PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-10-18, 12:38:21
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Author Topic: Steorns December 2009 Demo  (Read 84453 times)
Group: Guest
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?
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1443
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
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!

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?
« Last Edit: 2009-12-16, 21:23:58 by giantkiller »


---------------------------
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 208
Yes, I was wondering how much they got paid for the advertisement  ;D
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
Quote
Only 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?


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
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.
   

Full Member
***

Posts: 208
I honestly don't see why a 650F wouldn't work on this rig! .....and if it doesn't....why.... useless right?
   
Group: Guest
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?
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3174
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
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
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1988
@Fraser
Quote
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.

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


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3174
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
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
   
Group: Guest
<<< 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
« Last Edit: 2009-12-28, 01:06:58 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
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??
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3174
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
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
   
Group: Guest
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
« Last Edit: 2009-12-29, 02:15:26 by MileHigh »
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3174
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
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.

Quote
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.

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
   
Group: Guest
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.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1988
@milehigh
Quote
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.

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


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Group: Guest
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.

Quote
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.

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
   
Group: Guest
Eatenbyagrue:

Quote
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 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.

Quote
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

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.

Quote
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.

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
« Last Edit: 2009-12-29, 05:46:36 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
AC:

Quote
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.

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
   
Group: Guest
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
« Last Edit: 2010-01-01, 12:15:44 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
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.
« Last Edit: 2010-01-02, 06:19:23 by aetherevarising »
   
Group: Guest
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.
   
Group: Guest
Omnibus and the rest of the gang at OU:

Quote
All this talk and suppositions will fade away if we can get hold of Sean's December 19th data and observe that indeed, as claimed, all the input power has gone exclusively for Ohmic heating. Finding out whether or not that's the case should be the only focus of attention. Talking about anything else is just a waste of time at this point.

Promptly obtaining and analyzing Sean's data is especially important for those who've set themselves to replicate Orbo because it will save them time and resources if it turns out that the data doesn't support the claim that all the input power goes solely for Ohmic heating. We've gone through a lot of this -- to take somebody's word and only because of that start efforts to replicate the claim -- to find ourselves look like fools pulled into a hoax. Here in this case the resolution is straightforward -- if Sean has these claims he should provide the data, clearly available, to back them up. No more Mylows.

>>>

I agree. That is the main issue.

If Steorn can prove that almost no energy is transferred into the rotor then it will prove they have an OU technology.

Sean said something to the effect of "The energy being supplied to the motor is becoming ohmic heat and that counts as part of the output from the system."

Indeed there is an implication from Sean that anything else you get from the motor is the "free" part, but there is a huge problem here.  The only thing the motor is producing is heat.  Sean is trying to make you believe that the spinning rotor is the "bonus work" you are getting out of the system but that's a lie.

LISTEN CAREFULLY:  The Steorn pulse motor is not actually driving a mechanical load so it is ultimately doing nothing but producing heat.  It is a misconception to look at a spinning pulse motor and talk about its "mechanical output" as you see it rotating.  All of the energy being fed to the motor becomes heat and there is NO mechanical output.  The bearing friction becomes heat.  The resistance in the wires becomes heat.  The sound it emits in the air becomes heat.  The vibrational energy emitted through the table becomes heat.  Even the air friction becomes heat.

The spinning Steorn motor does nothing but produce heat and it does some recharging of the source battery.  The fact that it is spinning is meaningless.  The spinning rotor agitates the air and that becomes heat.  The friction in the bearings becomes heat.  The rotor is a glorified air heater in this case.

Here is the equation:  Electrical power in = heat power + recharging power.

That's it, the mechanical power output is ZERO.   The recharging power is a FRACTION of the input electrical power.

The Steorn motor does a fantastic job of producing heat and does some recharging of the battery.  The only problem is that is that's exactly what it is supposed to do, it is normal for ANY motor that is not driving a load.  The heat is normally considered lost energy and is normally attributed to the INEFFICIENCY of the motor.  You want a motor to produce more mechanical power and less heat power for a given electrical input power.

You don't want the motor to produce heat, you want it to produce mechanical work.  If you take ANY MOTOR and you don't connect it to a mechanical load then it is 100% EFFICIENT at producing heat.  The only problem is that in the real world that's considered inefficiency.

Omnibus:  Therefore the data from Steorn will support the claim that the motor produces ohmic heat - and it means NOTHING.  There is no point in taking DSO measurements of the electrical input energy and then putting the entire motor inside a calorimeter and seeing if the thermal energy produced by the motor in 20 minutes is equal to the electrical energy supplied to the motor for 20 minutes.  If you assume no charging battery then they will be equal, for sure.  That's what is supposed to happen and you have learned nothing.

Quote
Also, there are replicators here who may have digital storage oscilloscopes. They may be willing to help in this respect -- take the U and I traces at steady-state and dump the data into an Excell spread sheet as well as measure the precise value of the Ohmic resistance of the coils. Something has to be done to have a definitive answer sooner. Not only we don't want this to drag itself as another Mylow or Mike saga but also, unlike many other experiments, to obtain the decisive answer in this case is very very straightforward.

Just measuring the ohmic resistance of the coils does not cut it.  You will find that if you take your ((DSO-recorded current-squared) x the coil resistance x the time interval) and compare it to the total heat energy produced by the motor over the same time interval using a calorimeter then the heat energy dissipated in the coils due to ohmic resistance will be less than the total heat energy produced by the motor.  The reason for this is clearly outlined above, there are other sources of heat (sound, vibration, bearings, air agitation, etc, that you are not factoring in)

By the same token, if your take your DSO-recorded U and I traces and multiply them together and then multiply that by the time interval, then you will have calculated your total electrical energy supplied for a given time interval.  That will be equal to the total heat energy measured by the calorimeter (assuming no charging battery).  The ohmic resistance of the coils does not even factor in here so there is nothing that you can do with that piece of data.

If you get all of this, then you are back to two options to verify Steorn's claim:

1.  The easy one - get a measurement of the electrical power supplied to the motor and compare that to the electrical power returned to the charging battery.  Steorn is claiming three times the amount of power returned to the battery as compared to the power supplied to the motor.  In my energy analysis I am predicting less than 30% of the energy supplied to the motor gets returned to the charge battery.

2.  The more difficult one - make measurements where you compare the amount of kinetic energy added to the rotor with the amount of electrical energy supplied in the pulse.  If the kinetic energy increase is greater than the electrical pulse energy then you have over unity.

The "ohmic heat business" is bullshit.  It is a setup by Sean and company to throw you off the trail.  Someone will make a convincing measurement that shows that the motor is generating as much heat as the electrical energy supplied and you will all get excited and be convinced that the Steorn pulse motors are over unity devices because they say "anything beyond that is over unity."

The problem is that there is NOTHING beyond that.

To repeat with a charging battery as part of the system:  You put 100 Joules of electrical energy into the motor + battery sitting inside a calorimeter over a period of 20 minutes and the calorimeter records 90 Joules of heat energy during that time period.  You assume that 10 Joules of electrical energy got stored the battery during the 20 minutes.  Somebody from Steorn says, "And the mechanical energy from the rotor is the over unity part."

It's bullshit and don't fall for it - the spinning rotor is producing ZERO mechanical energy.

HOLD STEORN TO THEIR CLAIM - TAKE THE EASY ROUTE:

1.  Connect the differential voltage probe across the 1.5 volt source battery.
2.  Connect the current probe to the output wire from the battery powering the motor.
3.  Push a button on the high-end DSO and get an output power reading.
4.  Connect the current probe to the power return wire coming from the generator coils section.
5.  Push a button on the high-end DSO and get an input power reading.
6.  Compare the power reading in step #5 with the power reading in step #3 to confirm or deny their claim of three times the power being returned to the battery as compared to what was being consumed by the pulse motor.

Don't get fooled with this ohmic heat nonsense.

MileHigh
   
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-10-18, 12:38:21