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

[broli]

How hard would it be for the replicators to, once the required input for a steady rpm is established, to add any quantifyable amount of input power, and see at which rate a weight can be lifted at that same rpm?
The weight lifting setup can be super-low loss. A non-stretch teflon coated aramid bicycle derailer cable, a fixed pulley, and a means to attach the cable around the rotor or its axle for self-winding.
If a motor can't bear a load it's useless anyway? What could possible be harder to be misinterpreted than a weight being lifted? Load (weight and axle diameter) are easily trimmed for experiment's convenience. Height gain, or vertical speed even, are easily measured. Many ways about it.

Friction at (say) 1000rpm is established at 1W
Input is increased to say 2W or any figure, and weight to be lifted and axle diameter (gear ratio) can be adjusted to end up at 1000rpm again. A simple calculation will tell what we get for that 1W extra. After the useful work (weight lifted) exceeds all input, we have OU.

We all know this, but it seems impopular to actually carry out these simple tests. OU researchers rather look at a multimeter and cry OU. Who argues results claimed, is outcast.

All I see are super smooth turning rotor being kept spinning. Putting a load (finger) on it may not affect input, but really, bearing friction and air friction are substituted for finger friction.

I can believe Steorn motors are more efficient that usual motors though, who knows soon we'll have electric cars that get more of a battery this way?

Noone claimed OU so far besides Steorn. Your method of measuring energy is very impractical and inefficient. Why make things harder than they are. If you want continuous generation of energy you just simply use a generator like a stepper motor from an old printer which has been pointed out or generator coils like Steorn does, much easier than messing with lifting weight and way more accurate.

[Staffman]

Steorn reply:
Ok - thats the basics - the inductance of a coil is LESS in the presence of an external field. What this means in our system is that you get a greater energy return from the collapse of the field of the EM than the energy it took to create the field, because at the point of field construction you have lower inductance than when the field collapses - hence you get an inductance energy gain thru the interaction rather than the inductance loss that was being discussed in this thread.

While the greater return from inductance is interesting - what really counts is that you get this extra inductance energy and the rotor does work - and quite a lot of work.

Regards, Larry

Is there anyone out there that can verify the lowering of inductance as the magnet passes by? Although this is very interesting, I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. Any thoughts from anyone how to improve upon what was stated?

[broli]

Is there anyone out there that can verify the lowering of inductance as the magnet passes by? Although this is very interesting, I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. Any thoughts from anyone how to improve upon what was stated?

I'm currently setting up a presentation on this subject diverting a bit from the real orbo. Basically when the permanent magnet is close to the core the dipoles of the core are "held" in place. When you energize the coil at this moment in time the coil will act like an air cored coil, that is permeability = 1. This low permeability will cause the current to have a very fast and high rise time if not limited by resistance. Now as the magnets move away the dipoles are no longer held by the magnets so they relax but only to find themselves in yet again another magnetic field (of the coil). When the magnet is fully away the coil will have a certain current and inductance, this equates to a certain amount of energy given by Energy=0.5*Current^2*Inductance.

Steorn claims ,and I can agree with it, that that inductive energy is much high than the one you gave to the coil when it had low inductance. Here's a technical example:

Imagine when the magnet is close by the coil acts like it has 1H of inductance. And assume that we let the current rise to 10 A. This will give us a total Energy input of 50 Joules.  Now when the maget has moved away the inductance has increase but the current remained the same. Let's say the inductance increased a 100 fold which is moderate, this now gives you a total inductive energy of 500 Joules. This is an increase of 100x to the inputted energy.

Now this is the theory. Jnaudin showed an intresting experiment concering inductance and distance from magnet which seems to be counter intuitive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqAF_c5ThoI

You see as the magnet comes closer the rise time stretches out which would indicate an increase in inductance and as the magnet moves away the rise time becomes much shorted which indicates a decrease in inductance, this is opposite to what I said above. This may be attributed to magnetic viscosity if jnaudin can show the results at different frequencies. I would think at lower frequencies it would behave as speculated above.

In the orbo the only energy you will lose for good is the ohmic energy.

[markzpeiverson]

[deletions...]
All I see are super smooth turning rotor being kept spinning. Putting a load (finger) on it may not affect input, but really, bearing friction and air friction are substituted for finger friction.

As already rebutted, no one in this group has yet to claim OU... they know better!

It is pretty much a futile and even self-defeating task to attempt OU BEFORE you even UNDERSTAND the system with all its components and their interactions.  What's happening now is a learning phase so replicators can hope to have a chance at achieving OU... grant them the courtesy of some time to learn before you start criticising their methods -- you want to see the lifting test so badly, THEN BUILD IT YOURSELF!
-Mark

[Liberty]

Noone claimed OU so far besides Steorn. Your method of measuring energy is very impractical and inefficient. Why make things harder than they are. If you want continuous generation of energy you just simply use a generator like a stepper motor from an old printer which has been pointed out or generator coils like Steorn does, much easier than messing with lifting weight and way more accurate.

A clamp with a one foot rod attached to it, that can slip on the axle as the motor turns, with a drag adjustment on the clamp would make a "prony brake".  The end of the one foot rod should rest against the face of a sensitive digital scale for a reading of foot ounces which can be converted into foot pounds for a torque output of the motor. A power output in watts can then be calculated from the motor with RPM and Torque readings.  The drag from the prony brake provides a load for the motor while testing maximum torque output.