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

[gravityblock]

If a motor runs @ 750rpm for 10 hours with drawing a constant current from a battery, then building a motor that runs @ 750rpm for 30 hours from a same type battery is cop = 3 in mechanical energy gained vs electrical energy expended.

If you converted only half of this mechanical energy that is gained (10hrs) into electrical energy, then you have COP = 1 in electrical energy gained vs electrical energy expended with 10 hours of additional mechanical momentum to keep producing this additional energy to keep it above unity.  There is no hidden source of energy being tapped in this system.  The additional source of energy is capturing all of the potential momentum instead of killing it like we've all been doing.

GB

@IceStorm,

Look at the two words in bold print starting each paragraph, the two "if's".  It was a hypothetical and was not based on a real result.  The entire post was based on a hypothetical.  The COP = 3 in mechanical energy was a hypothetical result and not based on a real world device.  This hypothetical can be carried out in the real world though, but the results will vary from device to device.  This hypothetical was to show you can have mechanical overunity while still draining the battery and not achieving electrical OU.

I'll let you have the last word on this because you are twisting and reading everything out of context while not grasping anything from what is written in my posts or in the link to the "allaboutcircuits" site.  You lack severely in "reading comprehension".  In addition to those reasons, it is off-topic from this discussion and I will not participate in hijacking this thread any longer.

Take care,

GB

[lumen]

@IceStorm,

Try not thinking negative, always think positive!
Think, If this does not work, then what would it need to make it work.
When thinking positive, you can hope to see the light. To think negative and you are assured to see only darkness.
Everyone already knows it can't be done! But in time there is always one case that does not fit the norm.

[MileHigh]

Lumen:

All cases huh?  So I guess you have built every single pulsing circuit that could ever be conceived and tested all these without success?  You are pretty damn good!

That is the attitude that is all wrong.  It's all about understanding what the circuit is doing.  This notion of looking for the "magic" pulsing circuit is wrong, and what is implicit in what you are saying is that you can go on testing different setups forever.  You just have to learn and apply your knowledge.

Sorry I don't do debunking, I build to make things work, not to prove things don't work, we have a team of debunkers for that, to tell us how it can't work, how it's not possible, and how it will never be done.  Same with people who said it was impossible to build a rocket and travel to the moon.

You build things to understand how they work, it is not a question of proving one thing or another.  Understanding is the key.

The "Flat Earth" argument is an old cliche.  The real people with understanding said it was possible to build a rocket and go to the moon, not the opposite as you are implying.  Same thing for powered flight.

Gravityblock:

Classical theory claims Intrinsic inductance is a linear function of wire length and independent of wire diameter. According to the classical understanding of inductance, if we construct two circular loops of wire, both with the same loop shape, but with different wire gauge, then both should have the same inductance. But this is not the case and can be seen in the results below.  Since the thickness of wire does affect the intrinsic inductance, then the classical model for intrinsic inductance is incorrect.

You are absolutely wrong here and the statement that you make in your first sentence is wrong.  You should check out the Hyperphysics web site.  I am will assume that you have never sat through derivations in a class room where you calculate the magnetic field at any distance from an infinite length of wire of radius r with a current i traveling through it, or what the magnetic field is  anywhere in free space for a loop of wire of wire radius r1 and loop radius r2.  If you haven't, chances are that stuff will blow your mind.  Your attempts to point out weaknesses in the classical model fall flat.

Also, the magnetic field around a moving charge is not toroidal or donut shaped as taught.  Simple experiments shows the magnetic field is spherical around the moving charges.  I could go on and on about how classical theory has it wrong and is incomplete also.  Classical theory can't even get the basic stuff right, and simple experiments clearly shows this.

You wish.  You are completely out of your league here and are completely off the mark.  This stuff is so well understood that it takes years of education to just understand the explanation for what's really going on.

Going back to Steorn, the "believers" as well as the people making all of the wild speculations about the magnetic effects, how many of them have made a comment about just using a capacitor to prove or disprove Steorn's claim?  Not many I don't think.

I challenge all of you to chime in, should Steorn use a capacitor in their demo or not?

MileHigh

[kmarinas86]

Steorn is crap.

'Nuff said

[PaulLowrance]

Just found out Sean has been making a lot of posts at his forum recently. Here are a few interesting posts regarding the technology,

Ok - I agree that a great way to see if the system has CEMF is to test it as a generator - and we will be including that in the next experiment.

As for there being current through the coils when we say its turned off - thats just nonsence, but again we will make the switch from the power supply a lot more clear in the next one.

As for shorter and longer pulses - I assume that you are reffering to induction losses through the interaction - and there are none (in fact there is a greater energy returned from the field collapse than there is energy put into the field creation) - but THAT is the next experiment, so lets see.

"Eddy currents in the core - how do you measure them"

Well you could just use a nonconducting core and then not have them at all.         

"I think the main basic thing people are waiting for is the input voltage/current along side the output voltage/current. I take it this will be included in 2010 demonstrations?"

Yes

"That vibration does have my attention over all the other claims."

Its the nature of the bearings that we are using.

"Will you be "redoing" the experiments before or after Christmas? (Never mind, I see you said January)"

Not sure on the date, but it will be prior to Jan 10th (we may do two experiments together - will have to look at the practicality of this).

Ok the first sequence of experiments are about showing that in eOrbo all the input energy goes to output as Joule heating (no back emf, no induction losses) and yet work is still done by the rotor. The second sequence is total input energy, total output energy and the energy of the system itself.

"Why have the demo "Orbo"s been changed out occasionally, was this due to "issues",,, or is that in some way a future part of the demonstration?"

Its been asked (and answered) - we made a call to use reed switches - they are across an inductive load and flyback dioide or not there is still a high failure rate.

"You've mentioned that the overall thermodynamic efficiency of the system is about 3X. Shall we take that to mean, that if 10W (avg./cont.) battery power input is measured, calorimetry would indicate a heat flow of 30W (avg./cont.)?"

It means that for the type of system shown to date, 1J of elec input will produce circa 3J of output (heat, work done by the rotor and electrical) - but again this has yet to be proven, and it will - but I will not open the Xmas presents early.