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

[exnihiloest]

IMO people need to start testing for excess energy. Getting a motor to run on as little power as possible doesn't prove that.

People have not to test Steorn device, this would mean reversing the burden of proof and wasting time.
As the battery of Steorn motor is strong enough to power it for weeks, Steorn did not provide neither proof nor clue of OU. Thus we can assert: Steorn has no OU machine.

"He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. [] The burden of proof is an especially important issue in law and science."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

We have just to wait for evidence from Steorn before checking. It is a question of scientific methodology.

[Omnibus]

As the battery of Steorn motor is strong enough to power it for weeks, Steorn did not provide neither proof nor clue of OU. Thus we can assert: Steorn has no OU machine.

You're promoting an incorrect criterion for whether or not Steorn's machine is OU. It is not at all how long the battery will power the motor that should be criterion for OU but whether or not all the input power goes only for heating. Steorn claims it does. Unlike what you state, they have given a clue experimentally in the 19th of December to that effect. Where's your proof that it isn't so to have the nerve for such a categorical blast?

[Omnibus]

.

[captainpecan]

Some data from my experiments....

I'm not real excited about my results today, I just could not find a sweet spot, but I'm reporting what I've got so far anyway.  As a reminder, I am using a steel bushing toroid with 1500 turns of #26. 
When hooking the toroid directly to the power supply with a reed switch, I got the most speed on the rotor so far.  But for this test, I hooked my toroid up in an SSG circuit.  I simply eliminated the trigger coil in the circuit, and routed the base of the transistor through a reed switch back to the collector with a pot.  After playing with the reed for a while, the best I got out of it was 440 rpm, using 10.7v and 180ma.  The charge battery was charging, but not as well as a normal bedini does.  When I disconnected the charge battery, I could not see the neon lamp light at all, and there was no change in rotor speed.

At this time, there is much more to do, as far as tuning, and determining the best circuit to use. Even though I am not impressed with my results today, a charge battery does charge using the normal bedini circuit.

My next test was to simply see if I could confirm or deny something Steorn has said about other replications.  I do not have the exact quote handy at the moment, but someone posted a quote from Sean stating that the replications are being run from EMF, and are not true replications.  I felt that the toroid kept the field inside it, so I wanted to test this.

I turned my motor up vertical, so a set of magnets were directly in line with the toroid, and hanging straight down.  I then pulsed the toroid.  If it was done correctly and all the field stayed inside the toroid, I should not have seen the magnet move at all when the attraction was released.  But I saw different.  Each pulse was pushing the magnets away from the toroid.  So at least in my test, Sean appears to be correct.  There is a push to the magnets as a result of the pulse.  I think there is a good chance I am already saturating my core, even though I am only hitting it with 180ma.  This could either be a good thing I'll find out later, or a bad thing, which I will also find out later.

My conclusion so far, at least from my first set of tests is this.
1.  I need more toroids wound to get any measurably good results.  Although there is a fair amount of attraction to the core, it is not nearly enough to pay for the amount of energy I am pulsing into it to run.  More attraction from multiple toroids, will increase the rotor speed with the same or less input power.
2.  I need more toroids.  Steorn seems to elude to the fact that we do not want any push against the magnets when firing the toroids.  Since mine does show this, I must increase the number of toroids and cut down the power.  That coupled with the fact that eOrbo demo seems to use 8 toroids and 16 magnets to show about 800 to 1200 rpms.  I do not believe Steorns version of Orbo, tuned properly, could even run on 1 toroid.  It may not even be able to run on 4.

In final... I need more toroids... lol... so I guess I start winding...

[exnihiloest]

...
I've been scouring the Steorn discussion groups for any explanations by Sean/Steorn people and found this explanation from Sean:

+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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.
...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Wrong assertion.
Firstly "the inductance of a coil is LESS in the presence of an external field" only if the field is strong enough to saturate the magnetic material at least partially, thus reducing its permeability.
Secondly, changing the magnetic permeability of a coil changes the energy stored in the field only if you add work (like changing the dielectric permittivity of a capacitor can increase the energy stored in a capacitor but when you replace a dielectric plate of high permittivity by one of low permittivity such as air, you need work to remove the plate, and this energy adds in the electric field of the capacitor. The same with coils and magnetic fields instead of capacitors and electric fields). It is the conventional principle of "parametric amplification" which is well known for decades and is not OU.