Steorns PM-Orbo Asymmetric Non-linear MH setup ...

[TinselKoala]

Yes, and I see that he will be testing the device by comparing rundown times from a given RPM, with and without the stator magnets installed.

What an interesting idea. He will thus be exploring a complete RPM range as the device slows, and so will be able to see any RPM dependence. In addition, he will have a clear reference (the no-stator condition) for comparison, so that any slight change in configuration can be rapidly and easily tested to see its effect.

I know that Sean has a Shimpo recording tachometer and will do a good job of these tests. It will take 10 minutes or so for each rundown, and three or 4 should be averaged for each condition, so rundown testing can take some time, especially with a good platter turning on fine bearings.

The Shimpo generates graphs that look like this one I made while investigating MyLOW's little joke.

[Omnibus]

Do you realize, however, the difference between Mylow's and this proposal? In the Mylow case the motor doesn't fulfill even the first of the two conditions for asymmetry defined in Steorn's document and therefore it shouldn't be expected to be a working device at all prior to even testing it.

[Omnibus]

Makes you really wonder why the Steorn guys should put out a document such as this one: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10253.0;attach=50453 presenting measurement of torques rather than just make and demonstrate the working model, once they obviously know, as seen from the data in that document, what the right ferrite-magnet couples are.

I went to the library today to do some literary search of studies on magnetic hysteresis (unfortunately, this search can only be done in a library which is subscribed to most of the journals publishing these articles). As expected, doing these measurements right is quite involved and is beyond the means of most of us here. That's if we need to approach the problem systematically. Otherwise, it will again  be a trial and effort pursuit which would againg drive us, most likely, into a dead-end street.

I was wondering if somebody would remember where those FEMM sims we used to discuss are here in the forum. I tried to dig them out to no avail. Maybe someone can find them and post links. Of course, as seen from Steorn's document just an asymmetry found by an FEMM (or, better, by Maxwell3D) won't be enough but it won't hurt to have it. Then we will try to find the second component of the needed asymmetry (the non-linear part in the MH curve) somehow and that would bring us closer to the goal.

[spinn_MP]

Yes, and I see that he will be testing the device by comparing rundown times from a given RPM, with and without the stator magnets installed.

What an interesting idea. He will thus be exploring a complete RPM range as the device slows, and so will be able to see any RPM dependence. In addition, he will have a clear reference (the no-stator condition) for comparison, so that any slight change in configuration can be rapidly and easily tested to see its effect.
...

Maybe Clanzer forgot all those numerous "wind-down" tests from the 2007 SPDC? Ok... Maybe he just misses those good old times... 
------------
Any practical experiment made at the time has shown that no matter what type, orientation (geometry) or combination of magnets and/or ferric materials (in Steorn's PM Orbo) yielded only to shorter stopping times, compared to the blank test (usually with the stator magnet(s) being replaced by a "dummy").

This practical tests are simple, and quite reliable.  So anyone can easily see, how much certain magnetic interaction "contributes" to a complete energy bill.

And you don't need any fancy equipment, like expensive scopes, probes, vacuum chambers, ZeroF bearings, space materials, etc..

Low-cost optical (preferably contact-less) RPM counter, and a stop-watch (PC timer, mobile phone app, a cockoo clock,..), will do the trick just fine..


Which probably means, that their "always proven to work technology" actually never worked as was advertised...

[exnihiloest]

According to one of the most important result of mainstream physics, the work done to move from a potential A to a potential B doesn't depend on the path. This has been verified by thousands of sensitive experiments in all domains (electric, magnetic, gravitational). It follows that if we go from A to B, and then from B o A, the energy is balanced: we can't expect for a gain from a cyclic motion through potentials.
In the paper from Steorn given above (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10253.0;attach=50453), an asymmetry is built in order a permanent magnet to move through a magnetic path different from A to B than from B to A. Measurements are given which indicate that the energy balance is broken. All the physics laws collapse! 
But what are the facts? The unbalance is very very weak: less than 1 mJ. We must reckon that 1 mJ is the work done on earth to lift a weight of about 0.1 g to an height of 1 mtr. When we know that here magnetic forces are several orders of magnitude stronger and that an asymmetry path can drastically change the strength of the forces between the outward and return paths (but not their work), inducing different mechanical losses in the 2 sections due to different frictions not taken into account by their evaluation of the measurement uncertainty, we understand that this measurement of an almost imperceptible unbalance of the work of strong forces is far under the measurement accuracy. A real joke.
In such a goal, only a self-sustaining device would be convincing.