On 01/18/2010 11:42 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > > from > http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=62495&page=4#Item_29 > > Steorn says: > "There is no doubt that CEMF exists during field construction and field > collapse. What we are saying is something different - that there is no > Back EMF due to the motion of the rotor (as demonstrated in the test).
Right on both counts, for sure. > Now > we have also shown that the inductance of the coils is not the same at > the firing position as it is in the field collapse position - the > effect of this is the subject of a follow-up experiment that we will > post tomorrow." Interesting -- according to conventional theory, that's where the Easter egg is hidden (just as in all magnetic-shield perpetual motion machines). Differing inductance means differing BEMF which means different energy in from energy out, and that's (what I think is) a major part of the missing piece of the energy balance equation. The other part is what happens as a result of the nonlinearity of the material -- some amount of the input energy turns into heat in the core as the field is set up, and some amount of the field energy goes into heat in the core as the field is knocked down. And that is (what I think is) the remainder of the missing bits in the energy balance equation. When dealing with a core which is saturating, I don't think you can model the inductance of the coil as a single value. I'm hazy on this but I think you need to model it as a function of current, and possibly a function of current rise time. > Harry > > > ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]> >> To: Vortex <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sun, January 17, 2010 12:42:17 PM >> Subject: [Vo]:Orbo: It's a magnetic-shield perpmo >> >> OK, folks, we're all talking about it but nobody's quite said it. This >> apparently novel motor is actually just a new manifestation of a very >> old concept. >> >> The Orbo, as described, is a perpetual motion machine which uses >> magnetic shields. There is just one thing which is unusual about it: >> >> Instead of using physical shields, moved by solenoids, it uses an >> electronic shield (the toroidal coil), and it uses saturation of the >> core to "block" the field. >> >> The result of the use of these "active shields" is that all the while >> the "shield" is "in place" there is a large current draw. This large >> current draw, which goes to heating the coils and nothing else, throws a >> lot of dust in the air and makes the analysis of the motor more confusing. >> >> The thing the large current drain distracts from is that this machine, >> just like *all* perpetual motion machines which use magnetic shields, >> loses in exactly one place: The cost of moving the shields. In the >> case of Orbo, that's going to manifest itself in the transients as the >> coils are turned on and off. >> >> Once the shields are in place (or, in Orbo's case, the coils are fully >> energized) the behavior of a magnetic-shield perpmo is simple. It's >> only during the acts of putting up the shields and taking them down that >> it's hard to understand. >> >> Any analysis of the motor which does not pick apart the exact behavior >> of the transients during coil turnon/turnoff is going to leave out a key >> piece of the puzzle. Furthermore, any analysis which leaves out those >> transients is likely to arrive at the conclusion that it's OU -- just as >> any analysis of a classical perpetual motion machine using magnetic >> shields which neglects the cost of moving the shields is likely to >> conclude that the machine would work. > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > Reclaim your name @ymail.com or @rocketmail.com. Get your new email address > now! Go to http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/jacko/ >
