PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-10-18, 12:46:12
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8
Author Topic: Steorns December 2009 Demo  (Read 84454 times)
Group: Guest
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:

Quote
If 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
« Last Edit: 2010-01-25, 02:59:01 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
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

Quote
Materials with high coercivity are called hard ferromagnetic materials, and are used to make permanent magnets.

Quote
The 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.

Quote
The coercivity is a measure of the degree of magnetic hysteresis and therefore characterizes the lossiness of soft magnetic materials for their common applications.

Quote
A 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:

Quote
Sorry 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
« Last Edit: 2010-01-25, 04:28:23 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
Gravityblock:

Quote
If 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:

Quote
The 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
   
Group: Guest
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:

Quote
People 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.

Quote
The 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:

Quote
Revolutions 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:

Quote
Total friction heating from both NdFeB & black plastic outer rim: 2.90 mW + 1.00 mW + 0.460 mW = 4.36 mW

Quote
Friction 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.

Quote
COP: 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
« Last Edit: 2010-01-27, 03:13:52 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
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:

Quote
As 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.

Quote
Even 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.

Quote
At 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.
« Last Edit: 2010-01-30, 18:34:35 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
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
« Last Edit: 2010-02-01, 01:42:04 by MileHigh »
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3174
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
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
« Last Edit: 2010-02-02, 01:00:48 by poynt99 »
   
Group: Guest
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!
   
Group: Guest
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.
« Last Edit: 2010-02-01, 18:00:20 by Fraser »
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3580
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
   
Group: Guest
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?
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 555
Hey Fraser, Are you telling me you can get my cop 13 air conditioner to run itself, That would be really cool.


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   
Group: Guest
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.
« Last Edit: 2010-02-01, 19:50:22 by Fraser »
   
Group: Guest
Quote
Hey 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
   
Group: Guest
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.
   
Group: Guest
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?



   
Group: Guest
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.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3174
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
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
« Last Edit: 2010-02-02, 01:01:47 by poynt99 »
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

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

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

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

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3174
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
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 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
« Last Edit: 2010-02-07, 16:57:08 by poynt99 »
   
Group: Guest
99:

Here is Omnibus' comment about the posting on OU:

Quote
You 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
« Last Edit: 2010-02-07, 17:22:37 by poynt99 »
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

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

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3174
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
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
   
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, 12:46:12