Splitting the electron stream

[gravityblock]

Yes. Lol, indeed... Piss off, if you don't have anything real to contribute to Steorn's claims....

FYI, this thing is public since 2006, so....

You may have missed "a few (tens of thousands of)" discussions, i think...

If you look back, then you'll see I've been a part of most of those discussions.  Steorn isn't anything new to me, as you may think.

Why don't you Piss off, because you're not contributing to this thread in any kind of positve way.

GB

[spinn_MP]

Sorry, GB.
I don't remember you from any of the previous Steorn sites.

Care to explain since when (in the past) you became an expert?

[XS-NRG]

Your doing it again 

[TinselKoala]

Except for the single item of the magnetic bearings, just how are my final Orbette constructions and performances different from Steorn's?

You will recall, GB,  or maybe not, that Steorn never actually showed output from their generator sections...I did, that's a big difference.

You may recall, but with your holes in your memory, probably not, that Steorn claimed to be recharging a battery with their Orbo, but NEVER SHOWED this...I did, that's a big difference.

I showed Orbettes running off of batteries that they themselves charged. Steorn never did. I showed power graphs that CLEARLY show that Orbette uses less power when the rotor magnets are being accelerated than when they aren't...clearly showing that I have reproduced the key Orbo effect. Even Steorn has not been able to show this data. That's a big difference.

Rather than trying to figure out what Steorn did to FAIL to show you that they achieved an effect, perhaps you should pay more attention to my work, since I clearly AND REPRODUCIBLY show how to do it. Anyone who builds according to my design will be able to do anything that Steorn's Orbo is CLAIMED to do -- even those things that Steorn didn't show.

Including running a rotor for less energy per pulse than when the rotor's not there, and including producing an input energy integral that does not accumulate over time -- just like Steorn's.

You criticise my scope shots, apparently without looking at them ---- the early ones, when I was still trying for flat tops, are as flat as Steorn's, or even flatter. The ones in the trace I linked above aren't flat for a reason --- the shapes I show WORK BETTER for the Steorn Orbo effect. (In addition, the current trace is taken from the correct location, not one that is cut out of the circuit during the most interesting part of the cycle, when the magnets are approaching the cores and changing their inductance.)

Have you ever even considered what the Steorn flattopped traces mean....and have you ever considered that identical traces can be easily obtained from any ordinary pulse motor, as many experimenters here can confirm?

The flat-topped scope trace is just one of many red herrings in the Steorn saga -- keep chasing after it and you'll miss the real, tasty, fish.

(And anyone who spits out every digit their calculator displays, when inputting variables with only one or two or three significant digits...well, let's just say they are WRONG and leave it at that, because whatever number they quote is certainly NOT the true value of the result. Hopefully the thread at energeticforum has explained graphically to you why your use of the static equation for inductance is incorrect in this case, and hopefully you will research the topic of "significant digits" before you cite any more falsely precise calculations. Using the correct equation for the situation, and not falsely inflating your precision, will go a long way towards enhancing your credibility.)

[TinselKoala]

.doublepost sorry.