STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM

[haithar]

For anyone who did not instantly know what M in the M-H-curve is - like me - it's the Magnetization.
Usually M=x*H, where x is a material constant. But note why a M-H-curve makes sense in the Steorn case: "In ferromagnets there is no one-to-one correspondence between M and H because of hysteresis."

[gravityblock]

That's good find as the *origin & history* of the Steorn effect, but he says it's a problem with tape drives. One important note that may or may not help, is that Sean says "tape drive," not "magnetic recording tape."  I used to work for a magnetic head company, and tape drives contain magnetic heads, which have magnetic cores. Don't you think Sean is referring to the tape drive, and not the magnetic recording tape?

I think Sean is referring to how the original tape drives are designed and by re-engineering the tape drives you can exploit the unknown effects of the magnetic recording tape or other core materials by having the dual magnets sit on the M-H Curve of the core material during their departure from TDC by offsetting or biasing it with a DC pulse.

I agree this may be the origin and history of the Steorn effect.  I think it's really important to know the origin behind the Orbo effect.  We really need to take a hard look at the M-H Curves because it's mentioned in the SKDB resources and is linked to the magnetic recording tapes of the old fashioned tape drives that Sean made a reference to in a video presentation.

PL, I do respect your research.  I'm not saying metglas won't work and I don't think you're saying metglas is the only core that will work.  I think we're in agreement about this, so there is no reason to fight with each other.  If we can all work together, share ideas and thoughts, we'll be able to replicate the Orbo.  Some ideas may be good while others are not so good, but they all need to be researched.  Sometimes things that appear to be counter intuitive can have amazing effects, such as the design of the Halbach Arrays.

GB 

[gravityblock]

For anyone who did not instantly know what M in the M-H-curve is - like me - it's the Magnetization.
Usually M=x*H, where x is a material constant. But note why a M-H-curve makes sense in the Steorn case: "In ferromagnets there is no one-to-one correspondence between M and H because of hysteresis."

Yes, that is correct.  If the magnetic field from the dual magnets sit on the linear portion of the M-H Curve by biasing it with a DC pulse, then the dual magnets aren't attracted to the core during their departure from TDC even if the core isn't saturated.  The core is not attractive from the frame of reference of the dual magnets and are allowed to pass if it's field sits on the M-H Curve of the core material.  I don't think the Bsat of the material has much to do with it, other than the torque as OC has mentioned, but has more to do with magnetic field of the dual magnets sitting on the linear portion on the M-H Curve of the core material so it's not attracted to the core during their departure.

GB

[0c]

Higher Bsat toroid cores require more energy to sufficiently saturate enough to appreciably decrease the force between magnet and toroid.  So far I've seen no experiments that would indicate higher Bsat is better. Maybe it is. Maybe it is not. One thing is for certain, and that if the magnet is too close to the core, then it requires too much current. Remember, twice the current equates to four times as much power, which results in four times as much energy.  That is why the Steorn magnets do not move right next to the core.

My "tiny orbo replication 1" at one point was like a dremel drill, where the magnets went as close as possible to core, but it took over 10 amps to get it run. Sure, it had a lot of torque and power, but terribly inefficient.

Higher Bsat will provide more force (torque), both positive and negative. In order to overcome the negative torque, a greater saturation level will be required. Since a high remanence will retain most of the magnetization (up to 90% or more for some square loop materials), less input current will be required to fully saturate than with materials having low remanence ... as long as the magnetic field is always the same polarity, the current is the same polarity, and the inductive spike is redirected with a flyback diode so it doesn't reverse polarity in the coil and coerce the remanent magnetization back towards zero.

I don't do electrical/electronics experiments, only permanent magnet/mechanical ones. So I won't be verifying which core material works best. I'm merely pointing out some factors that haven't gotten much attention. I don't think permeability is the only consideration. A compromise which considers other properties may be necessary for best results.

0c

[LarryC]

@All,

In my reply #2584, I showed the scope shots of my test which Steorn had made in the second half of the Orbo video. I originally thought that it showed an Orbo interaction due to the same emf curves with different power polarities.

I was wrong and I don't want to mislead. At 6:52 in 480P, he states that it is not an Orbo setup. FYI, my cores were green taken from Computer power supply. My winds were normal without a shorted secondary. 

@Ossie, JLN latest is an interesting technique. However, in the closeup of Clanzer's replication in reply #2596, it shows no circumference wire on the outside in the wind gaps which show the yellow core. Don't know if the inside circumference would work, but they could hide it that way. However, It would be difficult to get that many turns in the inside circumference.

Regards, Larry