and due to air friction. The Orbo is a 0% efficient pulse motor that does no useful work at all, it is just a glorified electrical resistor. There is NO EXCESS OUTPUT ENERGY from an Orbo. The "increase" in energy alleged to take place in the dynamic toroidal inductor of the Orbo is actually energy that is SUPPLIED BY THE POWER SUPPLY. >>>
MileHigh
A Sean quote: "The output of the energy takes several forms - it takes heat, which you've seen on the thermal camera. It takes the form of the rotational energy of the rotor itself."
Well, here we have a big Sean gaffe where he tries to claim that the rotational energy of the rotor itself is part of the "output."
Putting aside the fact that the spinning rotor is just a part of the process of producing heat that goes down the drain, let me review a basic concept for Sean...
Suppose you run the Orbo pulse motor for one hour, and during that hour the rotor spins at a constant RPM. Is the rotor generating any output here?
Let's break this down further:
First 30 seconds: The rotor spins up to it's maximum speed, storing some of the input electrical energy as mechanical rotational energy.
Next 59 minutes and 30 seconds: The rotor turns a fraction of the input electrical power into heat power and does nothing else but that.
After you disconnect the power: The rotor takes 30 seconds to spin down, converting all of its stored mechanical rotational energy into heat energy.
Wow, in the overall scheme of things the "output" of the rotor tales place after you switch off the motor. That "output" came from the first 30 seconds when you switched on the motor. During the 59 1/2 minutes interim period, the rotor is not generating any "output" at all, it is just part of the energy dissipation process, converting some of the electrical input power into heat power.
The spinning rotor is just a way of storing mechanical energy - it's a mechanical capacitor with an associated moment of inertia (akin to electrical capacitance) and an angular velocity (akin to electrical voltage). The rotor stores some energy during the start-up and discharges it after you switch off.
What is Sean thinking? He is in carnival barker territory here!
Clip #4:
http://www.youtube.com/user/SteornOfficial#p/u/3/d7b3IfpZAdI
In the beginning of this clip Sean responds to the battery vs. capacitor issue and his response is pure bullshit.
"if you look at a capacitor there is a delay..." SPIDEY SENSES ON FIRE.
MileHigh
P.S.: The demographics of the people in the audience were very impressive. Leaders of tech and industry all over the place. It must have been like a mosh pit when they all exchanged business cards.
I also find it very ironic that the pitch is now that they get a "bigger back-EMF spike than they are supposed to." In their December demo, they made no attempt whatsoever to harvest the back-EMF spike, they added bypass diodes to the coils. Going back to the 2007 Orbo, that was supposed to be a self-runner, what happened to that and why no mention of it or attempt to demo it?
Yes indeed, Sean and company are trying a new spin on the good old "magic spike" coming from a discharging inductor. That "magic spike" has given Bedini a comfortable living and I suppose many others. It's time compressed potential - consult with the electronics genius Aaron.
It's painful and a bit embarrassing to watch quite frankly (I couldn't make it all the way through that clip #4).
What a dreadful waste of money and so-called engineering.
.99
Hey Poynt,
At least I give Steorn credit for creating some drama. Sean's attempt to brush off using a capacitor was the low point of the presentation.
Meanwhile I am reading/skimming the bustling OU thread on this topic. I give two posters a tie for the "Glazed Eyes" award at this point in time. One of them is a perennial favourite. The deeper you go into the Earth, the Lower the Gravity becomes.
Dem boyz is hard core core fanatics - a Core-2 duo. :D
MileHigh
@milehigh
QuoteAt least I give Steorn credit for creating some drama. Sean's attempt to brush off using a capacitor was the low point of the presentation.
I believe I have mentioned in a previous post why a capacitor is not a battery, the source capacitor couples to any and/or all capacitance in the circuit following the inverse square law for series capacitance which produces increased losses. I find it odd that in your many posts you have no problem criticizing others for connecting capacitors in series or discharging one capacitor into another yet in this case you find it perfectly acceptable. Then you criticize Steorn for their belief that the inductive discharge (spike as you call it) may produce other effects, well one effect is the production of a high potential electric field (capacitive effect) which would couple with the source capacitor producing increased losses, what a revelation we now have two capacitors in series where the dielectric is the space between one plate of the the source capacitor and any coil in the circuit. It may also be of interest that Nikola Tesla noted these effects 100 years ago, apparently your "critical thinking" is not so infallible after all? In fact I have measured capacitive coupling effects over six feet from the working circuit proper and I have also measured magnetic effects with precision devices from over four feet distance from a single 1" x 1/2" N40 neo magnet. These fields do exist and they are always present when the proper conditions are satisfied whether we want to believe it or not, belief has little revelance to reality as reality is what it is.
Next your critical thinking has come to the conclusion that the device must utilize simple magnetic attraction/repulsion and saturation effects because that is what you know and believe yet Steorns claims preclude this assumption because we know these simple effects induce irreversible system losses. Logically if Steorn's claims are valid which we cannot discount because we do not know then they cannot be utilizing simple magnetic attraction/repulsion and saturation effects as assumed. In which case your many pages of analysis of assumed simple effects is flawed, how can their device work with simple known effects everyone knows do not work? Does it not seem plausible that they could be utilizing an effect you have not considered? Ah, but that is an impossiblity for a critical thinker as his weapon of choice is logic and logic is infallible thus the critical thinker is infallible -- in the field of psychology we call this a self-reinforced delusion, lol.
PS-- I wouldnt read to much into this as I understand more often than not I am incorrect and that is how we learn new things, that is by understanding we can be wrong and considering what may have been unconsidered prior.
Regards
AC
AC:
As far as delusion goes, if I recall correctly you burst upon the scene about a year ago (perhaps more like 1 1/2 years now) on the Energetic Forum. You cranked out reams and reams and reams of text about dipoles and electric fields and magnetic moments and zero point energy and on and on. You generated a massive amount of mumbo-jumbo talk and that sure as hell established your street cred with the believers. I would read some of it and my brain would go numb. Then it seems to me you backed off from cranking out reams and reams of free energy pop culture text and settled in and often made some pretty decent comments peppered with the occasional bit of free energy pop lingo.
I am only going to lightly address what you say in your posting. For me it seems to be a recursion back to your mumbo-jumbo talk days. What you say about capacitors and couplings and all that stuff is out in left field. You speculate that Seorn is using secret sauce and classical analysis techniques do not apply. If I only had a Joule of energy for all the times I have read that.
Just let the Steorn drama play out and let's see what happens. Apparently by the end of the month they are going to demonstrate "technology" that will change the world as we know it. By the same token, Sean claims that he is an engineer. Don't you get just a little bit suspicious when he states that capacitors have a delay associated with their ability to source current?
In my opinion Steorn are "Big Fish." People that are raising investment money so they can sit at their desks and surf the net and play with magnets. Relative to the idealism that you see in people on these various forums that believe in open-sourcing their ideas and expressing their desire to change the world for the better without thought of financial gain, Steorn are the antithesis of this ideal. They are the Devil Incarnate relative to the free energy hipsters. Bad guys out to steal investment money and give the whole movement a bad name. They could always be a plant done by Big Oil and the NWO to discredit the movement. har har
MileHigh
@milehigh
LOL nice one, I could not decide whether to delete my post or let it ride prior to your last post, in the end I figured it was better to just take my medicine like a man. I apologise for the last post as it was on the verge of a personal attack and that is the last thing I wanted. We should never have to resort to personal attacks to justify our opinions, which I believe I just did in my last post. For some reason I go into "attack mode" when I hear the words "critical thinking" as I have seen little good come of it in most of the forums or society in general. I have done quite a bit of research into critical thinking, Randi.org was one site labelled as the home of critical thinking and what I found there was the most intelligent people I have ever had the displeasure of talking with as there was a decided lack of civility or respect.
In any case, this is another lesson in what not to do and I will make a conscious effort to debate the issues on a technological basis, regarding your first paragraph ---- have you been cyber-stalking me? LOL, I wasn't really aware that anyone gave a damn about what I have posted.
However I would agree with what you have said, I believe in balance and have been wandering as far out in both left and right fields as one can reasonably go I think, from aether theory to quantum mechanics and general relativity as well as everything inbetween. I think I have almost found a comfortable spot near the middle ground which is where I have always wanted to be, you know in all my travels I have found all this mumbo-jumbo has a perfectly valid explanation in conventional physics without exception. I cannot tell you how many times I have proven myself wrong by proving something I never thought was possible, as I mentioned more often that not I am wrong in my thoughts but I have found that is not always a bad thing.
As far as Steorn goes I do not believe they have anything until they actually do but at this point I more interested in what could be possible rather than what their machine actually does. In truth your posts in the joule thief, Rosemary Ainslie thread and others is part of my success because everytime you say it cannot be done I have to find new and creative means to prove it can. As such I am not in competition with you persay but with myself and my own limitations, it is not what I know that limits my success it is what I cannot imagine or will not accept that limits me. In any case I will try to be more polite in the future.
Regards
AC
This posting is a big shout-out to Paul Lowrance:
I just can't keep reading you without responding. What a contorted discussion there is going on at OU! It's like scratching your nails across a dirty chalk board while listening to Yoko Ono singing. Ewwww! Somebody has to say something! Think of the children!!!
QuoteHas anyone considered using a relay like Steorn? It seems Steorn likes a few turns, ~ 37, maybe to lower the inductance so as to reduce resonance from the battery. So few turns = ultra low DC resistance. I'm sure there are relays, and then there are relays, right? All relays have ultra low on resistance, but some might have even lower resistance. Also, how about switching speed, as it should be very fast, probably faster than 100 microseconds.
100 microseconds! Where is your common sense dude?! 100 microseconds is 0.1 milliseconds. You ain't never gonna see a relay that switches that fast.
QuoteQuote Sean: "Faster in what way - clearly you seem to understand the requirements for current into in Orbo - so let me ask you this - a capacitor can provide a perfectly flat current output - right?"
I think Sean could not be clearer. Although IMO Sean has not clarified the reason. We know that the core has inductance, and we know that if you connect acapacitor to an inductor it resonates. Well, resonance is not a "flat current." A battery does not resonate no where near like a capacitor, as a battery tries to be a constant voltage source.
"we know that if you connect a capacitor to an inductor it resonates" - There you go Paul pushing yourself beyond your capabilities yet again. I have read similar statements by you dozens and dozens of times. You will only get resonance if the capacitor can discharge fully into the inductor so that all of the energy is then sitting in the inductor. Then the inductor will discharge back into the capacitor. So you are completely wrong, there is no resonance that takes place in this case. The capacitor will energize the inductor and incur a very small voltage drop before the circuit is switched off - no resonance.
Sean could not be more incorrect and he is blatantly attempting to weasel out of the capacitor test. So what if the capacitor experiences a marginal voltage drop when it energizes the inductor? How will that adversely affect the operation of the pulse motor? The answer is that it will not affect the operation of the pulse motor at all. Then of course the energy return from the pick-up coils is supposed to replenish the marginal voltage drop in the capacitor and Steorn claims that there is an excess energy return to boot, so you would need to have a resistor across the capacitor to drain off the excess energy and prevent the voltage on the capacitor from getting too high. There is a big problem though - common sense tells you that the energy return will be much less than the energy drain and the voltage on the capacitor will drop over time, and you wont even need the extra energy draining resistor. Don't be surprised if Steorn does everything in their power to prevent someone from swapping out the battery for a large capacitor.
QuoteCapacitors are very linear, and the energy is 0.5*C*V^2. The battery that Steorn uses is considered drained at 1.2V. Huge difference. It's well known that batteries are non-linear and do not resonant nearly as much as acapacitor.
Broli is making perfect sense when he suggests using an ultracapacitor. It doesn't necessarily have to be as huge as an ultracapacitor, but it doesn't really matter. In a matter of minutes the ultracapacitor would reveal if Steorn is a fraud or if they have changed the world.
"It's well known that batteries are non-linear and do not resonant nearly as much as acapacitor." - Batteries don't resonate at all, no mater what John Bedini wants you to believe.
QuoteA $50 bcap1500 ultracapacitor has 1500 farads and has as much energy as a 1500mAh battery. People would complain. Maybe if they had a smallercapacitor, say 100000 uF, not that many people would complain, but then again we have the resonance issue.
Poynt crunched some numbers recently for an ultracapacitor and a battery. The battery in his case stored about 18 times as much energy as the ultracapacitor. People that understand capacitors would not complain Paul. You are reducing yourself to a shill for Steorn. No resonance issue - go and learn something new about electronics. You can't keep on leveraging your limited knowledge about electronics and try talking the big talk to elevate your stature. Sometimes you are right in your leveraging, sometimes you fall flat on your face and make yourself look really really bad. In the latter case you are giving everyone else in the thread disinformation and misguiding them. It's time to stop overreaching past the limits of your knowledge and go back to basics and continue your own learning process. Try going on YouTube and watching the MIT electronics courses, they are the real thing.
QuoteThe only reason people are saying to use a capacitor is because it does not hold a lot of energy like a battery. A 350F cap @ 1.3V holds a lot of energy.
Incorrect. Monitoring the capacitor voltage will tell you if the Steorn device is over unity or under unity in a matter of minutes. It has nothing to do with the amount of energy in the capacitor.
QuoteIt would be interesting to do a side by side comparison of a 650 farad ultracap vs. a 650mAh rechargeable battery. I know from my detailed data logging of the bcap0650 (650 farads) that it has a crazy amount of dielectric absorption. That's also seen in electrolytic capacitors. So it's not really true that capacitorsvoltage is an accurate representation of anything until the capacitor has had a long time to rest. For the bcap0650, we're talking about up to ~ 1/2 day of rest time before you can accurately use thevoltage as something meaningful.
Wrong again Paul. You can ignore the dielectric absorption effects here, they do not affect the monitoring of the capacitor voltage in real time as the capacitor powers the Orbo. You are demonstrating that you don't really understand what dielectric absorption really means and are incorrectly applying it to the proposed test because you don't want the capacitor test to be done. You are so anxious to see Steorn succeed that you are putting on blinders and becoming a shill for Steorn.
You don't need to wait half a day. Your statements above are complete and utter nonsense. You can monitor the cap voltage in real time and in minutes Steorn's world will collapse all around them and there will be no more investment funds coming in to sustain the cash burn for another three years.
There you go Paul. Sorry but it was time to put you in your place. Just like a few pages back I rebutted some of your other points and I noticed that you never mentioned them again. Before you push the limits of your knowledge way past your true capabilities and make confusing and misleading statements that will be a huge disservice to others reading the thread I suggest you take a huge step back. Read some books or go to school so that you really know what you are talking about. The same thing applies to your buddy Gravityblock. I could rebut his points also and it would be something very similar.
You also need to swallow a huge humility pill for all your swagger about me when I was on OU. I can't guess the number of times that you laughed with Bill and said "Put MileHigh on ignore, he is clueless and knows nothing." That was all bullshit and I think deep down inside you knew it when you were saying it. I asked Bill how his Joule Thief circuit worked and he was unable to answer the question. I offered to explain it to him and he flatly refused.
These are the kinds of nonsensical shenanigans that everybody would be better off staying away from. The most legitimate and easy test that Steorn could do for their eOrbo with generator coils setup would be to swap out the battery for a large capacitor. If the capacitor voltage goes up then they have proved over unity. No amount of rebutting from Sean or you will detract from this simple fact.
MileHigh
There is no research without analysis and a search for explanations to reveal how exactly it works. As one doing so and arriving to a reason why it did not work it helps the others to avoid the same pitfalls on quest for you aim. With no critics this site turns into "believers" site sort of religious blog. Otherwise you not aiming to face bitter reality and wanted to stay in the sweet dream. You will never achieve your aim for real then. If this site really bans analysis and negative outcome of it you call critics then I shall quit. Is anybody wanted to know explanation how "Perpetuum Mobile" displayed in Kinetica museum works? Or you prefer to believe it is a real "Overunity"?
Hi vpo20, and welcome to the site!
No one will ever get banned here for being skeptical, as long as they are respectful. Persons making claims must also be respectful when responding to skepticism.
Also, I'd like to think that we allow all points of view, whether we agree or not.
I agree that without critics, the site would turn into another OU and EF, but on the other hand, without some enthusiasts the site could become quite dull. I think there is a healthy balance, and that is what I'm striving for here.
Both MileHigh and allcanadian are respected members here, and although we all may not always agree on things, I believe our goals are very similar in the end.
Cheers,
.99
Sorry for the delayed reply here, been busy...
Quote from: allcanadian on 2009.12.22, 07:50:23
@Fraser
QuoteYup, that about sums it up . In fact no reason a 1F or even 1000uF shouldn't work, after all if net gain then any reservoir will just fill to capacity and the system keep running right? 'twill take more than fancy graphics and celtic music to sway me of exotic behaviour.
In fact, there may be many reasons why replacing the battery with a capacitor is a bad idea, one is that a capacitor is not a battery. Another is the inverse square law, with series capacitors the total circuit capacitance of any capacitors connected together in series will always be less than the value of the smallest capacitor. As well energy in a capacitor E=1/2CV*2 plays a role when a circuit having capacitance as a source has coupled in series with capacitive elements such as coils under transient forces invoking the inverse square law for series capacitance. Whenever there is an issue of transient effects due to abrupt mechanical switching capacitance begins to play a major role as we are dealing high frequency electric fields in which lines of force can terminate on any conductors. I once built a small 6v circuit that could electrically charge any metallic object within two feet of the circuit, in fact up to 1/4 arcs could be drawn from any one of the objects to any other metallic object. In this case what we conceive as "ground" or termination of conductors on the source completely lose their relevance. These are the capacitive effects that must be considered when dealing with disruptive circuits and one cannot just replace components without due consideration. I am not insinuating that the Steorn device works I am only stating that consideration must be given to the components used in any circuit.
Regards
AC
Hi AC, as far as I am concerned a capacitor can do all that an ionic cell (battery) can do and more. A capacitor with a series R to mimic ESR and a parallel R to mimic internal leakage can pretty well model an ionic cell. An ionic cell cannot match a cap though, mainly because it can't beat its own relatively high ESR, the ionic transport has its own physical frictions that are more pronounced than those found in capacitors electron transport.
If the argument against cap supply is that a cap V will sag too much over the course of one pulse then this is absurd, (this is the argument of the C showing C like effects into an inductive load). Absurd because a large cap like that used in EVs (or even a bank of such to exceed battery joule storage) would register less V drop over one pulse when compared to the cell orbo runs on, in the real world it will be better DC than a chemical cell.
I also find it interesting that they aren't measuring the open circuit cell voltage before and after the trial, leads me to assume the cell might actually be depleting :o.
Interestingly when you do hit an ionic cell with fast high V transients then the cell will accumulate what many call a "fluffy charge", I myself call it "surface charge", it manifests because the fast V transients are absorbed capacitively by the surface layer of the electrodes, the surfaces then transforms this instantaneous e imbalance into a thin (electroplate like) ionic imbalance, A surface charge can be depleted quickly by applying a load or leaving the cell to "settle" after which time its measured V will settle back down. I have seen this on alkaline, nicad, slab and nimh cells when subjected to bedini like charging, probably lipo will behave the same. This mechanism does have benifits though, it seems that after many cycles of charging like this you can reintegrate the cell materials somehwhat and recondition the battery such that it has a higher capacity, good news!
Just show input and output power waveforms over 2 pulses, that all!, it's well within the bounds of these people, hell they had the necessary equipment right on the bench, nice tek scopes and passive V probes and rogowski coil current propes, those scopes and probes are able to give very accurate RMS in and out powers at much higher frequencies than orbo operates in, what's the *kin problem ??? hmm let me think.... maybe the problem is they have squat! That's what I'm thinking anyway.
P.S.
Don't assume I'm on some kind of "uber skeptic" trip because I have these ideas, I'd be thrilled to bits if steorn did convince me, I really would! I also hope many ways of getting a free ride are possible, and I will continue to hunt for them. of course I'll still keep watching the steorn show.
@Witsend, glad you like the firefox text and icon size tip, firefox is the best browser by far!
This video was impressive :o
Quote from: Fraser on 2010.01.16, 20:28:02
Sorry for the delayed reply here, been busy...
@Witsend, glad you like the firefox text and icon size tip, firefox is the best browser by far!
Fraser,
witsend left the building ages ago! LOL
She's deleted her account.
.99
@darkspeed,
which video were you referring to? link says invalid. (in the youtube embed feature of this forum just enter link as appears in browser, I once tried the youtube embed code and got same error)
If it´s the video where they were scoping input V and I and showing no back coupling under load then that is not impressive in my mind. The same can be accomplished with a slipping clutch arrangement in a mechanical system when tuned to just under slip. Of course the same can also be accomplished electronically in close to saturation mag couplings.
Their delivery style is quite strong though I will admit that, great PR, great equipment, but lacking real substance.
edit: witsend, was aetherevarising right? rose? so she´s left... she´ll be back I´m sure.
fixed it..
starting at about 5:30min it really starts to take off
wow, I´m suprised he didn´t throw a mag! that was shifting!
I don´t speak enough french to understand, what was his voltage meter placed across?
Hi DS.
Yes, quite impressive, but it does make sense doesn't it?
.99
Yes it does make sense but it made me realize that if it does have the ability to do work in excess of its input, it will most likley be at high rpm.
If self destruction was not a problem, unloaded, at what rpm would it settle out at ??
I would guess very high
There's no OU there if that's what you are thinking.
It's just a highly inefficient pulse motor that was brought to a higher efficiency point with the addition of the toroid magnet.
.99
I never discount anything until I can see test data, but in general I would agree with you..
I agree. In order to find a gem in heap of rubbish one need dismiss a lot of false stones. 1000 things must be criticised away until you meet one you could not.
That means the serious analysys cases are 99.99% dismissing "critics". I would avoid termin "critics" completely as more applicable to art and literature and associated with human emotions. We better call it "analysis" and no emothions should slip in it. Most of analysis bound to be negative but feeling about it is positive as we has eliminated one more rubbish case on the road to first ever true OU.
At the end of the day there is one only one convincing method to prove it: fully isolated close circuit with excess energy produced in form of heat and run for a time clearly enough to exhaust enclosed sources of energy.
One remarkable example: There is somewhere in one of British museums running an oscillator – swinging pendulum for more the 150 years. It was already running for unknown years at time when it was purchased by the museum. It is fully isolated, contains a 2000 volt battery and it was invented allegedly by Michael Faraday.
If we don know about battery we may thing it is an OU device, however it produces practically immeasurable heat and very little sound. I have estimated battery load as 2 nanoamperes. So in 150 years it has consumed from the battery about 10 coulomb of electrical charge, which is 20 kilojoules of energy. One D size alkaline battery may hold three times more energy then required to run this "mobile" for 150 years.
I have made such toy myself 20 years ago. Warning: high voltage batteries can kill. For safety several megaohm high voltage capable resistor advised to be connected in series. It did not impact performance at all.
It will run also on 500 V but require more tuning and a protection from air circulation in the room.
Anybody interested in description please post me.
Some comments about Paul's preliminary COP measurements with his Orbo replication with full acknowledgment that they are preliminary and subject to change.
QuoteHolly Smokes!!! I just did some quick COP measurements, and when subtracting electrical resistance losses, it is showing my tiny "orbo replication" is way over COP 1.
Not sure what you mean by subtracting electrical resistance losses. The electrical resistance losses would count as part of the Joule heating output. You may be fudging your COP calculations because of your subtraction.
QuoteIf that's not enough, I am not even considering that nearly all of the energy that goes into inductance can be captured back, at least according to Steorns recent inductance measurements on their Orbo. So lets take that into consideration -->
You don't have to take Steorn's word for it. In their first demo you can see how the current waveform is about 95% flat when the Orbo is up to speed. That's the part where the coil is dissipating heat resistively. The energy that goes into the inductance can be captured back, which can be seen on the scope display. The first 5% of the current waveform is exponential, and shows you where the coil is being charged up. That's where the induced magnetic polarization from the magnet is "flushed" also. So perhaps only 2 1/2% of the the total energy that is put into the coil can be recovered in the inductive discharge. There is a huge difference between "nearly all of the energy" and roughly 2 1/2% of the energy.
QuoteIf that is not enough, I did not even take into consideration all of the joule heating.
The Joule heating consists of the heating in the toroid and the heating from the spinning rotor. Assuming that your MOSFET is switching on and off very cleanly then the MOSFET power can be ignored. The power losses in the wires can be ignored. You may have to factor in the power for your timing circuit and add that to your Joule heating.
The thermal power dissipation in the toroidal coil will be tricky because you can't measure it directly with your scope or meters. The energy required to do the magnetic domain "flush" will not show up thermally but can be measured electrically. Therefore the coil will generate less heat power out than you measure in electrical power going into it. The easy solution is to thermally profile the toroidal coil to determine the Joule heating. That means you want to run all tests where the toroid is effectively isolated from the air currents generated by the spinning rotor. You need an effective wind break between the toroid and the spinning rotor.
MileHigh
More comments:
QuoteJoule heating was calculated by doing a control experiment. The tiny orbo was rotating at 3450 rpm's during the main and control experiment. By using the video camera and a timer, the time it took for the tiny orbo to decelerate by 180 rpm's was recorded. The mass of the NdFeB magnets and also the black plastic *outer rim* were calculated. So far I have no calculated the rest of the tiny orbo mass, which would be an appreciable amount. Then the kinetic energy was calculated from the mass and velocity at 3450 and 3270 rpm (180 rpm difference). This gives the joule losses, and the power was calculated from the joule loss and the time duration.
The principle behind your measurement method is sound, I'm just not sure that you got all the details right. Knowing the time it takes for the rotor to drop in speed by 5% and the initial stored energy in the rotor will give you a quite accurate measurement for the power drain on the spinning rotor at its steady-state speed. The rotor converts its stored mechanical energy into heat power via bearing heat dissipation and air friction. The air friction is also effectively heat dissipation.
3450 RPM is 57.5 rotations per second. I will assume that your video camera runs at 60 or 30 fps. Was the electronic shutter fast enough so you could discern the angular position of the rotor frame by frame? It's not impossible to measure, but it's a little complicated to do since the camera frame rate is quasi "under-sampling" the rotor RPM rate. Are you sure you covered all the bases here?
QuoteThe mass of the NdFeB magnets and also the black plastic *outer rim* were calculated. So far I have no calculated the rest of the tiny orbo mass, which would be an appreciable amount.
My Spidey senses are tingling here because I have seen many people mangle up this calculation. You are not mentioning measuring the moment of inertia of your rotor and measuring the mass doesn't cut it and this could be your Achilles Heel. The easiest way to do it would be to use the outer rim of your rotor to spool two threads. Connect each thread to low-friction pulleys 180 degrees apart and attach small equal weights and then use your video camera to measure the acceleration of the rotor. Repeat two more times and then repeat the whole process two more times with different weights each time. This would give you nine measurements for the moment of inertia of your rotor and then you could average the nine measurements to get your final measurement. That would be a real way to do it. How did you measure the moment of inertia?
QuoteThen the kinetic energy was calculated from the mass and velocity at 3450 and 3270 rpm (180 rpm difference). This gives the joule losses, and the power was calculated from the joule loss and the time duration.
Let me "massage" that statement with proper terminology. The principle behind what you are saying is correct, but there is no room for sloppy units or fudge-factoring here. Your statement should read as follows:
The rotational kinetic energy was calculated from the moment of inertia and the angular velocity at 3450 and 3270 RPM. The angular velocity is measured in Radians per second. This will give us the difference in Joules of rotational kinetic energy between the two measurements taken at the start and stop time. This is equivalent to the amount of heat energy that was generated during this time period due to bearing and air friction losses. Therefore the heat power is the energy difference divided by the time difference.
I am not convinced that your preliminary measurements covered all of the bases and I am especially concerned about your not mentioning a proper way to measure the moment of inertia of the rotor.
MileHigh
Just for the fun it it, let's examine what Paul is supposed to measure. In other words, we know ahead time what is supposed to happen, so the question is if the measurements are made properly, will they show this to be the case, or will they show an anomaly indicating COP > 1?
Note with respect to Steorn proper, multiple curve balls are being thrown at their audience. In the first demo, the implication was that the spinning rotor was the source of the over unity because the rotor pumped excess energy into the generator coils to feed back to the battery. In their second demo they switched gears and implied that excess energy was supposed to be found in the toroidal coil's back spike. They have been hinting that there is excess Joule heating produced by the Orbo all along and this is the one I am discussing here. So what's up with Steorn? Will the true alleged source of free energy in the Orbo please step forward?
With respect to the heat question and Paul's setup, on the top level, we know that all of the electrical power input to Paul's mini Orbo is supposed to become heat power. As simple as 100% of electrical power = heat power. We will use imaginary rationalized units of energy, starting off with 100 units of supplied electrical energy to the system in a certain amount of time. My figures are simply for illustrative purposes, but they are in the ballpark.
So, here is the energy audit trail with a focus on heat:
100 Units of electrical energy in goes into the toroidal coil.
The energy in the toroidal coil is broken down into three parts; (a) 95 units of heat, (c) 2.5 units of back-EMF spike energy which becomes heat (or can be collected in a capacitor, etc), and (c) 2.5 units of "magnetic domain flush" energy.
That's it for the toroidal coil, typically 97.5 percent of the electrical energy you put into it becomes Joule heating energy.
So, now let's look at the magnetic domain flush energy, where does that go? The answer is that energy ultimately becomes increased rotational energy in the rotor. By flushing the magnetic domains inside the toroidal core, you effectively impart rotational energy into the rotor because of the "core disappearing" effect.
So, you have 2.5 units of rotational energy added to the already spinning rotor. Let's say 0.5 units of that energy gets turned into heat energy due to friction in the bearings, and 2 units of that energy gets turned into heat energy due to air friction.
That's the full breakdown on how 100 units of electrical input energy become 100 units of heat energy in Paul's (or anybody's) spinning Orbo replication. If you want to prove over unity, somewhere in that energy audit trail you have to measure excess energy.
Some of you may be shocked to see that the rotor is only dissipating a fraction of the electrical input energy and most of the input energy is already lost as heat before you even get going. That may be pretty sobering for some of you. If you don't believe me just remember that the burden is on you to prove that what I am saying is incorrect, not the other way around. What I am saying above is in full accord with the Law of Conservation of Energy, that wall that you replicators are trying to break through.
Like I said many times before, measuring RPMs vs. current consumption means absolutely nothing and it is an incomplete picture of what the pulse motor is actually doing. You simply can not tell if you have over unity or not by measuring RPMs vs. current consumption. Once you have all decided on what is the "right" toroidal coil configuration and the "right" core material, then you have to start really making meaningful measurements and stop building. Freeze the designs of your Orbo replications and start making real measurements.
MileHigh
A quick look at Paul's energy calculations for his mini Orbo:
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/01/19/orbo-replication-cop-measurements-2/
QuoteRevolutions per second: 26.5 rps
Pulses per second: 53.0 pulses/s
Peak voltage pulse across coil: 0.36 V
Peak current pulse through coil: 1.26 A
Inductance of coil during pulse: 60 uH
Power input into inductance: 0.5 * 60 uH * 1.262 A * 53.0 pulses/s = 2.52 mW
This calculation is dead wrong. Just use your scope to measure the volts x amps x time to get the input energy per pulse and them multiply that by an accurate measurement of the pulse rate to get your input power. You are claiming that the voltage is constant and the current is almost a perfectly square pulse so it will be easy. Alternatively you could measure the pulsing current with digital multimeter and it will give you an accurate value also. If you were smart, you would make the measurement both ways to see if they check out.
Sorry, but right now you are making a gross underestimation of the input power because your calculation doesn't even make any sense.
QuoteThe following math and results excludes joule heating from electrical wire resistance, as the goal is to see if there is any excess energy:
You simply cannot do that and don't try to convince yourself or anybody else that you can. If you wanted to really split hairs you could do an energy plot on a single current pulse where during the pulse there is a curve that traces out the "true effective power" that gets transferred into the rotor. The inverse of that curve is the "Joule heating power" curve. At the beginning of the pulse while you are flushing out the magnetic domain polarization and are saturating the core, a significant amount of the instantaneous power being pumped into the coil will effectively become increased rotational energy. However, that curve will fall off sharply and for the remainder of the pulse it will be mostly Joule heating in the wires of the toroidal coil. The "true effective power" curve and lost Joule heating curve are inexorably intertwined, you can't have one without the other. Even if you could separate them out, and generate a pulse that was pure "true effective power" then your cop would be 1, not over unity.
Your rotational energy calculation looks reasonably accurate but it is a hacked way of measuring the moment of inertia of the rotor. Thread, weights and pulleys and your camera would be the more serious and scientific way to do this. There may be better simple ways to do this that I am not aware of. You are already measuring rotor deceleration, and it would be so much easier to measure rotor acceleration to calculate the moment of inertia so I suggest that you try that route. Try doing some searching on "measuring moment of inertia string weight."
QuoteTotal friction heating from both NdFeB & black plastic outer rim: 2.90 mW + 1.00 mW + 0.460 mW = 4.36 mW
Assuming that your total friction heating is 4.36 mW +/-30%, then your true power consumption is probably somewhere between 200 and 400 mW (It could easily be more).
QuoteCOP: 4.36 mW / 2.52 mW = 1.73
I estimate your best case cop is (4.36 x 1.3)mW/200 mW = 0.028
I estimate your worst case cop is (4.36 x 0.7)mW/400 mW = 0.008
You've got a long way to go baby!!!
MileHigh
MH,
Thanks for staying on top of things here.
I leave it in your capable hands and trust your analysis, as I have not been following the Steorn stuff for a while now.
But I agree, 2.5mW sounds way too small as an input power.
.99
Hi Poynt, thanks for the comments.
Some more tasty tidbits on today's action...
The Seorn addendum video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYGSdUdONpw
I will start by commenting on part two of this video first. Measuring the voltage and current through the coil with and without the magnet in place makes no sense. If you are following this Steorn story and are an active replicator or participant in the technical discussions and don't know why, that is telling you that you should read up on basic electricity and magnetism.
I will assume that Steorn made this useless nonsensical point because they are playing to a larger audience, and some of them have checkbooks. One more time, another thing about Steron that does not smell right.
For the first part of the video where they measure the coil inductance there are some important points that they could have made here but omitted. The reason the measured inductance goes down is that the external magnet polarizes the majority of magnetic domains inside the toroidal core. These domains then will not react to the AC current being circulated through the toroidal coil by the inductance meter, and hence the inductance meter will read a much lower value.
What they are not telling you is that when the pulse of current turns on at TDC, the battery has to do real, tangible work, volts x amps x time, to force these already aligned magnetic domains into a new orientation. The net result of this is the magnetic attraction between the induced magnet in the core and the external magnet decreases by a large amount. Therefore the rotor is "free to continue turning" and can "keep" the kinetic energy it picked up in the attraction phase.
So, the big question is did the electrical energy you expended to rearrange the magnetic domains inside the toroidal coil cost you more or less than you gain in rotational energy in the rotor? This is a HUGE question and I am repeating myself here, I mentioned it a few weeks ago. This is one of the key issues that the replicators should be focusing on.
Another issue is the allegation that as the magnet moves away from the core, the effective inductance of the toroidal coil + core system increases, and thus you also can get a gain in energy from the back-EMF spike. Steorn did a previous demo all about this and some of you seeing this clip might be tempted to put two and two together and get five. You think that the measured inductance increase must be "proof" that the spike will contain free energy. This is simply not true. If you have an inductor with a certain amount of current flowing through it and you increase the inductance, then the current flowing through the inductor will decrease in response to the inductance change. If you don't believe me then just try and devise you own test for this and see what kind of results you get.
MileHigh
Wings and things....
Mr/Mrs/Ms Wings:
Quotefind in internet:
"There are some aspects of physics that are never taught and therefore never considered. If you add the magnetic field (B) from a bar magnet to one from a current carrying coil wound on that bar (deltaB) the field everywhere is a the sum of two terms, B+deltaB.
Energy density goes with the square of the field, so expanding the square of the sum we get B^2 +2BdeltaB + deltaB^2. B^2 is the original energy from the magnet. deltaB^2 is the energy from the coil. 2BdeltaB is excess energy gained from where?
You won't find the answer in your text books! That is not a trivial amount of energy, and it can be shown that it comes from the quantum domain. It is ignored because over a full cycle it is generally not available to us.
Can an electro-magnetic theory which ignores magnetic energy shuttling about within our machines be considered complete? Is it not possible that someone will eventually discover how to tap into that ignored energy flow?
- cyrilsmith UK "
You have to have more faith than that in science. To imply that there is a big "hole" that is "ignored" in text books like you are pointing out is laughable nonsense. Your posting is a "polluting" kind of posting bashing science. Another form of MIB or just ignorance gone wild???? ....doo-do doo-do doo-do doo-do...
Paul:
QuoteSo, looks like we're all on to something here folks. ;D Keep up the good work, and lets help bring about global free energy.
That, and your alleged retirement from the group because you ran a few simple experiments and claim COP > 1 and were off by a zillion miles??? (see my previous postings)
I think that you should come back into the fold and keep on working on trying to really figure out what is really going on. You tried to crack a nut the first time round but couldn't, time to try again. You have a little pulse motor that you can make valid measurements on just like anybody else.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.01.05, 23:05:58
Hey .99:
Thanks for your comments. I am being covertly spied upon! ;D 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
I was led here by a comment on the Youtube page, claiming a full accurate explanation. I agree with most of your analysis here.
However, your last paragraph I dont agree with.
If you notice, the coil is NOT fixed, that is, it appears to be just sitting there.
A step by step replication for you to test yourself is below, and perhaps afterwards you would agree that there is some danger involved, and it has nothing to do with "the spike". Im sure a couple of popped transistors are the last worry on Johns list ;)
1. Build a high speed rotor, make sure the magnets arent fully recessed or strapped in for full bulletproofness.
2. Place electromagnetic coil underneath, minus core, dont worry about fixing it down or anything.
3. Wind rotor up to high speed.
4. Negate use of one hand, since it will be filming the whole thing in this instance.
5. Insert magnetic material into core of floating electromangnet, using one hand only.
6. Remove magnets/rotor/supports/appendages from walls/roof/floor, or untangle the copper wire salad if you slip up.
Ever played that game "operation"?
:D
REN
I like you!
very funny
Chet
PS
I actually started laughing at number 1
Ren:
Welcome to the site. I didn't think about the delicate balancing act required while holding a camera in one hand and trying to insert a metal pipe into the core of the coil so you could be right. However, I could be right about the fake drama based on everything else that is going on in that series of clips.
Thanks for agreeing with what I said. The bottom line is that the clips by Bedini are totally lacking in good content. He tries to allude to the motor being a "no power consumption" (paraphrasing) motor about a dozen times across the couple of clips and it's not true at all. He completely fails to discuss the main issue; the differences in efficiency for transferring input power to the rotor for the two motor configurations. He never even discusses what the current waveforms would look like for the two configurations even if he doesn't have a shunt resistor and a scope channel to display them. I am truly unimpressed by that series of clips. Some people may argue that he is simplifying his "explanations" for what is going on and I don't buy that at all.
MileHigh
Okay time for some fresh comments on the whole Steorn drama.
For starters, there is nothing on the Steorn web site about any upcoming activity this week. This is the last week of the month so what gives?! They said that by the end of January they would give a definitive demonstration showing over unity and they would let people test some setups themselves. Is it really going to happen? If yes there had better be something on their web site about it tomorrow. My Spidey senses are tingling again.
Teslaalset:
QuoteIf you put a permanent magnet accurately positioned next to the toroid coil this substitutes the DC control of a MAG AMP.
Not true. You are forgetting about the alignment of magnetic domains in the core. A permanent magnet placed next to the core will have the opposite effect that you are speculating on because it will align the magnetic domains the "wrong" way. In a magnetic amplifier, the DC control signal will align the magnetic domains the "right" way making it easier for an external AC signal to saturate the core. In your example will take
more energy to saturate the core because of this. However, ultimately this is what you want, because that is how the drive mechanism for the Steorn pulse motor works.
I am going to talk briefly about the Metglas cores for your toroidal coils. I am not an expert here and did a bit of reading about it and I was taught this stuff a long time ago. It seems to me that you all have settled on the "Magamp" style Metglas core as the one to go with. This core has a very square hysteresis loop.
I see a real problem with this choice of core material. The very square hysteresis loop means that the core is going to retain almost all of it's magnetic flux when you switch off the power to the core, which is exactly the opposite of what you want.
Look at these bullet points for the Magamp core material:
Quote# Low saturated permeability
# Low coercive field - indicating a small reset current
# Low loss - because of thin (18µm) ribbon
# Small size
Do you see where it says "a small reset current"? You guys don't have any core flux reset mechanisms in your designs. Plus, the Metglas core looks incredibly difficult to reset, it is more likely to flip polarity and end up magnetized in the opposite direction than it is going to become demagnetized.
If those of you reading here don't understand what they are talking about by mentioning a "reset current" then it means you should start searching online, or even better open up a book, and learn about what a magnetization curve and a hysteresis loop for a magnetic material really means.
If I recall your good buddy Paul Lowrance championed the notion that Magamp-flavoured Metglas "square" cores were what you needed because of their super-high relative permeability without even looking at or discussing what a square hysteresis loop really means.
I could be wrong here, but I have seen this pattern of behaviour over and over with Paul. He fixates on what he thinks is the "right" technology without considering all of the options and variables. He is pushing his limited knowledge past his luck, and one more time it seems to have backfired on him, and most of you fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Sorry, I don't mean to be harsh, but I am just calling it like I see it.
MileHigh
Let me offset the "Bad Cop" posting with a "Good Cop" posting.
Gravityblock provided a link to a Hitachi Metals "Finemet" product brief:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile&id=362
It appears that Metglas use the Finemet materials to make some of their cores.
Please have a look at the second page of the brochure where you can see DC B-H curves (a.k.a.: "hysteresis loops") for three different types of Finemet materials, H-type, M-type, and L-type.
It is pretty obvious that Metglas uses the H-type material for their Metglas Magamp-style cores. The H-type uses a circumferential magnetic field during annealing to give it the desired property, a "square" hysteresis loop. Again, to repeat, this is the type of core that everybody is all excited about and I think that you are all wrong.
Have a look instead at the L-type core material. For this material a magnetic field is applied vertically to the core plane during annealing. Take a look at the hysteresis loop for this core material.
This loop shows you that when you stop energizing the toroidal coil wrapped around the L-type core material, the core material will loose almost all of its induced magnetic flux. Therefore the core will "reappear" so that the magnet on the rotor will become attracted to it.
You absolutely need to have the core
disappear and then
reappear to have an efficiently running Orbo-style motor.
In contrast to this, the hysteresis loop for the H-type material will retain almost all of its induced magnetic flux when you stop energizing the toroidal coil wrapped around the core. Therefore the core will barely "reappear" so that the magnet on the rotor will barely become attracted to it. This means that every time that you go to energize the H-type core, it is already nearly completely saturated and thus the pulse energy is mostly wasted in this case.
I acknowledge that I am not factoring in the external magnetic field that comes from the moving magnet. It looks to me like it will partially rearrange some of the magnetic domains in the H-type material for the unenergized coil, which will create some attraction between the magnet and the core. The main point is that if we make the assumption that the approaching magnet will not be able to rearrange the already-lined-up magnetic domains inside the core, then the magnet will be barely attracted to the H-type core. Again, this is because the core will be already nearly completely magnetized when the toroidal coil is not energized because of the nature of its B-H curve. This magnetization will prevent the magnet from being attracted to the core. The only way to overcome this problem would be to demagnetize the core after the energizing pulse is over, each and every time. That would require extra electronics and extra power.
For the sake of completeness let's look at another scenario: The neo magnets on your rotor are so strong that it doesn't really matter if the toroidal core is made of H-type or L-type core material. Either way the overwhelmingly strong magnetic fields from the neo magnets will rearrange the domains inside the core material, whether they are already aligned or not, and there will be an attraction phase. If this happens then what is the down side for the H-type core? The down side is that the "battle" between the strong magnetic fields of the neo magnets and the already-aligned magnetic domains of the H-type core represents
lost energy. Every time the neo magnet passes by the already-aligned H-type core and rearranges it there is an energy burn - the rotor slows down and the core gets hot. That is a situation that you want to avoid.
In my opinion you have chosen the wrong core material to make the pulse motor run. You want a core with low coercivity, a "soft" magnetic material that looses almost all of it's magnetism when you stop energizing. You absolutely need that property to make your motor run well. You also want a core material with as small an area inside the hysteresis loop as possible because the area inside the hysteresis loop represents lost energy in the form of heat.
A few choice Wiki quotes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercivity
QuoteMaterials with high coercivity are called hard ferromagnetic materials, and are used to make permanent magnets.
QuoteThe squareness (M(H=0)/Ms) and coercivity are figures of merit for hard magnets although energy product (saturation magnetization times coercivity) is most commonly quoted.
QuoteThe coercivity is a measure of the degree of magnetic hysteresis and therefore characterizes the lossiness of soft magnetic materials for their common applications.
QuoteA material with a low coercivity is said to be soft and may be used in microwave devices, magnetic shielding, transformers, or recording heads.
Finally, here is a choice quote from Overunity.com. It is what I see when I go to the site:
QuoteSorry MileHigh, you are banned from posting or sending personal messages on this forum.
Twisting facts in the Steorn topic
Your ban is not set to expire.
That statement above is absolute bullshit, and you can read what I have posted on this thread and on the OU thread and decide for yourselves. I am just trying to give you my opinions and some facts on the whole Steorn/Orbo/replicators issue. I don't claim to know everything or be right all of the time. If you think that I am a liar, or a "paid disinformation agent", or I work for "Big Oil" then you are a nutcase as far as I am concerned. If some of you are with me then you realize that I am trying to help you develop some critical thinking skills to evaluate what Steorn is doing for yourselves. I think that Steorn are fakes, I have no problem putting my cards on the table. However, my point of view doesn't necessarily mean that everything I say about Steorn is a "spin" to bash them because it's not.
People that have ordered Metglas "Magamp" style cores should also order Metglas cores that are based on the L-type core material. I predict that you replications will run much much better with cores based on the L-type material.
The next time one of these design issues comes up I strongly suggest that you have a
real debate and discuss
all of the aspects of the design choice.
MileHigh
Gravityblock:
QuoteIf Metglas doesn't have the Aharonov–Bohm effect and is not as soft as FINEMET, then the Metglas may not be just fine. Don't forget, the bread crumbs on researching the Aharonov–Bohm effect has led me to the FINEMET. I also think the Aharonov–Bohm effect is the Orbo effect. It appears FINEMET is a very soft material, which may be what Steorn is referring to when he says a soft material.
I looked at the Wiki on the Aharonov–Bohm effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov%E2%80%93Bohm_effect
I am sure that there are much better places than Wiki to get more information. I am no quantum physics expert but look at the first sentence:
QuoteThe Aharonov–Bohm effect, sometimes called the Ehrenberg–Siday–Aharonov–Bohm effect, is a quantum mechanical phenomenon by which an electrically charged particle is affected by the electromagnetic potential A in regions in which both the magnetic field B and electric field E are zero.
There are no electrically charged particles in the eOrbo replications. Plus quantum effects are all microscopic in nature, not macroscopic. I really don't see any connection at all between the Aharonov–Bohm effect and the allegation that the eOrbo is a free energy device. Partial differential equations also give me a headache.
Going back to the debate about the choice of core materials, you and Paul argued a lot about the Tesla field strength of the saturated cores for different materials along with many other posters. Who said "more Tesla's are better?" Did anybody say that and give a rationale for this? This is closely related to the relative permeability of different core materials. Who said that a relative permeability of 1,000,000 is better than 50,000? Did anybody say that and give a rationale for this? What if the difference in core magnet attraction performance between a relative permeability of 1,000,000 and 50,000 is 0.0004%? I don't know the answers here I am just giving you things to think about. My impression is that almost everyone blindly went along with the thinking that "more Teslas is better" and "higher relative permeability is better" without offering a rational reason for this or understanding why. This is a dangerous and unscientific way of doing your research and your replications. There
must be a
rational reason behind
every design choice and you can't simply think that "bigger is better."
I am no expert on this stuff, but I honestly don't see any merit to the Aharonov–Bohm effect idea, or the "more Teslas", or the "higher relative permeability" design goals. In my opinion, just abut everybody ignored the most fundamental basic property of your core material that affects the operation of the pulse motor, the B-H curves.
In my postings on this thread I have mentioned four or five ways to test the replications to see if they are over unity or not. My advice to the replicators would be to try running some of my proposed tests for over unity or make up your own. My proposed tests are real and doable, I don't know what everybody is waiting for. Only pay limited attention to the current vs. RPMs. That data means almost nothing.
Please! Somebody try to run some tests on their replications to test for over unity! I have already stated four or five good ideas for doing this in this thread. Try them out or develop your own!!! Please!
MileHigh
Well, I'm back again....
Looking forward to the "Really big Steorn sheww" on Saturday. If it's a bust then Sean can try spinning some plates instead.
I know that some of the OU crowd are reading here, perhaps quite a few of them. I am going to tackle the "COP issue" one more time and I encourage one of you to post a link to this posting on OU. Don't be afraid to do it and shake off your "free energy politically correct" straight-jackets because this is an important issue.
Paul Lowrance said:
QuotePeople should be encouraged to take COP measurements. How long something runs on a battery is meaningless, lol.
So let's have a second and more detailed look at his COP measurement.
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/01/19/orbo-replication-cop-measurements-2/
For starters, Paul wants you to imagine what his COP would "really look like" if all the wiring was superconducting and there were no resistive heat losses. Hence he believes that he can demonstrate COP > 1. This is complete nonsense. We are working in the real world here and COP is (power out/power in) whether Paul likes it or not.
QuoteThe following math and results excludes joule heating from electrical wire resistance, as the goal is to see if there is any excess energy:
No way Paul, your premise is wrong and you have to work in the real world.
As a reminder, a pulse motor just spinning there and giving you no useful electrical or mechanical output has a COP of zero. So in the truest sense of the word, Paul's COP is zero. This important fact should be pointed out to Ossie also. However, in the spirit of the group, we will discuss a COP that's based on COP being defined as (rotor dissipative heat power out/electrical power in).
Here is Paul's input power calculation:
QuoteRevolutions per second: 26.5 rps
Pulses per second: 53.0 pulses/s
Peak voltage pulse across coil: 0.36 V
Peak current pulse through coil: 1.26 A
Inductance of coil during pulse: 60 uH
Power input into inductance: 0.5 * 60 uH * 1.26-squared A * 53.0 pulses/s = 2.52 mW
Here is Paul's logic: The amount of energy stored in the coil using the standard formula times the number of pulses per second is equal to the input power.
This is totally incorrect and I have to assume that this is a method that Paul made up in his head. We know that the current waveform rise time will appear to have a longer time-constant because when you are charging the coil you are also imparting energy to the rotor. TWO things are happening at the same time when current is flowing into the coil, a) coil charging and b) energy transfer into the rotor. Paul is mistakenly only considering one of the two, and it's the wrong one.
Paul also wants to ignore resistive losses in the coil and as i have already stated above, you simply can't do this, it is ridiculous to say that.
Paul's input energy calculation is simplistic nonsense and it is totally wrong.
Moving on to the "output power" calculation:
QuoteTotal friction heating from both NdFeB & black plastic outer rim: 2.90 mW + 1.00 mW + 0.460 mW = 4.36 mW
QuoteFriction heating was calculated by doing a control experiment. During the control experiment, the "tiny orbo replication" was rotating over 28 rps. The deceleration rate was then recorded after turning the "tiny orbo replication" off.
How did Paul measure the deceleration? This is not an easy thing to do and he says nothing about it. People on the OU thread should want to know this important piece of information. Somebody on OU should force his hand and ask him to explain this in detail.
The calculations of the dissipative energies above are based on a "poor man's" moment of inertia calculation but we will assume that they are at least in the ballpark.
QuoteCOP: 4.36 mW / 2.52 mW = 1.73
Forget it! In Paul's YouTube comments he mentions that his mini pulse motor consumes about 150 mW of power.
Therefore the COP is more like 4.36 mW / 150 mW = 0.029.
I will repeat again, this is a "fake COP" because there is zero useful power outout from Paul's pulse motor. In addition, his estimate of 2.52 mW of power consumption if you factor out thermal heating in the interconnect and coil wires is nonsense. That calculation makes no sense at all, it is pure junk.
Finally, if you really could ignore all of the heat losses associated with powering the device, the COP would approach 1 but never actually reach 1. There are too many other places where the energy transfer efficiency is less than one. The magnetic field coupling is the first one that comes to mind. The only way to get COP > 1 in this case is to believe that Steorn has a "magic" configuration that produces "magic" energy out of nothing. We will perhaps see on Saturday when they do their next live demo that is alleged to produce over unity.
MileHigh
Well I missed the "FINAL" demo "PROVING" free Orbogasmic energy but I can see that there are cracks showing up in the "Orbo scene" and I will have to watch it tomorrow...
Captainpecan:
QuoteAs a replicator, I was really pulling for them to come out and actually prove something. And they did that. They proved that they obviously do not care to prove anything. I'm very disappointed, and all I can say is that I'm extremely grateful that Ossie showed his finds, because Steorn pretty much lost a ton of respect on this demo, at least from me. I think I'm wasting my time if I spend 1 more second on my Orbo replication. This was a joke. Sorry guys, I hate posting negative thoughts, but I have a feeling I'm not alone on this one.
I'm not disappointed. Just look at Steorn's track record and even before seeing the replay tomorrow, it all fits. I'm not surprised.
You are all getting overexcited like kids that aren't thinking with respect to Ossie's motor. Nobody has made any serious real measurements on Ossie's motor and you are all just repeating the same old pattern. You are all jumping the gun, again. The challenge is for someone to make real measurements on Ossie's motor as well as just connecting the thing to a battery for months and months. Replace a bearing on the fly if necessary. The battery will run dead, I assure you. Also, forget about talking about battery voltage readings, they are almost meaningless. That means if you are a serious researcher, they ARE meaningless.
QuoteEven though I do not agree with Pauls COP measurements and do not feel it proves OU, his results were probably hands down a much better attempt of proof than Steorn's FINAL DEMO OF PROOF OF OU! That was a spit in the eye for the free energy movement that Steorn just dealt us all.
So today's FINAL demo really sucked that bad, eh? I look forward to seeing it tomorrow. Paul's COP measurements are completely wrong, and don't constitute any better an attempt at proof than what you are stating about Steorn's attempt.
QuoteAt least we learned a couple details during Seans attempt to avoid answering any difficult questions. He said they are using just over an amp of current. And he also said the average runtime on the reed switch orbo is 7 days.
Here is one of those glaring hit-Steorn-in-the-face questions: If the reed switches fail every seven days why not just have someone change them out live on cam on the fly and then keep the Orbos going with the same batteries? Why did they have to "shut down" an Orbo and take it away to change a lousy reed switch? It probably would have taken no more than five minutes to do it. Why aren't there any Orbos that could still have been running on the same batteries from the December 15th demo on live cam?
I don't think Steorn are hitting the front page of the Wall Street Journal after today's demo from what I can gather so far.
MileHigh
P.S.: Special message to Gravityblock: For a few days you were reading my postings about the Metglas cores and related issues and you were agreeing with me. You took what I said and repeated it on OU without giving me any credit. You made some good points and got a real debate going. Then you had the nerve to post saying that I was "twisting the facts" about Steorn and the Orbo, just like Stefan did. In the future, if you take one of my points and repeat it on OU then you have to give me credit for it. You have a long way to go before you have a real understanding of electronics, electromagnetism, and energy. I speak with truth and conviction, and I don't claim to be right 100% of the time.
I have been reading the Steron forum and it looks like today's demo was a complete disaster and nothing was proven.
The next day -->> I watched the Steorn presentation on YouTube and it was very disappointing for the believers and for the skeptics. Only the die-hard rabid believers think that the demo was good and presented solid evidence.
It was an almost bizarre anti-climax and now Steorn is indicating that they are going to go back underground and burn cash and look for angels.
They set up a DSO to integrate on the "input power" and the power being dissipated in a shorted-out pickup coil. Some of my readers will note that I have already stated that that a shorted-out coil represents almost no load on the rotor because of the impedance mismatch with the spinning rotor.
The integrated "input power" curve on the DSO made no sense, and Steorn did not give any real details as to what the hang was going on there. Oooh it was awful.
All in all it was a mess, and Sean and Co. are going to be on the defensive... until the bailiff arrives to padlock the door as part of the bankruptcy proceedings.
I am pretty disgusted considering this was supposed to be the "final proof" that Steorn has not just been a six-year excuse to surf the net and sit on your ass and collect paychecks.
The gang at OU are very subdued, as they should be. If you go other places on line where like-minded people about Steorn hang out, there is an overwhelming mild to very negative reaction to the recent "final" demo.
MileHigh
OK,
Help me out here MH and good folks.
They are displaying output energy with the brown trace, and it does indeed look how an integrated power trace should look. However, I am uncertain how the scope deals with an ever increasing accumulation of energy as a measurement. It seems to recycle at every display retrace by re-setting the energy back to some reference level. Anyone know what is going on there?
Secondly, I'm not sure I agree with you 100% MH about the output coil not presenting a load to the rotor. I think it presents a worst-case load actually. If there is a B-field produced in that pickup coil, then it surely will have a Lenz effect on the rotor magnets that induced it. At any rate, how can they be obtaining a power output measurement when only the output current is being measured ??? One way to measure the power being induced in a shorted coil would be to measure its temperature rise above ambient, then compare that with a DC control profile. There are probably other ways of measuring its power. Is I2*R a valid measurement, R being the DC resistance of the pickup coil? Perhaps. I fully expect the R value of that coil will be given with the posted data.
Third, why are they comparing an energy measurement (output) with a power (see post #118 below) measurement (input)? That is mixing apples and oranges, and I do not see how one can get a COP figure by using those two very different and diverging values? What they should be measuring imo is the input power and output power using a data dump from the scope and computing the input power over 4 cycles or so, and comparing that with the output power measured as per above.
How could Steorn with all their engineers overlook something so obvious and critical? I'm dumbfounded.
.99
This fiasco brings to mind Don Smith, our Water Fuel friends Stanley Meyer and Bob Boyce, and more recently the Agentgates TPU saga.
It's almost as if they all found something interesting but then instead of fully investigating the phenomena, they jump the gun by providing unsubstantiated claims in order to get funding.
Then some Techy pipes up, 'Ooops, I think we might have made a boo-boo in our calculations... we had the multimeter set on the mAmp range not the Amps... bugger!'.
But what can they do now?
They can either face up to the mistake, red-faced and embarrased, and no doubt with a lot of creditors ready to tear into them... or they can buy some time by bullshitting and attempting to keep the dream alive.
Either way, they lose respect and people begin to lose faith, but the bullshitting path has merit in that it can be maintained until the premises mysteriously goes up in flames, the MIB raid it, or the inventor is conveniently abducted by aliens!
They should have saved the budget they blew on the scopes, probes, cameras, plexiglass, building rent etc. and spent it on making a small self runner or two.
Sean says they need batteries because the power source needs to be "deep"? (i presume he means they don't want V sag over one pulse or perhaps higher instantaneous current?) well I can tell you a cap of equivalent E storage would show less V drop over one pulse than a batt because a batt does have small capacitance in it which can only be refilled at the rate the cells internal R allows. And of course the instantaneous current available from said cap would trounce a batt which has much higher equivalent series resistance.
Even if you used a really small cap that did sag a little over 1 pulse then you could use an efficient regulator to make it nice and flat. Then the pickup could fill the cap brim full ready for the next pulse. After all regulator losses would be insignificant in a COP==3 system.
Well I suppose it could have been worse they could have had 2 x 60AH SLABs with blue and green stickers sat on the bench.
Even if they HAD to use a bat then why not use a AAA NiCd and then bridge a high turn pickup coil into it, then they could show batt V on big LCD and everyone could say "Well at least that's something!" as the batt climbed from say 0.9V at the start to 1.3V after some time of running. With the 300% electrical COP claim they could have also driven a small IC/piezo playing some dandy celtic music with blue and green LEDs whilst STILL recharging the battery.
No self runner, no magic! simple as that! Sure use intruments and measurements to discover but if after measuring COP==3 you cant cobble together feedback for self runner then your full of ****.
Anyone believing this after what has been presented must be either desperate to believe or just not informed enough to analyse the claim.
edit:
My mind strongly entertains the idea that Steorn is a psyops organisation established by god knows whom in order to discredit the whole idea of uncharted FE research. I can imagine a young optimistic person being led along Steorns whimsical path only to be let down at the end. That persons enthusiasm would be somewhat attenuated.
Fraser
Quote:
Anyone believing this after what has been presented must be desperate to believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't say that the "fat Lady"sang yet!
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8411.msg226101#msg226101
Chet
Quote from: ramset on 2010.02.01, 17:50:40
I wouldn't say that the "fat Lady"sang yet!
...
Chet
Perhaps not, but I can hear her warming up in the back room.
Why no closed loop?
Hey Fraser, Are you telling me you can get my cop 13 air conditioner to run itself, That would be really cool.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2010.02.01, 18:39:01
Hey Fraser, Are you telling me you can get my cop 13 air conditioner to run itself, That would be really cool.
Hi Room3327,
COP13 sounds higher than I've heard of, sounds interesting, do you have a link to such a system? I suppose if you could establish a thermal gradient whose average available thermal power was 13 times greater than the average power required to mantain it then sure you could get a selfrunner, I would think a good stirling engine with magneto would have more than enough efficiency to close the loop on such a device. Go for it!
I was speaking only of an electrical system, in that case I could definitely close the loop on a Orbo (provided it is COP3); that's taking into account any input conditioning (constant I or constant V) that may be required and all other ohmic and inductive losses in the system as a whole. Even if it has the Bedini like caveat of "you cannot destroy the dipole" then it can be done with a 4 pole 2 way switch to swap the input and output cells, you can buy SLABs real small and swap them more frequently to expediate measurements, after all nobody wants to spend many days evaluating a system unless it's absolutely necessary. I suggest anyone buy the smallest model "cyclon" cells for such experiments.
edit:
of course for any heat pump experiments you want to try it's best to do away with magneto and electric motor and replace with direct coupled belt drive for max system efficiency. Good luck and please do keep us posted with results be they good or bad.
QuoteHey Fraser, Are you telling me you can get my cop 13 air conditioner to run itself, That would be really cool.
Room3327 your confusing COP with SEER - its a rookie mistake ;D
P.S. Chet:
The I*I*R measurement being discussed in Omnibuses post means nothing because we did not see a DC R measurement being taken of the pickup coil. If we had then I would be happy because it would be good enough, sure their would be some optimism in the observed current due to inductive aspects but at the frequency of the signal being measured (generated by passing mags) they would be negligible. So yes it's a good enough test to give at least +/-10% accuracy but why on earth did they not show the pickup coil R? Without showing the pickups resistance the results are completely worthless?
I'm still watching the show, just calling my hunch early is all, I'm still waiting for 3rd parties to do independent testing.
Crucially they did not demonstrated a close circuit / fully isolated system running on a small energy storage like
large capacitor say 0.2 Farad by 10 volt (a start may be done on battery subsequently disconnected).
Without this there is no true proof of concept of overunity.
As a physicist and an electronics professional I know how easy to cheat / mistaken oscilloscope measurements
by a little turn of the scaling knob. There was no details of their measurement set-up so they free to do any incorrect settings there.
By the way if you have seen their voltage traces taken from so called differential voltage probe from their previous
demonstrations 1-6 and first presentation video you may notice the pulse peaks was cut flat at some modest voltage.
That is probably their way to deal with very high voltages generated as one try to cut current in inductor very
quickly as V = L dI /dt by definition of inductance. With unsaturated inductor about 1 Henry and current
dropping at least 1 amp in 10 msec we got 100 volt pulse! Their active differential voltage probe seen in the box
in front of scope obviously cuts these peaks flat. If you then measure power by scope by multiplying current and
voltage traces with subsequent integration of power into energy trace you are missing those cut portions from the
balance. They are short like 5% of period but they easily may be 50 times higher in voltage compared with those
registered by the scope. So you lost here 125% of energy! As a result you underestimate it twice! I would hardly
believe my own measurements with such equipment until I make some control experiments. It is too easy to make
a calibration mistake as well.
Nothing can be truly trusted except a close circuit with small energy storage capacity run for a long time.
Optimised close circuit set-up can easily run for a week on 10 Amp * Hours battery I guess. During presentation
they claimed they draw 1 amp but it is only during pulse itself and there is no recuperation of this inductive energy
(which can be done) also as there is no recuperation of mechanical energy back to electrical by installing a efficient
electric generator on the same wheel. All this may make 1 week?
So only capacitor helps to proof overunity. Say with energy like C*U^2 = 0.2 Farad *(1.4volts)^2/2 = 0.2 Joule.
Yet it consumes only 10% of its voltage during 1 amp pulse lasting 20 milliseconds which must be enough to run whole thing.
OK?
Quote from: vpo20 on 2010.02.01, 20:08:25
Crucially they did not demonstrated a close circuit / fully isolated system running on a small energy storage like
large capacitor say 0.2 Farad by 10 volt
....
Nothing can be truly trusted except a close circuit with small energy storage capacity run for a long time.
....
Sound post vpo20,
Yup, the statements I quote sum the situation up. Show me the large breasted siren that is a closed loop self runner and I will stand to attention, until then I shall remain flacid.
If they ever post it, the real story will be told from the data.
Two things to look for:
1) the DCR value of the pickup coil
2) did they really integrate the input power?
.99
OK, Sean did say the input was an energy trace as well. Hey, how come you guys didn't correct me? ;D
I have to say though, if that blue trace is indeed the integration of the instantaneous input power, then it appears most is returned to the supply after each pulse. Sure looks suspiciously like a plot of instantaneous power, not an integrated one. Hope I'm wrong.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.02.02, 00:51:23
OK, Sean did say the input was an energy trace as well. Hey, how come you guys didn't correct me? ;D
I have to say though, if that blue trace is indeed the integration of the instantaneous input power, then it appears most is returned to the supply after each pulse. Sure looks suspiciously like a plot of instantaneous power, not an integrated one. Hope I'm wrong.
.99
The blue trace could well be integration of instantaneous power as it has a duty cycle of about 30% in it, the pulse duties of the orbo were quoted at 20...30deg over 180deg that comes out at around 14% duty. Now if we look at the main upcurves in the blue trace we see the occupy about that duty.
When I imagine what the first derivative of the blue trace would be I see an upspike going through some curve into downspike. And of course the area above zero is slighlty more than the area below zero, hence the uptrend in the blue trace indicating net power cost.
So it appears that most of the pulse power gets returned to supply but without knowing the DCR value they entered into the scope for the output integration all speculation is worthless, why they ommited this pivotal measurement and why nobody in the audience asked is beyond me!
And if the DCR value was enetered correctly and the output power really is that much greater than input then why on earth with all their expertise couldn't they close the loop? I'm sure I could and I'm sure given a COP3 element you could no matter how mismatched the IP/OP were. with COP3 one can afford to be quite sloppy in matching schemes and still close the loop, you only need greater than 33% matching efficiency to go selfrun.
Quote from: Fraser on 2010.02.02, 16:44:22
The blue trace could well be integration of instantaneous power as it has a duty cycle of about 30% in it, the pulse duties of the orbo were quoted at 20...30deg over 180deg that comes out at around 14% duty. Now if we look at the main upcurves in the blue trace we see the occupy about that duty.
It makes sense of course that the duty cycle seen in the integration would match that of the actual pulse applied to the coils. Because of the net upward slope of the blue trace, I would agree that it most likely is integrated. The blue trace has a duty cycle of about 32% or 33%. Clearly that is the duty cycle of the energizing pulse to the coils. I am not sure where that 14% duty comes from, nor the relevance. Whatever Sean says should be taken with a big caution pill. Duty cycle is duty cycle, correct me if I'm wrong. The trace says it all...32%.
Looking forward to seeing the posted spreadsheet data dump.
.99
Orbo Busted?...I believe YES!
OK folks, I've been wondering what it would take for much of the energy used in pulsing the coils to
apparently return to the source (as we see from the blue scope trace).
In doing some simulations, I believe I've discovered Steorn's fatal flaw in their measurement of the input power/energy. In the
video part 2 (http://www.steorn.com/iframe-vid29.html) Sean denotes what is being measured, and he mentions: 1) Input Current, 2) Input Voltage, and 3) Output pickup coil current.
The Input Current is being measured with a current probe (this is proper technique), and other than a possible positioning change, this is most likely ok.
However, and
this is critical,
what exactly does Sean mean when he says Input Voltage?Being that they are using a differential scope probe, I highly suspect they are in fact measuring the
voltage across the coils. This is INCORRECT.
In my simulation, I have been able to show an
apparent return of about 83% of the energy in the coils. This is very much in line with Steorn's blue trace if not counting the long gradual slope after each pulse.
In any case,
it must be stressed that this trace is NOT illustrating the energy profile from the power source! If Steorn was to move the differential probe to be directly across the power source, they would not only see the true net energy from the source, but it would look entirely different compared to the trace they are showing in the referenced demo.
Indeed the coils are giving up that energy, but it is not making its way back to the source, it is being dissipated in the circuit as heat. The power source shows a consistent net energy loss with no sign of any gain at all.
(A more detailed illustration with scope shots is available if anyone would like to see this posted).
.99
99:
Here is Omnibus' comment about the posting on OU:
QuoteYou have given a link to an obviously incompetent commentary. Therefore, it is to be ignored.
Message to Omnibus: Stop trying to pretend that you are holding court about Steorn on OU. I qualified you with respect to your technical knowledge by reading a lot of your comments on the "other" Steorn forum and it is almost nonexistent. Poynt99 on the other hand has excellent technical qualifications and I agree with everything that he said it his posting above.
This is the worst part of your statement, "it is to be ignored." Stop trying to pretend that you are Big Brother exercising thought control over the OU crowd. By the same token everyone in the OU crowd are reading your most outrageous and ridiculous statements and saying nothing. You guys and gals on OU, show that you have spines and can think for yourselves. The Steorn thread on OU has become a joke, speak up and have a healthy debate amongst yourselves and stop being too afraid to disagree with each other.
MileHigh
It would seem many folks ARE interested in the post here, despite the delinquent advice being given about it.
Check the video between 3:50 and 4:50; that says it all. Sean clearly states that "electrical in" and "net Joule heating out" are being compared against each other.
To obtain net electrical in (which is the output from the source), the source voltage and current must be measured, not the voltage across the coil(s) and the current.
.99
Seems some folks at OU are having trouble comprehending the conundrum Steorn has possibly got themselves into now that their measurement error has been revealed.
Here are a couple scope plots to help clarify the problem.
The circuit is a standard low-side coil switcher using an IRF820 MOSFET. The pulse width and tau shown is not that important. What is important to note is that the energy in the coils (that is plotted by integrating the instantaneous power in them) can be shown to appear as though they are returning energy to the power source. This is the blue trace. Steorn is using this measurement to illustrate the power consumption of the Orbo motor, when in fact this is not the case at all. This blue trace strictly shows the energy profile of the coils and nothing more.
Some astute folks may see that the blue trace is actually "folded over", and if unfolded, the energy would nearly equal that expended by the power source.
The red trace shown in these two plots illustrates the true energy profile of the power source, and it's clear that no energy is being returned to it in the process of inductive kickback as Steorn is claiming.
The question that needs to be asked of and in fact proven by Steorn is:
Is Steorn measuring the voltage across the coils or across the power supply?
.99
This should further help to explain the blue trace, and why it is actually "folded-over" in terms of the amount of energy it represents and where it is going.
.99
A comparison of Steorn's original blue "net electrical in" trace, and two cycles of the same trace unfolded to illustrate a more realistic energy profile supplied to the circuit.
By this, it's quite clear that there is far more energy going in to the circuit than what the pickup coil is generating.
.99
I sent a message to TK via his Youtube account, and this is an excerpt from his response.
QuoteYep, I just looked at your scope sims. You are right, of course, and you are basically saying the same thing that I have been saying from the beginning. You are saying it much more clearly and your sims are very convincing, where I was just trying to get a qualitative description clear in my own head.
The problem, though, is that Steorn is claiming that all that heat power is not supposed to be counted, when comparing input to output, so they are subtracting it from the integral. As long as they are allowed to claim that the rotor is being powered by (V*I - I^2R) rather than simply (V*I) the total input power, they will claim OU, since the rotor "logically" is only powered by that input energy that does NOT go to heat, either as direct resistive Joule losses or the more indirect dissipation of the flyback pulse that you have explained so well.
But I maintain that you cannot separate these two portions of the input at all, because the I^2R loss part is a necessary overhead, and there isn't any way to just drive the rotor by injecting some (V*I - I^2R) remainder into it somewhere. You need the whole shebang, even if most of it is lost to heat.
Keep up the good work; there are folks on moletrap that would also like to see this so I will post a link.
--TK
TK, all,
Is there any evidence that Steorn is in fact subtracting the
I2R losses either in the real-time scope trace or afterward in post-processing?
I have seen this mentioned at OU as well, but I really doubt that they are indeed doing this. Why? Sean clearly indicates that by extrapolating/comparing the two traces shown on the scope, the COP can be approximated to be about 3, AND, I have been able to closely duplicate that blue trace wave form without performing any other math on the trace.
If my hunch is correct about Steorn measuring the coil voltage rather than the power supply voltage (and I believe I am), then they are in fact measuring ONLY the
I2R losses, and of the coil alone. This represents the majority of the energy being sourced by the supply, the remaining energy is what is being dissipated in the MOSFET switch (assuming they are using one) and the circuit wiring as
I2R losses, and some Joule heating in the coil cores. The output energy from the rotor momentum and the heating generated by the pickup coil, represent a relatively small portion of energy compared to what the power supply is sourcing to the circuit.
What Steorn is presenting and claiming about that blue trace is incorrect.
It is not the "net electrical in" at all. In fact, it is part of the net electrical out to be correct.If analyzed properly, it becomes obvious the device is grossly underunity.
.99
A message to Max:
Get yourself away from Steorn as far as possible, and as soon as possible. OU may be out there, but it's not with Orbo.
You appear to be a young, bright and aspiring electronics wiz. Use your common sense and decide if you're on the right path. Filter through all the nonsensical techobabble and embrace some healthy objectivity.
The posts here and TK's videos have hopefully given you something to think about.
Cheers,
.99
Hey Poynt,
It's me! lol
At this juncture do you see Steorn's proposition as being if you take away all of the Joule heating (pre and post switch-off) that they are somehow imparting more rotational energy in the rotor than is "supposed" to be there. Then they can drain off that energy in a pick-up coil and claim "over unity"? That's what it looks like to me.
During the pulse there is a "sliver" of (i * v) tha flushes out the "badly aligned" domains from the core. That's ultimately what imparts energy to the rotor. They are claiming the area of the sliver translates into more rotational energy than expected in the rotor.
Of course this is all Steornian Orwellian steornspeak, because for years we have all been thinking that the claim was "true" over unity.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.02.17, 03:43:20
Hey Poynt,
It's me! lol
Nice to have you back 8)
Quote
At this juncture do you see Steorn's proposition as being if you take away all of the Joule heating (pre and post switch-off) that they are somehow imparting more rotational energy in the rotor than is "supposed" to be there. Then they can drain off that energy in a pick-up coil and claim "over unity"? That's what it looks like to me.
I actually have no idea what Steorn's true position/argument/claim is to be honest. Everything about them is "muddy". What you have said there could very well be their position indeed. What is the point though? That input
Joule heating energy still has to be expended to "free the magnets", so in the end what is gained?
What
I believe Steorn is precariously placing all their money on, is their misinterpretation of their misrepresented input energy measurement, nothing more.
They truly believe that:1) The blue trace is a measurement of energy
supplied by the source, and
2) The blue trace is proof that the
net energy expended (apparently noted at the end of each cycle) is 3 times less than what their pickup coil is burning off in its DCR.
Wrong on both accounts!
Quote
During the pulse there is a "sliver" of (i * v) that flushes out the "badly aligned" domains from the core. That's ultimately what imparts energy to the rotor.
They are claiming the area of the sliver translates into more rotational energy than expected in the rotor.
Of course this is all Steornian Orwellian steornspeak, because for years we have all been thinking that the claim was "true" over unity.
MileHigh
I believe the process is very simple:
1) The rotor magnet is attracted to the core (
and the core becomes partially polarized).
2) At TDC the coil is pulsed which fully polarizes/saturates the core and allows the rotor magnet to wiz on out of TDC and merrily on its way to the next coil.
3) The coil pulse is released between 20º to 30º after TDC, allowing the core Weiss domains to partially "relax" and re-orientate.
4) Repeat.
2a) Cores with high permeability and high "squareness ratio" are ideal for saturable core applications, and with the core already partially polarized by the rotor magnet, full saturation occurs quite quickly at the beginning of the pulse. The coil tau goes from a value of perhaps 200ms to one of about 30us in a very short time, and this accounts for the very minimal "inductive rise" shown in Steorn's scope shots demonstrating this effect. Of course along with this abrupt decrease of inductance comes an abrupt increase of supplied current to the coil, and full
Joule heating begins immediately.
3a) Upon release of the pulse, the coil current begins to diminish and the core's Weiss domains return to a more "neutral" position, causing a gradual increase in the coil inductance in the process. Here we have a tau transition that works in reverse, beginning with a very short value and ending in a very long one.
I hope my simulation will be able to answer any and all unanswered questions, and confirm what is now known about Orbo.
.99
Hello everybody. Steorn motor works with no so called "back EMF" simply because it uses parametric method of driving. Namely the magnetic permeability of the ferrite core is deeply changed due to magnetic saturation caused by applied coil current and superimposed orthogonal magnetic field from flying magnets. If you saw all presentations you may remember them measuring the inductance of coil in absence and presence of magnets. It is 1 Henry and 40 microHenry. Principle of driving is the same as driving children's swings / pendulum when rider stands quickly up each time when swings passes middle point and sits down down at extreme points of deflection. Electrical resonance circuit also can brought into oscillation if capacitance changes twice per one period of oscillation. It called parametric resonance look for instance in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_oscillator. Standing up and down changes centre of mass / length of physical pendulum at frequency double of resonance frequency.
The Back EMF rule is not a low and it only true for linear networks with fixed parameters.
Here exact orthogonal orientation of magnetic field in respect of soft magnetic core totally de-couples traditional magnetic link but still retain parametric coupling. On approach magnets are drawn toward soft core but at the lowest position ferrite core become not magnetic due to circular field saturation caused by current switched on at this moment so that magnets are not attracted any more and easily fly away. One may easily make not a rotating motor but a swinging pendulum driven the same way. Then the analogy to children swings become very accurate.
There is no gain of energy there I am afraid. Energy is spent to magnetise core and loads of it wasted. If you load motor to get energy out then rotation speed goes down and as a result you has to keep magnetisation longer then without load thus current to be kept longer and waste all energy you gained from rotor with excess. No miracle. Sorry..
Hi vpo20,
I believe we are saying basically the same thing. ;)
.99
This is from the demo Steorn did showing the flat top current and voltage proving no bemf. They also showed that there is no delay of the current, as it really is an apparent delay.
Here are my voltage and current wave forms so far to match theirs. This is made with a modeled core material with 400 turns and a 8 Ohm DCR. That little "nib" at the top left of the blue voltage trace is more evident while the Orbo is getting up to speed, and its preponderance is a function of the variable resistor setting.
Starting to get close ;D.
.99
Dam poynt99! that is getting close.. good work!
But your missing the magic finger in the scope shot ;D
My Orbo Simulation circuit as of 2010-02-23:
.99
Another slight variation showing the negative energy excursion.
This is with a linear (i.e. air) core, L=20mH, DCR=0.5 Ohm, Rlimit=2 Ohms, Vsupply=12V, and flyback diode not present.
.99
For comparison sake, the above with the flyback diode present.
.99
Another, just showing the integration trace itself.
Air-core and no flyback diode.
.99
A very interesting side-by-side comparison of the Orbo V, I and J traces vs. the air-core/no flyback diode version of the same. Notice the peak Icoil is about the same in each. All scales are equal for good comparison.
.99
Investigating the flyback diode energy vs. the coil energy as a possible source for the big negative excursion in the integration trace...
nope :-\
.99
Looking at the notion of the integrated trace being "folded over", this may not be 100% accurate, as per below with the air-core simulation.
Clearly the supply does not expend as much energy as what appears in the neg excursion. This isn't energy from nowhere though.
More to come on this...
.99
EDIT: See next post for correct/complete analysis of energy in the circuit.
OK,
The energy balance has been reconciled, and I'm happy to report that it all works out as expected.
Of note is at kickback the almost complete transfer of stored coil energy to D1 and RLimit. That is the big neg excursion. Indeed what is left is the net energy burning up in the coil...so what? Very little of the transferred energy gets back to the source, and most of it is burned up in D1 and RLimit.
.99
From TK:
QuoteWell, that seems reasonable. So are you saying that the Steorn "net of Joule heating" is equivalent to the red Jcoil trace in your simulation?
Could you give an interpretation of your findings and how they relate to the Steorn trace?
That's pretty much what I'm saying TK. Net of Joule heating in the coil. Not net of input Joule heating, or whatever Sean said regarding the input.
BUT! With a functioning flyback diode in place in my sim, this all changes, as I've showed in previous posts. Rather than the coil transferring its energy up through to D1 and RLimit, a flyback diode rectifies the coil current and it gets recirculated, as you know. The Ainslie circuit functioned somewhat similar with the flyback diode removed.
My interpretation is as I've been saying for a while here. I can reproduce something very similar to Steorn (as you can see above in the red trace), but not with a flyback diode in circuit.
What I think needs to be in place is a coil having a very large inductance to resistance ratio. This is a must if it is going to be used as an energy storage/transfer device as seems evident if my sim is providing any insights at all.
So that means a REALLY HIGH permeability core, and heavy wire/low turns. I am suggesting an initial permeability spec of at least 200,000, if there is such an animal readily available.
A place to start might be to try and make a 300mH coil with the same length of the same gauge wire you have on your 20mH coil. That would mean a higher mu core.
This still leaves the flyback diode as a problem. I'd like to see Orbo's integration trace run through a math differentiator. I hope someone is taking that up to task.
.99
"The purple trace, is the net electrical energy put in to the system...ah net of Joule heating".
Those were Sean's exact words. Really poor wording, and is ambiguous as to the true meaning.
Translation: The purple trace represents the amount of total energy supplied to the system by the battery. This is also equivalent to the net Joule heating in the coils.
Well, only the second sentence of my translation is true.
.99
"You can work the ratios, it's about three to one, input to output...that is simply direct electrical in to out, net of Joule heating".
Good grief!
Again, part two of that blurb is false.
.99
From TK:
QuoteGreat work, and thanks for the interpretation, .99 and MH. I am still going to have to think about it before I can claim to grok the fullness..er...understand completely what's happening and how to make my real system behave this way.
Today's my shopping day; I'm riding the subway downtown and that will give me plenty of time without distractions to think about it.
But...if one uses a really high perm core, then...one is still trying not only for a low DCR but apparently also a relatively low inductance as well, because otherwise the pulse rise time suffers...hmmm. Maybe Orbette 1's LTT toroids were accidentally more optimal than I thought, since they have been the lowest DCR/highest inductance combo that I have yet tried....
Sonoboy, IIRC, is using a Metglas toroid with really high permeability and I remember him mentioning that he actually took some turns off to reduce the inductance, which in his system would make the rise time faster and allow more energy in per pulse. I think.
OK, now one must ask: in spite of Sean's clever malapropisms, does his premise make any logical sense? Does the displayed trace, the red one, "net of Joule heat" in the coil, or whatever, does that legitimately correspond to the actual energy transferred to the rotor? And, further, if Sean is correct about the energy per rev out from the "sense coil", is it a fair comparison to make: (Actual energy transferred to rotor :: Energy out from sense coil) ?
So now I wonder if it's possible to model Sean's Orbo output measurement in any realistic way.
TK,
You still want to go for high inductance; as high as possible for as few as possible turns/DCR. I can probably do even better than Orbo by increasing the L/R ratio of the coils. The rise time is not an issue with high inductance and a non-linear core, as long as it is driven well within its saturation range, which is part of the Orbo "secret".
The idea I believe is to make the core act as an inductance "switch" (square B-H) with a relatively low threshold (low Hc).
There's one problem with a low DCR however, and that is high I(coil). This may indeed be why Steorn is using the rheostat and changing it when switching the drive circuit between the conventional pulse motor and the Orbo motor. This however goes against the logic of voltage drops in the circuit with a high R(Limit) value and low coil DCR. The voltage drop would be excessive. If the R(Limit) is kept low, then coil current will be excessive (assuming core saturation is reached).
This is a constant occurrence for me in trying to crack this thing. Certain elements of the design adjusted a certain way make perfect sense in one aspect, but are in direct contravention with other aspects, and vice versa.
To paraphrase Sean: "It's all in the structure and arrangement of the coils". Sounds like Steven Mark talk.
Regarding the Steorn premise:
Quote...does that "net of Joule heat" [red trace] legitimately correspond to the actual energy transferred to the rotor?
IMO, no. That net energy is ONLY representative of the energy lost to the resistive part of the coils. Let's pretend for a moment that we have a super-conductor coil in its place and its DCR is effectively 0 Ohms. The red trace would look very similar but instead the neg excursion would return back to 0mJ every cycle. So what? It still took a fair bit of energy from the source to create the magnetic field used to polarize/saturate the core. The energy stored in the coil is then transferred to the other circuit components (D1 and R(Limit)) as before, but this time with 100% efficiency (as opposed to the 83% shown in the red trace). So in this case the "net of Joule heating" in the coil is
nil. Will this translate into higher rotor RPM or torque? IMO NOPE. What it DOES mean, is we can use a little less energy from our source to saturate the core to the same level as before.
QuoteAnd, further, if Sean is correct about the energy per rev out from the "sense coil", is it a fair comparison to make: (Actual energy transferred to rotor :: Energy out from sense coil) ?
It's absolutely not a fair comparison at all. From the blue integration trace, I'd say the Orbo coils are achieving an energy transfer efficiency of about 95%, which is probably as good as one can achieve without bringing the wire temperature down. If we could somehow make the n=100, then Steorn would want to claim a COP = infinity. That is completely false because we know it still takes energy to create that magnetizing force. Now, if Steorn had super-conducting wires throughout, and a super-conducting SSR switch, then in combination with their super-conducting coil (and no core loss), they
might have a system that was OU. However, we know that IF we had RT super-conductor wiring available to us, there are far better ways to make energy and achieve OU. In summary, no; the net Joule heating in the coil and the energy being generated in the pickup coil are not related at all. I think most agree that the only fair comparison is energy in (i.e. from the battery) vs. energy out. If this was done, Orbo would be seen as grossly UU.
Steorn has demonstrated a few different ways, that apparently the coil energy and rotor motion is "decoupled", i.e. there is no bemf, and no greater current required to energize the field with the rotor mag at TDC. If we buy into this notion (and I am willing to at this point), then I can not simulate the rotor as an energy take-off from the system. I believe I can treat the coils as if they were transformers though, and load them that way, but I don't think that's what we want to do.
.99
A look at the Orbo coil energy transfer efficiency.
In my sim, it's about 83%.
Depending on which point is used to measure the Orbo coil efficiency, it is either 86% or about 93%, as per the attached graphic.
.99
From TK:
QuoteTo make a valid comparison following Sean's logic, one would compare the output energy per rev, measured as the I^2R power of the shorted output coil integrated over the rev, with....what exactly?
If Sean's comparison isn't legitimate, then how would one go about measuring, electrically, the actual energy transferred to the rotor per rev?
The only comparison that can be made is of the input to output energy. This is how it should be done IMO:
1) The circuit supply voltage is reduced until a slight reduction in RPM is noticed in the rotor (no load condition). This is the minimum energy required to operate the Orbo motor at full speed.
2) Take a supply energy or power measurement.
3) Measure the energy or power in your shorted coil load or loads (more than one should be tried).
4) Do the COP computation.
As I see it:The Orbo motor is not "supply-driven" like a normal pulse motor is. Once a certain minimum energy is sourced to the Orbo, any further increases are not reflected by a further increase in either speed or torque at the rotor. A normal pulse motor operates quite the opposite; the harder we drive the coils, the more force is transferred to the rotor, and the more torque it generates. Orbo doesn't operate this way.
The only way to obtain more torque and speed with an Orbo setup is to use stronger rotor magnets, and/or higher mu cores. In each case, a little more energy will be required to de-polarize the core at TDC. This is the only relationship between the input energy and resulting rotor torque/speed. Of course with stronger magnets or a higher mu core, the pickup coil(s) will be able to generate a little more energy also.
.99
I might also add the following:
In the case of the normal pulse motor, we are virtually unlimited as to how much energy we can put in to the system and achieve a result on the output in the form of speed and/or torque increases (to a point of course). So we are "adding" energy to the system to achieve motive force.
In the case of the Orbo, we are starting with a fixed packet of energy, and to extract that energy to do work we need to "add" an equal and opposite (actually somewhat higher due to losses) amount of energy to the system. In this case, the rotor magnets are the fixed packets of energy. The coil cores determine how efficiently we can extract energy from those packets. The higher the mu, the higher this efficiency (notwithstanding saturation effects).
In effect, with the Orbo configuration we are subtracting energy from the system to make it work. Everything is inverted in a way. We start with an energy source and interaction that is always ON (the magnet/core attraction), and we need to be able to turn it OFF. Conventional pulse motors start with zero energy/no interaction, and we turn the energy ON to make it work.
.99
99,
An Orbo 4.8? movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EapgzWFAh4&feature=sub
Chet
Hi Chet, that device in the movie is very nicely made!
From the youtube description:
QuoteOverunity proving:
Imput power without load. 4 volt * 31mA = 0.124 watt. All the power is heat losses.
Imput power with load. 4 volt * 32 mA = 0,128 watt. Imput power increase with 0,004 watt.
The load is 7,72 volt * 2,99 mA = 0,023 watt. The Overunity is 0,023 - 0,004 = 0,019 watt
COP 4,8 ???
I think it should read:
Imput power with load. 4 volt * 32 mA = 0,128 watt
The load is 7,72 volt * 2,99 mA = 0,023 watt.
COP = 0.023 / 0.128 = 0.19
Chet.
That video definitely does not demonstrate any degree of OU (as per Fraser's post), but it does demonstrate the no bemf effect, where the load does not affect the power draw.
Now, if he increased his voltage supply to recover the lost RPM, his power draw would increase accordingly. This does not mean that the power supply is the energy source that drives the rotor--the rotor magnets actually are.
I'm having difficulty getting MH and TK to see this, but in time maybe they will.
.99
To revisit TK's question about the input/output energy parameters that should be measured for the comparison, here's another approach--one I would call the purist method:
1) Run the Orbo at your desired speed/power draw setting.
2) Have a sensitive prony break applied to the rotor and measure the torque.
3) Convert that torque measurement to an energy value and compare it to the battery energy draw.
.99
In the end, it does not really matter where one thinks of as the source of energy for the Orbo motor (i.e the battery or the magnets), because up to a certain point, the energy value drawn is the same.
The only difference that needs to be kept in mind, is in the case of the Orbo, the maximum energy available to drive it is limited by the strength of the rotor magnets, and to a certain degree the core material/size.
Another way of thinking about the Orbo motor, is that it is an inefficient converter of permanent magnetic flux energy to torque energy.
.99
Thanks for the movie Critique fellas!
Guess thats why you guys get the "Big" bucs =-]
Chet
lol, cheers Chet, :D
In the youtube vid he should also harvest the inductive kickback to increase COP.
I do agree though that the orbo is interesting because unlike a standard electromagnetic motor, increasing mech load does not show itself (much) in the input power. But I think it´s a case of "use it or lose it". As an analogy imagine a desk fan running on a desk, now take a small windmill and generator and place it a meter away and have it light a bulb. The fan will not see any more load but you have converted some system energy to do work. (I say I think this, I dont ¨know¨ though, perhaps it can go COP>1?)
Fellas,
This "flick" has higher ratings
Courtesy of "Wings"
COP=8.1
http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm#COP
Chet
Did i get this wrong, i cannot see any measurement of the energy spent to energize the toroid, surely this is the only place to measure energy spent.
All he is doing is measuring the energy produced in the magnetization period against the energy produced in the demag period, i would have though this has no bearing on the energy used in the fet side of the circuit.
Please correct me if i am wrong.
Peter
Peter,
thats a very good question!
Can't hurt to ask?
JNaudin509@aol.com
Chet
Fairly good success thus far replicating Steorn's blue integration trace of the Orbo. This is Steorn's rendition of input energy to the system, which of course is incorrect. The measurement points are not in the right positions for a battery power measurement.
At any rate, here is "Simbo" version 0.99. I will add more versions if I can achieve a closer fit to the actual trace.
.99
One step closer...
.99
Good work poynt99!
Do you still feel that there is no energy gain in the orbo?
Thanks DS.
Yeah, I'm still certain Orbo is underunity overall.
I am intrigued with their attempt though. I believe I've got most of the secret unraveled, but getting it to simulate is a bit more of a challenge. This is one case where an actual build might get to the finish line quicker, now that I'm this far. (and I may indeed build it)
I'm puzzled though why only one other has been able to reproduce a reasonable facsimile so far (without the downward slope). ??? JLN and TK (et al) have been playing with this a while now.
.99
Ya that is strange.
Have you ever considered the idea that they took a toroidal core and cut a very narrow slit in one side?
http://powerelectronics.com/mag/power_why_air_gap/
Thanks for the informative link.
Yes, I have considered a gapped-core, however, for the Orbo application mu must be as high as possible (and the B-H curve square as possible) in order to achieve the Orbo "effect".
In addition to wanting the core to be highly ferromagnetic, the idea is to have the core act as an inductance switch.
.99
PS. Are the two figures available somewhere from that article?
I dont know..
Im just always suspicious of the components i cant see. ;D
More info, and a brief illustration of the path so far...
I could elucidate with much more detail, but I trust some important aspects to achieving the effect and of the overall circuit operation are quite evident below.
This is not yet perfect and it should be understood that one or two liberties have been taken in the process of reverse engineering this energy trace and the circuit in general. Notwithstanding, this I hope has provided a number of important insights.
Getting a core model to behave accordingly is the next challenge.
.99
A copy of one of TK's scope shots. The strange thing to note here is that it appears less energy is used when driving the rotor than when driving the coils alone.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.03.20, 04:12:36
A copy of one of TK's scope shots. The strange thing to note here is that it appears less energy is used when driving the rotor than when driving the coils alone.
.99
The proximity of the magnetic field ( rotor magnet ) lowers the resistance and changes the inductance of the drive coil. Could this account for it?
DS,
It seems it is not often mentioned in books and papers (only twice since I've been researching cores) but some (or perhaps all) core material will exhibit an increase in permeability in the presence of a magnetic field, which increases the flux density within. After a certain point of further B-field increase, the permeability begins to decrease.
I've attached one eg. from "Handbook of Modern Ferromagnetic Materials":
.99
Anyone seen this?
http://www.google.com/patents?id=JcgdAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false (http://www.google.com/patents?id=JcgdAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false)
DON'T watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HKTYrVjEGY)....especially you MH, LOL
Good Grief! :-\
.99
Poynt:
I am predicting death for Steorn in 2011! Others are saying that they will go into a deeper level of hibernation where the company will only exist on paper and surface from time to time. Sean and his one-man band.
DON'T watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5O3eobu-Ig (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5O3eobu-Ig)
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.10.02, 03:30:22
Poynt:
I am predicting death for Steorn in 2011! Others are saying that they will go into a deeper level of hibernation where the company will only exist on paper and surface from time to time. Sean and his one-man band.
DON'T watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5O3eobu-Ig (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5O3eobu-Ig)
MileHigh
Looks like your prediction came true MH.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8411.msg281338#msg281338
Good to see the universe eventually takes care of everything.
.99
The happy time: April 20th, 2010
QuoteGuys Panacea got a sponsor and now has the solid state and rotational plans , its safe in our possession, we cant share or we get in trouble, but we can design applications for the public (non commercialization license) you instantly get access to the plans for their nominal fee.
A great day for humankind today, i would like to say all of you made panacea possible and now its time to give humanity FREEDOM, we have the weather engineering knowledge held in a public trust, and now free energy, this year i think our lives will change forever, panacea steorn video production coming.
Non profit and behind you ALL till the end
Ashtweth on behalf of your non profit org.
Ps, you wont believe how simple this process is.
For Tesla and Hector.
Ash
An excited Rosie Posie cameo the same day:
QuoteCONGRATULATIONS ASHTWETH. WELL DONE. Truly a landmark victory. Can't wait to hear more.
The sad new reality: January 23, 2012
QuoteHi Bob /ALL
Yes it, i understand, it would certainly appear that way to any one not on the forum or doing the rep work, it would take this effort to understand the difficulty.I do have some news.
We are trying different frequencies ATM to try and get some understanding of the heat production, but i dont hold much more hope on this, this year we will be throwing in the towel on the pulse motor and heater.
At least we stuck at it , and with respect the other developers did their best too , all credit to them.
If Steorn have a heater then the developers certainly dont know how they are doing it. Its theirs not developers i guess. If the developers knew they would have the same heater. If Steorn have succeeded then i dont think they need developers any more, but i would have to review their device.
It was a large expense of all developers to try and assist them, i dont know if they will help us in the end. I doubt it. Ill have a final report on this after March. No heat so far in their figures , we will report our final heat test after march. I would expect bad news.
Such is life, we move on and search for other things. Happens all the time. I have the deepest respect and thanks to Phil and Clanzer (Sean), those guys did a lot that we all should be grateful for.
Ash
No more full-page ads in The Economist I suppose. I am not sure if anything has been breached yet.
The hector Torrez model failed because the generator and motor on the same shaft = losses.
The howard johnson items sit side by side. Hector changed the model.
Here is a paper I wrote some time ago looking into the Steorn motor and Naudin's replication. Didn't publish it at the time but doing so now in case it helps others to understand what went on inside the device.