http://dispatchesfromthefuture.com/2009/12/sean_mccarthy_to_discuss_orbo_online_tom.htmlThe title of the talk is "Introduction to an Orbo Electromagnetic Interaction - Part 1", and the description is "Sean McCarthy, CEO of Steorn, will discuss and demonstrate cancelling Back EMF in Orbo electromagnetic interactions."
I seem to remember seeing this demo years ago, and concluding, so what? Well whats so important about cancelling back emf from a secondary? Actually it seems important to note that thought experiments already show this to feasible, in the mind at least. Suppose we have a central rotor of rotating magnets, and periphery ring stator collectors for the revolving magnetic field lines. If the outer ring is prevented from moving, you have a permanent magnet alternator. If you instead have a rotating electromagnetic field, it is by definition an alternator. In each of these cases the lenz law effect will oppose the motion of the magnets or the field, and work must be done to turn the central rotor because the outer periphery stator assembly will oppose the central motion. Now suppose we wish to cancel that force against the central rotating motion? We could have another AC voltage input timed against those stator voltages, so that zero current issues from the stator assembly.Zero current means zero power expenditure. Since that cancellation produces zero current on the stator, lenz law has been cancelled and the emf source that did so would cost zero energy input, since no current issued from that emf source, it is merely there to cancel the stator output. However because of the silicone steel in the stator cores, a resistance to the central rotors movement would still be noted, so for simplicity lets assume this was a innefficient air core generator such as Joseph Newman built by using huge air core secondaries as the peripheral stator assembly. But he didn't build that thing as a generator, instead he built it in reverse principle so that it would act as a motor instead. And also crucially his flux change from the revolving magnet had it sweeping by the SIDE of the coil instead of the stronger reaction obtained by having that revolving field instead sweeping by the polar areas of the reaction part. Many years ago in the eighties I became interested in his premise and I built my own version, in which I discovered a fascinating thing. I had four large field coils of some 80 Henry and ~1000 ohms or more. I intended to advance his model by commutation methods, so that two machines could be put into one. Suppose I told you that it was possible to create an air core field formation around a central rotating magnet in which the outside fields never had to change polarity to continually repel that central magnet in a circle. Impossible you say! But that was my first invention and discovery among many more to follow. And as usual everytime you try something based on theory you discover something else by accident. Lately this has happened several times in a row, until I began to wonder whether the invention itself was talking back to me, and giving me hidden clues as to it's real operational parameters! It was in fact this same thing that revealed to me the mechanisms involved with time distortion. I thought back and said, "Geez, if it werent for this simple mistake I wouldnt have discovered this!" "What a lucky mistake". Going back to my original claim, how is it possible to continually rotate a magnet without ever reversing polarity of the field coils? Well my field coils were 13 inches high, but not nearly as wide. My original intention was to have a magnet sweeping by the side of the coils (made on each side for further efficiency on one quarter of the rotation, and then when it was parallel to the field coils another set of coils would turn on from the new side appearance and again propel the magnets around in a circle. In that circumstance after 180 degrees of rotation, indeed I would then have to reverse the polarity of the field coils to keep the magnet rotating. But luckily for me my four field coils would not conveniently "fit" around the periphery of the rotating magnet, so I took a punt at fourth down and instead turned two of the field coils on the side around so that now I had both pole endings and side facing field coils. I was amazed about what I discovered next, which was a "better method" to use air core fields to turn a centrally rotating field magnet. I turned only the pole facing coils on and noted the stronger torque exercized on the magnet when it was in the polar vicinities of the field. Then I repeated the same procedure for the side coils which showed a weaker torque. Then I turned on all four field coils in series in the same polarity used to rotate that central magnet for the inspected 180 degrees of action. I looked at the weakest action first, when the magnet was facing the side of the field coils. I was then astounded to then find that now the strongest torque of all was being applied to the magnet, BUT IT WAS IN THE REVERSE DIRECTION! It was stronger even then the polar reaction! When I then noted where all the magnetic poles were with the field coils, I had all north poles to the left, and all south poles to the right. I was essentially using magnetic compression to achieve the effect that normally required a field polarity reversal to achieve. But my later model based on those principles did not work very well, for the simple reason that the time period for the magnetic fields on one side to turn on and off was so large, because of their large inductances, that the magnet would turn faster then what could be produced on the field coils. Now we all know about the time lag involved with inductance, and how the amperage will lag the induced voltage due to its emf source, but we may mistakenly assume that a wire connected-line connected voltage source will do the same action as a source of emf instead created spatially by vicinity of a moving magnetic field. These large inductors of 20,000 winds of 23 gauge wire having 80 H will actually have an incredible time lag between when the voltage is applied, and when the resultant amperage takes place. But it is the amperage in the coil itself that produces the respondent magnetic field. It probably has a phase angle near 89 degrees by actual measurements. Now initially I had no intention whatsover to go into these past things at all, but simply to make my point that I have engineered something assumed to be impossible, and as a furtherance of that demonstration, and other ones made in the past, it is perfectly possible to make circumstances where more power is passed through the air then if the same load were line connected to the actual voltage source. http://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/3338081529/ 221 views http://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/3338764080/ 350 views Note the differences between the nite light bulb to the left and the bulb powered through the air from the same line inputs. This is nothing more then a demonstration of impedance matching and what can be done with it. What I have done now is to demonstrate the same sort of thing with an alternator input using a 15 watt bulb. But that demo showed me things I hadn't considered, which is how the air core secondary bypasses lenz law considerations, and the probable reasons that can occur. But back to the original theoretical discussion of nature, which once again has revealed something by accident. Is the emf made by wire connection the same thing as the emf induced through the air? I have discovered substantial differences involved here; Will the air core secondary having emf induced upon be current limited by its own impedance?(it does this when line connected to its voltage source) http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AlrMdxYclfPgVFhrB8t6SPHsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20111206184548AADLjxo Now if it true that emf induced through the air has the same actions as emf made by line connections; that introduces the following scenario. We introduce the air borne emf by rotating a large magnet in the polar vicinity of a large inductor. When the magnet first approaches the pole, it will be repelled by lenz law. It will be attracted when it leaves that polar area in its circular sweep across the polar area. But now again the question is asked, what about that secondaries own impedance and inductive reactance? Has it vanished so that Lenz law works instantaneously? This in fact may be perfectly possible as I have seen in my own experimentation. Some inductors respond like they should do as if they were instead subjected to a line connected emf, but others do not. There is not enough space and time to explain that right now, but I plan a video on it. But back to our original supposition, shouldn't it be true that if the inductor acted the same way as it does with a line connected emf, compared to the air borne emf, that we could actually spin the magnet fast enough so that by the time it has approached the pole, the action of the delayed lenz law by the impedance of that secondary would dictate that it now begins acting, just like it would do with line connected AC voltage inputs. This would mean that instead of attracting the magnet on its outward journey to oppose the motion, if a 90 degree delay were instituted,(again as it would do by line connected inputs due to its large size), it would instead repel that moving magnet, thus aiding and not opposing the magnets motion. This would mean that at a certain rpm, the secondary load would be powering its own source. I have seen this happen over and over again with my air core secondary research, and at first it greatly puzzled me, but other (correct) explanations rushed in to fill the vacuum. In the first demonstration of my wireless tesla coil, where ALL the energy is imparted through the air, the two higher value inductors used to make the effects show that when one inductor is placed on top of the other to impart energy to the tesla coil, the voltage delivery to the sending coil goes up, and its amperage is reduced, but more amperage is delivered on the second coil used to make the effect. The sending coil when asked to do work suddenly has its source of power increased, hence the load appears to be powering its own source. The same thing happens in my latest demonstration. But returning once again to my rotating magnet analogy; WHY HASN'T SOMEONE THOUGHT OF THIS BEFORE? By all logic it should happen! We should be able to rotate the magnet fast enough so that the reaction force aids the motive force, UNLESS certain somewhat un-eludicated laws take place. Perhaps this was why Steorn attached so much significance to a demonstration of a cancelled lenz law effect coming from a secondary, which I myself initially scoffed at as being unimportant. I have always agreed with the Russians that promote the idea that bigger is better, and in this case had I not started out with huge inductors in my research, certain things would have just been glossed over. But perhaps Steorn was working with ideas whereby things might be miniaturized by altering phase angles with addition of capacity to the inductive reactive elements, which is a standard practice of altering phase angles with an inductor. But once again something projected to work on paper doesn't always work in the real world. Since I have carried on this rant long enough and hopefully created some questions no one else thought about before, I will now make my point, and further ramifications of the usefullness of what I have created will be noted later... Can three phases of 120 degree AC be combined in series to yield the sum of their input voltages? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=An9o6DmhQbV3Mw0MxbkB0G_ty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20111107085626AACEt6M Of course not, it is simply impossible... Now look at this Dual Channel Scopings of Secondaries to be placed in Series from (corrected) 666 Machine; ~ 60 degree Time Difference from poles over Identical Phase Series! This actually explains how fields in near unison can exist from the combinations. http://youtu.be/CBR1z5WaKAE 15 watt bulb demo from semi "reaction-less" lenz law air core secondaries. More power is passed through the air then the equivalent line connections would deliver. http://youtu.be/GMvr2Ka8NDQ HDN Also posted on JLN; Teslafy Duplicates ORBO Claims I am not completely familiar with the Irish free energy company,ORBO that released claims for a free energy device with great fanfare some time ago.(After this post I will do a google research on what I am talking about) Others may clarify what their claims were better then myself. But I seemed to remember they attached great importance to a device that could impart energy to a secondary, without that secondary in turn reflecting back to its source that secondary demand. In laymans terms this means that once a load is placed on the secondary, the primary demand goes up. In study of perfect air core mutual couplings with tuned resonant circuits, we do in fact see the opposite action with perfectly coupled mutual inductances retuned for their reactance change brought upon by vicinity of secondary to primary; whereby the secondary load instead decreases the primary amperage input by half, but the original amount of current delivery without the secondary vicinity put into place is now equally distributed between the two parts. If we simply move the secondary away from the primary, the same total amperage from the source then assumes itself only on the primary part. This can be shown with adjacent spirals without even adding capacities to each side to make it a tuned resonant pairing. In this example the primary amperage could change across a 100% variance, according to the secondary demand placed across it. THIS IS DUE TO THE LENZ LAW REACTION BACK TO THE PRIMARY THAT DICTATES ITS ENERGY INPUT. When the secondary acts according to lenz law; it acts as a derivative in time of the primaries magnetic field action; where it then acts to continually oppose the MOVEMENT of the primaries magnetic field in open air core space. This in turn means that when the primaries field is expanding in space, the lenz law secondary action will produce a equal polarity magnetic field to oppose its magnetic expansion, thus it is exercizing repulsive magnetic fields in its reaction force. But when the primaries magnetic field collapses, the lenz law reaction also reverses, so that now attractive magnetic fields are used to "oppose the primaries magnetic field movement in space" What this generally means is that the output of the secondary will be reflected back onto the primary. The fact that reverse actions of amperage demand, and higher ratios of amp turns on secondary vs primary can occur with air core tuned resonant circuits confounded me for months until I saw the light, which has been categorized some where in the past, and I am looking for that not so easily located document. But it rationalizes the whole process and explains it by the fact that since you have a perfectly working resonant circuit as a load, the apparent power will now equal the true power expended. If we look at any other way it would appear that the secondary output exceeded the primary one. Having crossed that great hurdle next we consider the definition of a "reactionless" secondary. It then acts as if a majority of its lenz law actions are cancelled, and in fact that cancellation itself is a manipulation to obtain energy in this manner. No matter what the efficiency loss in the air core translation shows, using this method "MORE POWER IS OBTAINED THROUGH THE AIR THEN THE SAME LOAD ATTACHED TO THE DELIVER LINES. This delivery method also shows that the secondary vibration draw upon the primary vibration, will not significantly be coupled to it, meaning that the draw output will not be significantly different from the no draw condition, shown by raising the secondaries away from the primary. The neutralization of lenz law secondary effects are already predicted by thought experiments, but here a practical demonstration of the principle will be shown. It is of course not a demonstration of free energy at all, but instead a demonstration of a (lenz law) semi-reactionless secondary performance. In this regard, the load appears to power its own source, as once that load is added, the voltage delivery from the source is increased. Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
