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

[k4zep]

Those were some short snips from the SKDB back in November. I am only 1 replicator out of many more that may show their rigs and results as allowed.

We have came along way since November, just thought it would be nice to show that behind the scenes in the SKDB we have not just been sat on our hands.

Nothing being pushed by anyone, Steorn are taking their time doing their demo over 5 weeks as they planned. We were shown alot in week 1 and looking forward to January as should be cool to see their technology being shown and analysed by the public.

Cheers

CLaNZeR

Thanks CLa,

I stand corrected.  Keep up the good work.

Respectfully
Ben

[Groundloop]

All,

I have always found (during my research) that a rotor is just a waste of energy.
Attached is a proposed circuit that have no rotor. This should be easy to test.

Groundloop.

[tinu]

... the current and voltage scope traces don't change form under load in such a machine which is a direct proof that said machine is OU.
...

Actually current and voltage scope traces DO CHANGE!

What Steorn claims regarding the oscilloscope traces is a trap and I’m quite surprised you’ve also fallen into it.

Let me detail:
1. I admit that top&bottom (min&max) values for voltage and current do not change under load. (I also see here a small question mark related to the precision of the measurements and in that respect I fully support your call for the necessity of highest possible accuracy but let’s admit for the moment that those min&max values do not change at all.)
2. I also admit that duty cycle does not change under load. (That’s true for a good built as it relates to the proper switching; in practice it may not be always the case but we will disregard any non-idealities and poor-builds and consider only the case of ideal switching )
3. I hope everyone agrees that RPM do change under load. The higher the load, the lower the RPM. (At equilibrium it should be possible to draw a nice RPM-load chart for a given power input)

Despite the all above, scope traces DO CHANGE. They may look similar at a first glance but they are not! They simply change because both voltage and current follow an exponential function. At lower RPM, even if the duty cycle is the same, the values of voltage and current do progress for a longer time on their exponential curve, hence the difference. It is simple math â€" although the eye can be tricked when looking at those oscilloscope traces, an exponential curve remains exponential and as long as the on-time is changing, the traces change too and so does change the power input.

Fortunately, imho the experimental proof for the above is already available but for now I’d like to hear a rebuttal if someone disagree with me and considers necessary to discuss further on the subject.

Best regards,
Tinu

[broli]

Actually current and voltage scope traces DO CHANGE!

What Steorn claims regarding the oscilloscope traces is a trap and I’m quite surprised you’ve also fallen into it.

Let me detail:
1. I admit that top&bottom (min&max) values for voltage and current do not change under load. (I also see here a small question mark related to the precision of the measurements and in that respect I fully support your call for the necessity of highest possible accuracy but let’s admit for the moment that those min&max values do not change at all.)
2. I also admit that duty cycle does not change under load. (That’s true for a good built as it relates to the proper switching; in practice it may not be always the case but we will disregard any non-idealities and poor-builds and consider only the case of ideal switching )
3. I hope everyone agrees that RPM do change under load. The higher the load, the lower the RPM. (At equilibrium it should be possible to draw a nice RPM-load chart for a given power input)

Despite the all above, scope traces DO CHANGE. They may look similar at a first glance but they are not! They simply change because both voltage and current follow an exponential function. At lower RPM, even if the duty cycle is the same, the values of voltage and current do progress for a longer time on their exponential curve, hence the difference. It is simple math â€" although the eye can be tricked when looking at those oscilloscope traces, an exponential curve remains exponential and as long as the on-time is changing, the traces change too and so does change the power input.

Fortunately, imho the experimental proof for the above is already available but for now I’d like to hear a rebuttal if someone disagree with me and considers necessary to discuss further on the subject.

Best regards,
Tinu

My rebuttal is that this is relative. If you are considering an ideal setup why not make the inductor ideal as well? Meaning it has no resistance and is super conductive, now all the energy from the battery will never be lost theoretically as you can collapse the field into a capacitor after the magnet has passed by. So your argument is just relative from the setup you have on hand. Of course superconductivity toroids aren't easy to come by so you can just simulate this by using the right parameters to find optimal power performance. But that is rather an engineering issue.

[gravityblock]

Yes, this way with a backing plate you can increase the attraction forces onto the ferrite core.
So you have N and S facing coming from the 2 magnets attracting the ferrite core.

Regards, Stefan.

Being able to increase the attraction force to the core is huge.  Do you have any idea how much the increase will be with the backing plate, approximately?  A wild guess would be a 50% increase. 

Thanks for the info,

GB