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

[gravityblock]

I gave facts and possible explanations. You may agree or not agree, but please stop your ad hominem attacks.
Here is your problem, gravityblock:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

I showed how you're intentionally twisting the facts in your analysis.  If knowingly mixing two different experiments in your analysis of one single experiment isn't intentionally twisting the facts, then what is?  I think any reasonable person would agree.  I'm not claiming everything I post is correct, but I'm not intentionally posting things that I know are incorrect either.  I think the physiological projection fits your behavior more than me.  The physiological projection from you is that OU is impossible and not real and we should abandon our research and attempts.  You won't succeed in your projection and you are failing in your attempt to do so.

GB

[Omnibus]

An Orbo motor has no load. That is the key fundamental issue at hand here. The circuit has no load. It performs no work.

That's incorrect. The pick-up coil is the load.

That is, eOrbo, does perform work in addition to heating the toroid coils.

Therefore, that:

That's why we say the way to measure the performance of an Orbo system is to compare the losses in the coils to the work being performed.

would only be correct if by "losses in the coils" one means the energy in addition to Joule heating.

[gyulasun]

@Freeorbo

Right, that's my point. I agree with you 100%.
...   

It is strange you agree with me here now because what I wrote it includes: the dissipated energy in a resistor WILL NOT GO BACK TO THE BATTERY! You quoted me as:

However small pico or microamper current is consumed, it is dissipated in the 10MOhm inner resistance, WILL NOT GO BACK to the battery. 

BECAUSE you said earlier this:

There's a difference between the amount of current flowing through a system and the amount of load or consumption. When you take a reading on a circuit that's just your meter and your battery, you're not consuming anything, you're just measuring the flow past the multimeter. The electrons go right back into the battery. They aren't "used up."   
....

I am pleased you start agreeing with me. Now if you understand that without the 4V and 31mA current input into the coils, Larskro's motor would not rotate at all, that would be a great understanding from you.
(Likewise, the Steorn demo motor would not work without their D cell battery at all, ok?)

I fully understand that the input power to the coils does not get consumed by the rotor or by the rotor's mechanical loads.  This is a very very good feature indeed.  But why cannot you understand that without the 4V at 31mA input power  (in Larskro's case),  this wonderful motor would not rotate at all? 

IF you or Larskro or anyone could generate a useful power output from the rotor's rotation and this generated power would exceed the 4V at 31mA input power in Larskro's case, THEN you could say: well this motor really have a COP > 1. 

An orbo circuit is just simply the current running through some wire. The only load on the circuit is the wire resistance. And the wire resistance never goes up, but does sometimes go down due to the inductive gain. 

Your latter sentence is a mistake, to say the least. Wire resistance does not change when the coils inductance changes, the latter either gets reduced or get increased in its inductance value during induction or 'inductive gain' but the copper resistance remains the same, ok?

So any energy gotten back out of an orbo system should be compared not against the input power, but only against the resistive losses. Agreed?

NO, I do not agree.  As long as you take back energy by utilizing the rotor's rotation, you have to compare it against the input power you supply into the coils. 

BECAUSE without input power, your rotor magnets would keep attracting to the stator cores FOREVER, they could not go past the sticky points.

If you do not agree with this, it is fine with me though, I do not care any more.

rgds,  Gyula

[freeorbo]

BECAUSE without input power, your rotor magnets would keep attracting to the stator cores FOREVER, they could not go past the sticky points.

If you do not agree with this, it is fine with me though, I do not care any more.

I agree with you. I think the distinction is, for Orbo to be overunity, which is to say to generate more energy that it consumes, the energy retrieved from the rotor has only to exceed the energy lost from the resistance.

I don't make some distinction that it needs to be clear of input; because even in the scenario where it would require 2000 mW of input, it'll generate 2000 W of output if you let it run long enough. So the initial starting voltage is pretty inconsequential as far as the usefulness of the product goes.

Making up for the totality of the input voltage is an interesting stunt certainly. But having a required input doesn't preclude Orbo from being immensely useful.

We don't each get to define what overunity means for us. It means it makes more than it eats. Period.

[freeorbo]

That's incorrect. The pick-up  is the load.

That is, eOrbo, does perform work in addition to heating the toroid coils.

Therefore, that:

would only be correct if by "losses in the coils" one means the energy in addition to Joule heating.

I misspoke, I meant to say there's no load on an orbo circuit (if you look at it separate from the Orbo system as a whole)

Well, I guess what I meant to say is, the activity of the rotor is independent from the activity of the current. They're two separate systems that working in concert produce an effect. The distinction I'm trying to make is that the presence of a rotor, whether stopped or spinning, has no effect on the circuit made up of the battery, the coils, and the timer. Electrically, energetically, it's almost as if they are in independent black boxes.

The presence of the circuit causes the core to perform work on the rotor but it isn't itself performing the work. There's no energy lost out of the Orbo circuit that can be traced back to the work in the rotor.

Here's a picture story: When a mother walks into a room, a child becomes happy. The mother doesn't have to perform any action to make the child happy, merely her presence has an effect. Walking into the room counts as work, but she's not performing any work directly on the child. Still, the child becomes happy.

The work to become happy all happens within the child. The mother is contributing simply by existing and being present.