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

[IceStorm]

Too bad your fancy equations don't factor in radiant energy, or even acknowledge that it exists.


I'll take Bedini's word over yours any day, yes Bedini, a person who actually builds and experiments.

You should listen to what MH said to you but don't trust anybody , even if its your best friend. Your only best friend here is your data from experiment, everything else don't contribute to any of your advancement because it can mislead you. Take ANY scope who are able to do Math function(integral over CMEAN, not only MEAN) and do the integral of what go out VS what go in. The reason you need to do the integral over a CMEAN its because from cycle to cycle the value can change and the cycle time too, that cause a Bias effect, so since its not symmetrical only CMEAN can work.

Keep track of all your data, only data can show you what realy happen. If you don't have a oscilloscope who are able to do math function, buy one, best investment you will ever make.

Best Regards,
IceStorm

[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.

You have gained 3 times more mechanical energy than what the battery is capable of producing.  The additional energy gained was mechanical energy and was expended in the additional 20 hours of mechanical motion instead of being converted to electrical energy. 

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.

Angular momentum has already been shown to defy gravity, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=545GwnupKAE and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P014jvaB3ic .  As long as the momentum isn't being killed, such as by gravity in this example, then it will continue to defy gravity without slowly falling.  Capture all of the potential momentum in the Orbo or any other device without killing it and it will continue to defy physics.  Gravity in this example is killing the momentum slowly.  In our devices, we kill or don't capture the full potential of the momentum that is available to us by not properly using the magnets and the coils.  Nature is already providing an excess of energy, we just kill this excess energy, lol

GB 

[interestedinou]

Hi Stephan,

I have been following the YouTube video #1 from Steorn but pulled my questions on that site as it seems that they give out very little technical information.  The video answers a lot of questions and I suspect your analysis is very correct.  There very obviously is BackEMF and little or no CounterEMF due to the toroidal coil construction. 

I had lots of problems with the design at first as I know that there is virtually no magnetic field external to a close coupled toroid coil and could not figure out how it could drive the rotor.  Finally realized it was simply a Adams motor (I assume everyone knows what a Adams motor is and how it works, if not Google it) with NO CEMF due to the toroid coil design.  It was also immediately apparent that you could recover most of the BEMF to a fast recharge the battery/supply with surprising results. 

IF you put a bridge rectifier across the coil network and drive the coils with a voltage low enough to not turn on the diodes during the pulse  (around 1.4V for a 4 diode bridge or higher if multiple diodes used in the legs of bridge) you then can recover the BEMF back to the battery.  You end up with resistive losses and very short BEMF pulses if diodes are fast enough and battery accepts a fast pulse recharge.  Thus you end up with a very efficient motor, Not powerful but super efficient in its own funny way.  Their estimate of COP around 3 for the power input vs. rotor mechanical output after all is accounted for is probably close and as seen in the Adams motor.  A standard pulse generator only has to make up for the actual resistive losses (10%?), charging losses (20-40%) air drag and bearing losses and you have a OU or super efficient device. A Super Cap should be much more efficient as a power supply than the battery used as there would be no recharging losses in the Cap. 

That they have not been able to utilize a solid state switching device is a puzzle considering the amount of money spend on this device.  There are many switches that have a very low ON resistance, are very fast devices for switching efficiency and fast recovery diodes that should work with no problem.  Anyway, I'm having fun working with this new twist.  It will take time to build one.  When you use NEO's with close coupled fields, the device must be robust to say the least. 

Happy holidays to all,
Ben

Could you please post a simple diagram of that setup?

I'm very interested in learning how to build a setup that recycles flyback current.

How does the flyback current get put back into the battery?

[interestedinou]

Freezer:

You can't just "pluck 'radiant energy' out of thin air" to advance your argument.  Sean says that more power is being returned to the battery by the return wire that connects to the battery.

Actually I did do the experiments.  I made the measurements that show that the energy in a pulse discharge from an inductor is less than or nearly equal to the battery energy that energized the inductor in the first place.  That means that Bedini's "radiant energy" is B.S.  I read his 1984 "Kromrey Convertor" 15-page treatise and I almost puked from how little sense he made when discussing electricity and batteries.

So why don't YOU do the experiments.  Hook up any Bedini motor or Joule Thief or whatever your favourite flavour of pulsing inductor circuit you want and measure the power supplied by the battery compared to the power you get from the pulsing inductor.  In all cases you will find the output power is less than the input power, and you produce heat.  The output power plus the heat will equal the input power.  "Radiant energy" is just a buzz word to get you excited and induce you to believe in something that's not there.  You can prove for yourself that it is not there if you really want to.

MileHigh

Could you please post a simple method of how someone could reclaim flyback current and put it back into the battery?

[IceStorm]

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.

You have gained 3 times more mechanical energy than what the battery is capable of producing.  The additional energy gained was expended in the additional 20 hours of mechanical energy instead of being converted to electrical energy. 

.......
GB

Its only true if both motor have the same load, without load , the RPM mean absolutely nothing. Rotoverter is a perfect example of that.

Best Regards,
IceStorm