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

[dradak1]

...
Please consult this Steorn (McCarthy) patent :
http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/MagneticMotors/Steorn/US2006066428A1.pdf
Abstract:
A low energy magnet actuator allows magnetic fields to be turned on and off using a small amount of energy.
..............................

They can't patent that - that is in Public Domain (original patents expired long time ago).

[Staffman]

@ Airstriker

I couldn't find the graph for the specific material you were looking for but, I did find one for the Metglas Magnaperm material.

http://www.metglas.com/products/page5_1_6_1_6.htm

[Bruce_TPU]

Hi guys (thanks for still ignoring me ;] )

First of all, Paul is for sure right that it's metglas. At the begining I thought it should be mumetal 76 because of it's low saturation point. But hey! Let's have a look at metglas. It only requires 0,57 T to saturate! It's just like nothing.

Another interesting property of METGLAS® Square Loop magnetic cores: Low saturated permeability !

Now go back to video: "Steorn examine attempted replications of Orbo Technology".
What do you see at the gaussmeter? 0,5 T per magnet? Yes you're right!

Since "recent NdFeB magnets are capable of producing a surface field that would completely saturate the metglas and reduce permeability as it did, thus reducing the attraction when in contact", than think how much current do you need at TDC to saturate this metglass core ?:> The answer is: almost NONE or simply NONE!

Note here, that this is exactly why we need two magnets (as Sean did) - to make the magnet's flux lines go through the toroid (tried it at FEMM - works).


Now...

Lets go back to my equation (by the way it's simply the law of conservation of energy aplied here):

i x v = dL/dt x 1/2 x i^2

First of all, why a hell are you still talking about maximising torque??!!! As I said torque does not matter at all! I don't want to repeat why - just look a few posts back ;]

As it's clear now, let's add another equation:

L=u*(N^2)*A/(2*3.14*r)

(thanks mikestocks2006)

What's important in this equation is the fact that L is the higher, the higher is permeability. Now do you remember Staffman's graph "Amplitude Permeability vs. Flux Density"? What you find in this graph is: The higher the flux density, the lower the permeability. I bet this graph looks very similiar for metglas (can somebody find it please ?)
So now you know where the change in Inductance comes from, right ? Just a property of the core's material.


Ok now lets modify a bit my understanding of ORBO's interaction:

1) We assumed that at TDC the core is saturated just by magnets or requires very little current to saturate. The current is minimal.
2) As we move further with the magnet we only slightly need to rise the current to keep the saturation of the core (as the flux density "coming" from the magnets drops with the distance to toroid).
3) point 1 and 2 simply explains the "exponential lag" of current versus voltage on Sean's osciloscope during the demo show.
3) Since we keep the core saturated the Inductance does not change (flux density is kept constant so permeability stays constant)
4) There is no interaction with the magnet (no Lenz effect) due to core saturation
5) At the proper moment we colapse the field and result in postion where the flux density "coming" from the magnet is minimal, thus the permeability of metglas is maximum (not exactly but close to that) and so the Inductance has risen. Colapsing the field with higher Inductance than at TDC results in electrical energy gain.
6) The higher the RPM the smaller the time frame where you apply energy (current) to keep the core saturated. Thus the higher the RPM, the closer to ratio 1/1 when considering energy input vs energy output.
7) Utilize free kinetic energy of the motor using additional generator
Use the COP > 1 you got to charge your phone ;]

One more question to be asked and answered. Why only few coil turns ( < 40) on the core? Simple - to stay with low resistance and this way minimize the heat loss.

Something not right with this idea ? Just tell me where and do not simply ignore it !!!!

Best regards,
Julian S.

Brilliant post Julian.  And a great catch on the .5 T of the magnets matching the saturation point of the core that PL deduced.  I am ordering tomorrow morning.  I received in my others, at 125 permeability, laughable.  I was following JLN labs.  I think you have this figured out!  IMHO

Keep going...LOL

Bruce

[gravityblock]

Striker,
I like your thinking but I also believe the direction of saturation from the magnets needs to be along the core in the same direction as the coil current will continue the saturation. If not, then isn't current wasted in the realignment of the core domains and nothing is gained except for the leaving of the magnets.
Also, increasing the RPM will not decrease input because the duty cycle is constant. (50% duty cycle is 50% at any RPM). The gain will come from the constant torque X RPM. Work is RPM x torque so if torque is constant, then work out increases with RPM.

How can you say increasing the RPM will not decrease the input energy because the duty cycle is constant?  The magnets approach and depart from the core much quicker at a higher RPM.  This means a shorter pulse width.  A shorter pulse width means less input energy.  This is kindergarten stuff and you're not even understanding the elementary truths.  You're still drinking milk.

Also, how can the direction of saturation from the magnets be in the same direction as the coil current saturating the core when reversing the polarity of the current would then be saturating the core in the opposite direction and wouldn't be in the same direction with the magnets.  They're not pre-saturating the core with opposite poles in the dual magnets for this simple reason alone.  Another reason why the dual magnets are like poles is the fact they're using 10,000mA from the battery to saturate the core in a nearly instant time.  If the core was saturated by the approaching magnets with opposite poles, then they wouldn't need 10,000mA to saturate the core.  Also, in most metals, the core would lose their attractive force as the magnets approached with opposite poles and you wouldn't gain the fullest speed possible.

You've argued that having the coil horizontal will not get the Orbo affect, but yet they say in the Steorn Demos there are different configurations and shows them using the coils both horizontal and vertical.

Some of your statements make me very suspect to your motivations here.  It's Ok to be wrong, but you refuse to accept anything other than your own thinking.  You keep insisting on being correct, even when shown otherwise.  Great work bench, no replication attempt or not sharing the results of your replication attempt, and trying to discredit even the basic elementary truths.  I don't understand why you are here.  It really makes me wonder.

Paul and AirStriker is right in my opinion.

GB

[lumen]

How can you say increasing the RPM will not decrease the input energy because the duty cycle is constant?  The magnets approach and depart from the core much quicker at a higher RPM.  This means a shorter pulse width.  A shorter pulse width means less input energy.  This is kindergarten stuff and you're not even understanding the elementary truths.  You're still drinking milk.

Also, how can the direction of saturation from the magnets be in the same direction as the coil current saturating the core when reversing the polarity of the current would then be saturating the core in the opposite direction and wouldn't be in the same direction with the magnets.  They're not pre-saturating the core with opposite poles in the dual magnets for this simple reason alone.  Another reason why the dual magnets are like poles is the fact they're using 10,000mA from the battery to saturate the core in a nearly instant time.  If the core was saturated by the approaching magnets with opposite poles, then they wouldn't need 10,000mA to saturate the core.  Also, in most metals, the core would lose their attractive force as the magnets approached with opposite poles and you wouldn't gain the fullest speed possible.

You've argued that having the coil horizontal will not get the Orbo affect, but yet they say in the Steorn Demos there are different configurations and shows them using the coils both horizontal and vertical.

Some of your statements make me very suspect to your motivations here.  It's Ok to be wrong, but you refuse to accept anything other than your own thinking.  You keep insisting on being correct, even when shown otherwise.  Great work bench, no replication attempt or not sharing the results of your replication attempt, and trying to discredit even the basic elementary truths.


GB

Yes your right except they are also occurring at a faster rate so the input is constant!

"This is kindergarten stuff and you're not even understanding the elementary truths.  You're still drinking milk."

What are you saying, I agree with Striker almost totally. The RPM and shorter pulse concept is a common mistake. It is a duty cycle, it is constant at any frequency.