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

[lumen]

The whole system may need to vary transaction time. On the approach, the rotor needs to store all the energy it can since this is free energy, then when the coil is energized, the magnets need to pull away quickly, faster than the approach. This would unbalance the transaction time and cause an energy gain.

[esaruoho]

It's probably the reed switches failing.

tachoman said that the  reed switches arent designed for these types of spikes.

[k4zep]

The whole system may need to vary transaction time. On the approach, the rotor needs to store all the energy it can since this is free energy, then when the coil is energized, the magnets need to pull away quickly, faster than the approach. This would unbalance the transaction time and cause an energy gain.

H Luman,

Close, On the approach it is free energy as the magnet is sucked in.  Then upon energization, it needs to coast on by without any loss of speed, hence saving the free energy that was added to wheel in the wheel.  So, there is one  positive vector force speeding up the wheel as the magnets are sucked into the core, another zero or negative vector force depending on efficiency of the coil/core system, a constant negative vector from air drag at equilibrium, a constant negative vector force of the bearing drag and I have to have missed a couple others.
Then too, the simple math. assumes a constant speed when in fact the wheel is constantly speeding up and slowing down but these are small variables.  It would seem that with a load, with lower aerodynamic forces, the efficiency would be higher but again that is a small number.  A nice live dynamic torque meter would be a neat analytical tool here wouldn't it?

Respectfully,

Ben

[Omega_0]

Hang on fellas, Omnibus and Omega O.  This doesn't quite make sense.

The rotor maintains a constant RPM, so its kinetic energy is not increasing over time.  Yet the motor continues to consume electical energy.

You guys have a point, that's why I asked for a second opinion on the calculations, I was not very sure. It seems that we need to take into account the whole time needed to bring the rotor from stop to the max RPM.

So if it takes t sec to get to a speed of 2520 rpm, the input energy becomes
E = 36*t J

This energy is stored as usual as KE, as there is no load. Any input after this will not contribute to increase in KE (This is a strange case, as the input is independent of output here, unlike a normal motor).

We don't have the rotor weight, but lets take worst conditions here. So to be OU, it should take

49 > 36t
or 49/36 > t
or t < 1.36 sec  to reach 2520 rpm

(Assuming a rotor weight of 720g, t = 4 sec). Of course, if you can recover the input energy back into the battery , t will increase.

So now it seems less probable that JLN setup is OU, but the real test will be to load the motor, without which all calculations are mere guesswork and should not be taken seriously

[mondrasek]

The way I see it, in the eOrbo, the electrical input to the toroids does NOT drive the rotation of the rotor in any direct way.  Yet the rotor will ACCELERATE.  If F=ma holds true (giggling to myself now...), then we are witnessing a Force, F, causing this acceleration.  And that force is NOT due to the input electrical energy being used to switch the toroids!

I believe the electrical input energy used to switch the toroids is 100% conserved.  You can try to recover it if you like.  But whatever you do not recover is lost in the system as HEAT.  That conversion of electrical energy to heat should be 100% efficient by CoE (again, lol).

The fact that the rotor spins at all is the evidence of OU.  Unless anyone can prove that some of the electrical input energy to the coils is directly causing the force that creates acceleration of the rotors.  If input energy and rotation are completely separate, then it must be OU.

Does the electrical input directly cause the rotors to accelerate?  If so, that relationship should be measureable.  So far, I see a lot of evidence that there is no such relationship.