[Vo]:Capacitors for Steorn
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, Terry Blanton wrote: I seriously doubt it since the statement is false. IIRC, he said that the capacitor was too slow in current delivery. Actually, the Well, that's true of supercapacitors. They take seconds to discharge during a direct short, not microseconds. So if a large electrolytic has too small a value, parallel it with a supercap. That gives the sharp edge as well as the large value. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: They are selling mystery. Call it entertainment. Have a few hundred dollars If Steorn was an old prospector in a southwestern tavern, he'd be selling pieces of his treasure map to the marks. (And everyone gets the same piece, of course!) But first he'd have to convince everyone that, since the old prospector con is so obviously a trick ...that it can't possibly be an actual scam. It has to be a REAL treasure map. After all, look how many people are putting up cash rather than just laughing! The treasure-map thing is all about stroking your victim's self- importance, cultivating inner-circle investors who are special and superior to the unwashed masses. Enough FE scammers have relied on this same technique in the past that I added it to the list of scam symptoms. My advice to anyone considering buying in: it's almost certainly bogus. If you enjoy a good scam, you can buy in, Don't put money into FE investments, period. Don't buy treasure maps, they're always fake. Don't go shopping for a used car while assuming that all the dealers are scrupulously honest. Don't trust politicians, even if they have a firm handshake and inspire confidence. Oh, and don't invest in FE devices. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:Capacitors for Steorn
Yes, good point William, that's the way to make a capacitor both large and fast. However, if their claim is that they produce more heat than they consume electrical power as Harry said (some form of heat pump maybe?), then the capacitor voltage could drop even if their claim was valid couldn't it? Michel 2010/1/15 William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com: On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, Terry Blanton wrote: I seriously doubt it since the statement is false. IIRC, he said that the capacitor was too slow in current delivery. Actually, the Well, that's true of supercapacitors. They take seconds to discharge during a direct short, not microseconds. So if a large electrolytic has too small a value, parallel it with a supercap. That gives the sharp edge as well as the large value. (( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) ))) William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:Capacitors for Steorn
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Michel Jullian wrote: However, if their claim is that they produce more heat than they consume electrical power as Harry said (some form of heat pump maybe?), then the capacitor voltage could drop even if their claim was valid couldn't it? Then it's a scam, since that would be a laboratory curosity, not a new technology which other companies could license. It would be yet another FE claim where the claimant, rather than spending time to close the loop and build a self-acting demo unit, instead stirred up lots of publicity over some measurements. Imagine if PF had kept the palladium cell a secret, and tried to license it's use. WHAT use? (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
At 03:02 PM 1/14/2010, Terry Blanton wrote: Somehow Steorn must measure the torque or have the motor perform work, eg lift a weight, pump water, etc. But they seem to have a basic lack of understanding of this fact. This is quite the response that Steorn wants from people who realize the problem. However, that they seem to have this lack, yes. That's deliberate. Sorry, they aren't stupid.
Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
At 03:38 PM 1/14/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote: In politics, business and consulting, many people make a good living by obfuscation and sewing confusion. I like that. Sewing. They stitch it together rather than tossing seeds in the ground.
Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig
JLN wondering about being able to cancel backemf: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veoRZh0GTkQ video description: Here an interesting experiment which shows that Back EMF exist and can be measured and also CANCELED in the toroïdal stator coils. You will notice that the position where the Back EMF is fully cancelled is very precise and a fine tuning must be done. More info at : http://jnaudin.free.fr; also, does anyone think that this post is somehow accurate on overunity, as to the functionality of orbo? http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8411.msg222768#msg222768 On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 03:02 PM 1/14/2010, Terry Blanton wrote: Somehow Steorn must measure the torque or have the motor perform work, eg lift a weight, pump water, etc. But they seem to have a basic lack of understanding of this fact. This is quite the response that Steorn wants from people who realize the problem. However, that they seem to have this lack, yes. That's deliberate. Sorry, they aren't stupid.
Re: [Vo]:The orbo is not a motor
On 01/14/2010 11:32 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 4:10:25 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig On 01/14/2010 03:02 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: The Orbo is a motor as I am sure we will all agree. In order for the motor to be OU, it must be outputting more mechanical energy than electrical energy it consumes. Not exactly -- not the way the term has been used to describe the Steorn motor. Granted, Sean's 300% OU would lead to this conclusion. However, his fundamental, most basic claim is that the motor has no back EMF, and consequently *all* input energy appears as heat in the coils. If that were true, then the motor would be OU if it did any mechanical work at all, no matter how small the amount. The OU thing here, however, is not mechanical_work/input_energy, but rather (mechanical_work + heat_in_coils)/input_energy To determine if this is actually OU it would be necessary to stuff the whole thing into a calorimeter, which is, I think, the test the firm in Germany is supposed to perform. If it could be shown that the motor was, indeed, OU by this test, it might still be the case that (mechanical_work/input_energy)1, which would make it impossible to either close the loop or even get any useful work out of it, *but* it would still be an incredible, amazing, remarkable, stunning achievement (or a measurement error, of course). The purpose of a _motor_ is to convert electromagnetic energy into useful motion. The purpose of the orbo is to turn electromagnetic energy and motion into heat. Therefore it is misleading to call it a motor. If the orbo can produce more output heat energy than it uses in input energy then it is similar to the purpose of a _reactor_. Yes, precisely! That's exactly what they seem to be claiming.
Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Slow to no work -- smallest possible energy release
Okay, for the purposes of the Clarke Rule of No Moving Parts in City and the Stars, we should define a part as condensed matter the size of an atom or larger. Subatomic particles and plasma don't count. Also, atoms can move when they undergo fission or fusion. Some people including the inimitable Stewart Brand, editor of the Whole Earth Catalog, are trying to make a 10,000-year mechanical clock. See: http://www.longnow.org/clock/ This has moving parts galore and it is huge. If I were making a 10,000-year clock, I would make it the size of a wristwatch, and I would have it activate and register once per day, or once per year, triggered by and powered by sunlight. Sort of like Stonehenge. I do not know if any photovoltaic devices will last for centuries. I believe some camera light meters from the 1930s still work fine. PV cells last around 15 years but they are exposed to direct sunlight all day, and placed outdoors. The gadget I have in mind would be protected. It would be difficult to ensure that sunlight still reaches it if it is left unattended for centuries. It might be best to put it in orbit or on the moon. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The orbo is not a motor
you could also call it an engine, could you not? On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: - Original Message From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 4:10:25 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:steorn talk#2 today at 5pm irish time + closeup shots of steorn talk#2 demo-rig On 01/14/2010 03:02 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: The Orbo is a motor as I am sure we will all agree. In order for the motor to be OU, it must be outputting more mechanical energy than electrical energy it consumes. Not exactly -- not the way the term has been used to describe the Steorn motor. Granted, Sean's 300% OU would lead to this conclusion. However, his fundamental, most basic claim is that the motor has no back EMF, and consequently *all* input energy appears as heat in the coils. If that were true, then the motor would be OU if it did any mechanical work at all, no matter how small the amount. The OU thing here, however, is not mechanical_work/input_energy, but rather (mechanical_work + heat_in_coils)/input_energy To determine if this is actually OU it would be necessary to stuff the whole thing into a calorimeter, which is, I think, the test the firm in Germany is supposed to perform. If it could be shown that the motor was, indeed, OU by this test, it might still be the case that (mechanical_work/input_energy)1, which would make it impossible to either close the loop or even get any useful work out of it, *but* it would still be an incredible, amazing, remarkable, stunning achievement (or a measurement error, of course). The purpose of a _motor_ is to convert electromagnetic energy into useful motion. The purpose of the orbo is to turn electromagnetic energy and motion into heat. Therefore it is misleading to call it a motor. If the orbo can produce more output heat energy than it uses in input energy then it is similar to the purpose of a _reactor_. Harry __ Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca
Re: [Vo]:The orbo is not a motor
Alexander Hollins wrote: you could also call it an engine, could you not? I think an engine is something that produces mechanical force. But anyway, if the thing produces more heat plus movement than the input electricity, and if the output to input ratio can be improved, it could be converted into some sort of heat engine. If it is actually over-unity, no one will quibble with the details. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The orbo is not a motor
Yeah, sorry, I meant generator (smacks self) A motor produces movement to an object (not just electrical energy as stated earlier. A rocket using solid chemicals to fly is just as much as motor. On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Alexander Hollins wrote: you could also call it an engine, could you not? I think an engine is something that produces mechanical force. But anyway, if the thing produces more heat plus movement than the input electricity, and if the output to input ratio can be improved, it could be converted into some sort of heat engine. If it is actually over-unity, no one will quibble with the details. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The orbo is not a motor
It's a breath mint. It's a candy mint. No it's two mints in one. Silly me, bloody thing looks like a motor. I'll just call it a spinny thing. Well I see that in the thread Unity some nice old lady has explained, with the help of her son, how to do calorimetry on the spinny thing. ;-) T
Re: [Vo]:The orbo is not a motor
Its a condom, its a mint, is a condomint. does it go well on hot dogs? /sorry, channeling robin williams there for a minute. ) On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: It's a breath mint. It's a candy mint. No it's two mints in one. Silly me, bloody thing looks like a motor. I'll just call it a spinny thing. Well I see that in the thread Unity some nice old lady has explained, with the help of her son, how to do calorimetry on the spinny thing. ;-) T
[Vo]:Calorimetry would probably be a definitive test of Steorn's claim
If the people at Steorn do put the device into a calorimeter, that should prove they are right or wrong. As long as the calorimeter is reasonably accurate and the input power waveform is not too complicated, it should produce a definite answer. We will have to give them credit for intellectual honesty. It will be a sincere effort to resolve the issues. It will overturn the Abd hypothesis. If they hem and haw, delay, and make excuses that will bolster the Abd hypothesis. I wish the Correa's PAGD could be put into a calorimeter. As I recall, it was too big. Maybe I have confused it with some other device. You can build a large calorimeter, even one big enough for a person, but it is imprecise. In one of his earliest cold fusion experiments, Richard Oriani used a Seebeck calorimeter designed to hold a baby. It was remarkably precise. I never saw the instrument, or a photo of it, and I wonder how the baby survived, since calorimeters are usually airtight. I vaguely recall he said something like: the babies were not in there for long. That can't be right! Maybe he was joking, although he is not a prankster. Fleischmann and I are big fans of calorimetry. He often points out that many of the constants for radioactive decay were originally established with calorimetry, and so was the proof that radioactivity cannot be a chemical reaction. That was obvious from qualitative observation, but they needed a way to prove it quantitatively. - Jed
[Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
I've been trying to get my head around the interactions of moving magnets, toroidal magnets, and toroidal cores. As I understand it, we have a situation like this: 1) Toroidal magnetic core has a non-toroidal field when current is off. Another magnet will be attracted to the core. 2) Current on = field of core is *rotated* so that it becomes entirely toroidal. At this point, the field outside the toroidal coil/core combination *vanishes*. The external magnet is no longer attracted to the core, and can be moved away. 3) Current turned off again = field of core rotates back, and the externally visible field returns. Magnets are once again attracted to the coil/core combination. So exactly what happens when we throw an external moving magnet into the mix? Here's an approach to visualizing it: Real magnets are complicated but we can imagine something much simpler which may clarify this. Imagine that the magnetic core consists of a myriad of tiny magnetic dipoles mounted on gimbals. A lot of little springs hold them in the orientation which produces the externally visible field. Furthermore, the gimbals can be locked and unlocked, using negligible energy. Now let's look at some interactions. * * * First, no external magnet: A-1) In field-on position, springs are relaxed. A-2) Turn on the coil. Dipoles rotate against the spring force until they are parallel to the applied field; at that point the external field vanishes. Springs being conservative, if we don't want our dipoles oscillating, we need to add some friction, which damps the motion; that results in nearly all the energy we just pumped into the system turning into heat. The rest of the energy went into the springs, which are now tense. There was back EMF on the coil during this step, and it is caused by the rotating fields of the dipoles. That's where the energy comes from to turn the dipoles. A-3) Turn off the coil. The energy of the springs comes back out and turns mostly into heat (through friction) as the dipoles rotate back into their field on positions. There's more induced EMF in step (3), as the energy of the springs turns partly into electrical energy. * * * Now let's add an external magnet to the mix. B-1) In field-on position, with gimbals locked so the dipoles don't jiggle, bring an external magnet up to the toroid. We get useful energy out as it's attracted to the toroids. B-2) With the external magnet *stationary*, turn on the coil (and unlock the gimbals). The dipoles rotate to line up with the coil's field. (Assume they line up *essentially* exactly with the field of the coil, which is assumed to be far stronger than the field of the external magnet. Alternatively we can run the experiment other-way-around, with field turned off in step (1) and magnets repelling each other in step (3), and avoid the misalignment problem entirely.) The external field vanishes. What's the back EMF in this step? It's the SAME AS IT WAS IN STEP A-2. That's because the back EMF is caused by the *change* in the B field inside the coil, and that's the same in B-2 as it was in A-2, due to linear superposition. Current the same, voltage the same, means we the energy dumped into the coil is THE SAME in B-2 as in A-2. B-3) Pull the external magnet away (against *zero* resistance from the toroid, which has no visible field at this point). Then, with the external magnet far away, turn off the coil. The induced EMF in B-3 will be, once again, identical to that in A-3. * * * We got energy out in B-1 which we didn't get out in A-1, yet we put the same amount of electrical energy into the system in steps B1-B3 as we did in steps A1-A3. Where'd that energy come from? This is the Steorn Mystery. Here's what I think is the answer, in the Gedanken I just described: The effect of the external magnet's field in step B-2 is to reduce the total torque on the dipoles. Consequently they gain less energy as they swing into field-off position, and as a result less energy is turned into heat in that step. (They move a little more slowly, by the way.) So, the magnets warm up *less* when the motor is running than they do when the motor is not running. But, the back EMF is identical in both cases. Essentially, when the motor is running, some energy which would have been wasted as heat goes to mechanical work instead. Of course, this is an analysis of a gedanken experiment, which may or may not apply to Steorn's motor. None the less it's a gedanken which was bugging me, so whether the result applies to Steorn or not I still found it interesting :-) .
RE: [Vo]:Calorimetry would probably be a definitive test of Steorn's claim
Jed sez: If the people at Steorn do put the device into a calorimeter, that should prove they are right or wrong. As long as the calorimeter is reasonably accurate and the input power waveform is not too complicated, it should produce a definite answer. We will have to give them credit for intellectual honesty. It will be a sincere effort to resolve the issues. It will overturn the Abd hypothesis. If they hem and haw, delay, and make excuses that will bolster the Abd hypothesis. ... This is fun, regardless of the outcome! It also seems like a good example of the principals of science being observed honorably. I wish there was a way we could construct a friendly Vort wager based on the outcome of Steorn's ORBO calorimetry tests. I would suggest something like making a commitment to contribute, say $5 or $10 bucks from one's PayPal account to a worthy cause, like Mr. Beaty's vortex-l list - if the calorimetry results turn out to be positive, meaning OU has been detected. OTOH, if Steorn hems and haws, or if the calorimetry results prove definitively that no OU was detected, I would suggest making a the same financial contribution to Abd's PayPal account. God knows, I'm sure Abd wouldn't mind receiving additional financial assistance as he gears up to construct his educational CF kit. Whadya say? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Calorimetry would probably be a definitive test of Steorn's claim
On 01/15/2010 01:22 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Whadya say? I say the results will be ambiguous. To make this fly you'd need disinterested judges whose decision was to be accepted as final by all contestants. Absent that I think a wager on this is a bad idea.
Re: [Vo]:Calorimetry would probably be a definitive test of Steorn's claim
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: In one of his earliest cold fusion experiments, Richard Oriani used a Seebeck calorimeter designed to hold a baby. It was remarkably precise. I never saw the instrument, or a photo of it, and I wonder how the baby survived, since calorimeters are usually airtight. I vaguely recall he said something like: the babies were not in there for long. That can't be right! Maybe he was joking, although he is not a prankster. http://chestofbooks.com/food/household/Foods-And-Household-Management/Energy-Requirements-Of-Adults.html
Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: I've been trying to get my head around the interactions of moving magnets, toroidal magnets, and toroidal cores. As I understand it, we have a situation like this: 1) Toroidal magnetic core has a non-toroidal field when current is off. Another magnet will be attracted to the core. I don't recall that we know anything about the core except it is present in demo 2 Orbo and absent in demo 2 Pulse Motor. I don't recall anyone saying the core was magnetic, only ferromagnetic. Of course, it could become magnetic due to remanence. Or it could be a high permeability metal with lots of nickel and little remanence, a super-mumetal. T
Re: [Vo]:Hotson's Third Article
Okay, I ordered the back issue. On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I understand that Hotson published his third article last year in the July/August IE mag: http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue86/hotson.html I don't suppose anyone has this to share? Terry
Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
couldbe :-) On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: We got energy out in B-1 which we didn't get out in A-1, yet we put the same amount of electrical energy into the system in steps B1-B3 as we did in steps A1-A3. Where'd that energy come from? This is the Steorn Mystery. Now we're on the same track. As I said before, this sounds just like the uproar about the Keelynet Firefly. There was no FE-source in that device. It just acted to uncouple the input drive pulse from the output pulsed load. As a result, when you added a load, THE INPUT ENERGY DIDN'T INCREASE! It's FE, it's FE! Not. Instead, with no load connected, the input energy would go into waste heat. But with a load connected, the input energy drives the load instead of being wasted. But unfortunately, output energy was still being supplied by the power supply, so it could *never* be higher than input. There was no mysterious energy present. And if you tried to close the loop and make it self-acting, you'd always fail. With the origional MRA device and with Firefly, after all the yelling died down, our conclusions ended up being something like this: Don't waste time with possibly self-deceiving measurements. Since your net output power is apparently so large, GO AND CLOSE THE LOOP. You haven't bothered to try closing the loop? Then you're just fooling yourself. Please shut up and stop bothering everyone. So, the magnets warm up *less* when the motor is running than they do when the motor is not running. But, the back EMF is identical in both cases. Essentially, when the motor is running, some energy which would have been wasted as heat goes to mechanical work instead. Yes, that's exactly the effect of an uncoupled input-output achieved through nonlinear switching. With the firefly device, a pulse was launched into a long piece of coax cable, then the input was switched into high impedance. If nothing else was done, then the pulse would bounce back and forth inside the coax until it died away. No doubt the cable heated very slightly. If instead a load was switched in, then the load absorbed the pulse. Either way, the input power supply watts were totally constant regardless of whether a load was present or not. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
On 01/15/2010 02:21 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: I've been trying to get my head around the interactions of moving magnets, toroidal magnets, and toroidal cores. As I understand it, we have a situation like this: 1) Toroidal magnetic core has a non-toroidal field when current is off. Another magnet will be attracted to the core. I don't recall that we know anything about the core except it is present in demo 2 Orbo and absent in demo 2 Pulse Motor. I don't recall anyone saying the core was magnetic, only ferromagnetic. Really! My mistake, then -- I thought I had read that the cores used were actually (statically) magnetized. For the last couple weeks I've been wondering about those magnetic cores. So if the cores aren't magnetic, then the mechanism for making the motor go around is presumably that the ferromagnetic cores are attracted to a magnet when the power is off, but when the power is on they're saturated, with an internal field which is entirely toroidal, and they don't respond to an external magnet. That would also make sense, I and I suspect it still falls to the same analysis: The cores will get warmer when there's no load. (I *think*.) If I have time on my hands (hah hah!) I may redo my handwaving analysis with the assumption that the cores are non-magnetized, and try to work out all the field directions to see if the energy transfer comes out in the right direction for the less warming hypothesis to be correct. [NB -- However the motor works, the nonlinearity of the cores at saturation must be entering into it. Otherwise it's very hard to see how toroidal coils could be interacting with the passing magnets at all, since their fields are entirely contained within the toroid.] Of course, it could become magnetic due to remanence. Or it could be a high permeability metal with lots of nickel and little remanence, a super-mumetal. T
Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
- Original Message From: William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:25:04 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: We got energy out in B-1 which we didn't get out in A-1, yet we put the same amount of electrical energy into the system in steps B1-B3 as we did in steps A1-A3. Where'd that energy come from? This is the Steorn Mystery. Now we're on the same track. As I said before, this sounds just like the uproar about the Keelynet Firefly. There was no FE-source in that device. It just acted to uncouple the input drive pulse from the output pulsed load. As a result, when you added a load, THE INPUT ENERGY DIDN'T INCREASE! It's FE, it's FE! Not. Instead, with no load connected, the input energy would go into waste heat. But with a load connected, the input energy drives the load instead of being wasted. But unfortunately, output energy was still being supplied by the power supply, so it could *never* be higher than input. There was no mysterious energy present. And if you tried to close the loop and make it self-acting, you'd always fail. With the origional MRA device and with Firefly, after all the yelling died down, our conclusions ended up being something like this: Don't waste time with possibly self-deceiving measurements. Since your net output power is apparently so large, GO AND CLOSE THE LOOP. You haven't bothered to try closing the loop? Then you're just fooling yourself. Please shut up and stop bothering everyone. So for the orbo to be overunity it would have to produce less waste heat under NO loading, i.e. with the revolving magnets removed? Harry __ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
On 01/15/2010 06:05 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message From: William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:25:04 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: We got energy out in B-1 which we didn't get out in A-1, yet we put the same amount of electrical energy into the system in steps B1-B3 as we did in steps A1-A3. Where'd that energy come from? This is the Steorn Mystery. Now we're on the same track. As I said before, this sounds just like the uproar about the Keelynet Firefly. There was no FE-source in that device. It just acted to uncouple the input drive pulse from the output pulsed load. As a result, when you added a load, THE INPUT ENERGY DIDN'T INCREASE! It's FE, it's FE! Not. Instead, with no load connected, the input energy would go into waste heat. But with a load connected, the input energy drives the load instead of being wasted. But unfortunately, output energy was still being supplied by the power supply, so it could *never* be higher than input. There was no mysterious energy present. And if you tried to close the loop and make it self-acting, you'd always fail. With the origional MRA device and with Firefly, after all the yelling died down, our conclusions ended up being something like this: Don't waste time with possibly self-deceiving measurements. Since your net output power is apparently so large, GO AND CLOSE THE LOOP. You haven't bothered to try closing the loop? Then you're just fooling yourself. Please shut up and stop bothering everyone. So for the orbo to be overunity it would have to produce less waste heat under NO loading, i.e. with the revolving magnets removed? Almost. But say, rather, that it would have to produce MORE waste heat when it's under load. With no load, (waste heat[no load]) = energy input. When it's under load, waste head DROPS, and we have (waste heat[under load] + mechanical energy) = energy input and waste heat [under load] waste heat[no load] and it's not OU. If the waste heat did NOT drop when it was under load, on the other hand, then we'd have waste heat[load] == waste heat[no load] (waste heat[load] + mechanical energy) waste heat[no load] and so (waste heat[load] + mechanical energy) energy input and it would be over unity. Harry __ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
The problem is quantifying the mechanical energy. With only windage and bearing friction (no excess work) calorimetry is the only way to quantify the output of the Orbomination. T On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 01/15/2010 06:05 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message From: William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 3:25:04 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: We got energy out in B-1 which we didn't get out in A-1, yet we put the same amount of electrical energy into the system in steps B1-B3 as we did in steps A1-A3. Where'd that energy come from? This is the Steorn Mystery. Now we're on the same track. As I said before, this sounds just like the uproar about the Keelynet Firefly. There was no FE-source in that device. It just acted to uncouple the input drive pulse from the output pulsed load. As a result, when you added a load, THE INPUT ENERGY DIDN'T INCREASE! It's FE, it's FE! Not. Instead, with no load connected, the input energy would go into waste heat. But with a load connected, the input energy drives the load instead of being wasted. But unfortunately, output energy was still being supplied by the power supply, so it could *never* be higher than input. There was no mysterious energy present. And if you tried to close the loop and make it self-acting, you'd always fail. With the origional MRA device and with Firefly, after all the yelling died down, our conclusions ended up being something like this: Don't waste time with possibly self-deceiving measurements. Since your net output power is apparently so large, GO AND CLOSE THE LOOP. You haven't bothered to try closing the loop? Then you're just fooling yourself. Please shut up and stop bothering everyone. So for the orbo to be overunity it would have to produce less waste heat under NO loading, i.e. with the revolving magnets removed? Almost. But say, rather, that it would have to produce MORE waste heat when it's under load. With no load, (waste heat[no load]) = energy input. When it's under load, waste head DROPS, and we have (waste heat[under load] + mechanical energy) = energy input and waste heat [under load] waste heat[no load] and it's not OU. If the waste heat did NOT drop when it was under load, on the other hand, then we'd have waste heat[load] == waste heat[no load] (waste heat[load] + mechanical energy) waste heat[no load] and so (waste heat[load] + mechanical energy) energy input and it would be over unity. Harry __ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
RE: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right
I sent one post which hasn't shown up yet... Perhaps its awaiting Bills scrutiny before allowing it thru. It had a JPEG attachment of how the inductance of the toroidal coil changes by a factor of 5 as the rotor magnets approach and move past the coil... More quotes from the Steorn Forum to show that Sean is revealing a considerable amount of details, although not all at this time... Can't blame him. -Mark Here is the weblink... http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=62495page=1 and here is how Sean opens the discussion... - Folks, Please post any rational questions/concerns/comments on the second experiment in this thread. We hope that we were able to address several of the concerns expressed about the first experiment during the second one. Again we would like to keep this process as observer led as possible. Please keep the posts on subject, polite and focused. Thanks, Sean [ME: And some specific quotes below...] - Steorn: There is no back emf in any of the coils in the experiment shown - it is not a case of one coils Back EMF cancelling out the other. -- overconfident: What core materials are you using? Steorn: Just a soft magnetic material - I will not go into the details - sorry. -- overconfident: Is there any hard magnetic bias in the toroidal cores? Steorn: No -- Steorn: The magnetic arragement on the rotor is the same in both cases, an N pole above an S pole (or the other way around). The coils in the pulse motor (like the coils on the Orbo motor) are both facing up. -- Steorn: There is no back EMF in any of the coils due to the motion of the rotor. All coils suffer CEMF during the inductive rise and collapse of the field. -- overconfident: Does your secret core material demonstrate a significant Wiegand effect? Sean: No -- Steorn: ... but as I keep saying this stuff does take a huge amount of precision positioning to get right. -- They use counter EMF and back EMF... Many were confused by that, including me. Wikipedia has this explanation, however, I don't know if Sean is using these definitions... WIKIPEDIA: The counter-electromotive force (abbreviated counter emf, or CEMF ) is the voltage, or electromotive force, that pushes against the current which induces it. CEMF is caused by a changing electromagnetic field. It is represented by Lenz's Law of electromagnetism. Back electromotive force is a voltage that occurs in electric motors where there is relative motion between the armature of the motor and the external magnetic field. One practical application is to use this phenomenon to indirectly measure motor speed and position. Counter emf is a voltage developed in an inductor network by a pulsating current or an alternating current. The voltage's polarity is at every moment the reverse of the input voltage. [links to references deleted] --- [ME: Here is one observers explanation that is a good start at understanding what's happening...] 1) First stage Rotor magnets are approaching the toroidal coil. They are simply being attracted to the core. Coil's circuit is open. As the magnets' coupled flux goes through part of the toroid's core this induces EMF in the coil - an electric potential difference across two open-circuited terminals. The current doesn't flow so there is no Lenz interaction with the rotor. 2) Second stage Magnets reach TDC. Magnets coupled flux goes through half of the toroid. Or it's being divided by two - part of the flux goes left side of the toroid and the other part goes right side of the toroid. How it is in fact doesn't really matter. As the magnets reach TDC, we close the electric circuit and fire up the current to saturate the core. As the core is partially saturated by magnet's flux we don't really need much current (this is the main and very important difference with JLN setup). Why don't we see any Back EMF here? Simply because magnet's coupled flux will always choose the simplest way to go - the way it finds no magnetic resistance. So magnet's coupled flux lines will always align here with the coil's magnetic flux lines. So as these flux lines do not fight with each other - we simply have no Lenz Law interaction here. 3) Third stage As the magnets go past the toroid, their flux lines still align with the coil's flux lines but the aid they provide in saturating the core is getting weaker with the distance from the toroid. However, the current input (to keep the saturation) stays constant at some point (in fact very quickly) because of the core's material properties. Remember the graph Amplitude Permeability vs. Flux Density for Metglas? What you find in this graph is: The higher the flux density, the lower the permeability. However for metglas the permeability stays constant between 0 - 0.47T.
