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

[Omega_0]

Omega,
For real simulation there are two complex issues to be incorporated which we didn't discuss yet:
- since we don't talk about DC but pulsed method, I and U are out of phase at some time instances. This means there is power factor at some time instances that should be taken into account.
- The L value will vary, due to the changing permeability in the toroid core.

You forgot to mention viscosity and time frames
There are too many variables here and certainly it is not possible to correctly guess them all by mere chance. Moreover according to SeanM, one cannot build this in a garage as it needs a lot of precision. So things are very challenging here.

We have scattered info from various videos and statements, such as the magnets are 0.5T or that the inductance changes from 980 mH to 960 mH at off and on positions. Using these we can perhaps estimate the permeability and material of the core and using the traces we can guess other stuff.

What I'm trying to do is, to find a combination of parameters that produces the scope traces similar to those in the demo and then go ahead and build a physical one. So far this is the plan. Can't say how useful it will be.

Now about the phase and variable permeability, if you see the video 1/6 (and the Omnibus's data), there is no delay in the current, but we have rise times, which are not normal. SeanM tells in that video that this is due to permeability change after the current reached a certain value. So one must plug in various mu values (or L values) in the sheet at various times and see how closely one can match the actual traces. You have already done this, I guess you are using L=4 at on time and L=16 at off point. I just made it a variable. Now you need to plug in a new value at one more point, which is just after the start. Assuming that the BH curve is sharp, one can safely assume an instantaneous change of mu at certain times.

I'm sorry if it does not make sense at this time. I'm a little overwhelmed right now.

[lostcauses10x]

That's incorrect and is due to a general lack of understanding of what's going on in the Orbo device.

I dont care what is going on in the box before it is proven than input is less than output..

Like the Smot It does a great job of lifting the ball, The inside looks great. Yet the human energy input to output messes it all up.

You again are making the inside of the black box mistake again. What is real input to real output of the black box??
With Steorns you do not get to see real input to real output. Just this black box. A common mistake and easy to fool people with: including your self.

[Omnibus]

I dont care what is going on in the box before it is proven than input is less than output..

Like the Smot It does a great job of lifting the ball, The inside looks great. Yet the human energy input to output messes it all up.

You again are making the inside of the black box mistake again. What is real input to real output of the black box??
With Steorns you do not get to see real input to real output. Just this black box. A common mistake and easy to fool people with: including your self.

You'd do much better to avoid posting this nonsense because it clutters the important discussion we're having here.

[Omnibus]

@Omega_0,

My first reaction when @teslaalset was mentioning inductance L was that we shouldn't bother with these details at this time. But now I see your point. You want to model a trace matching the Steorn experimental trace by varying R, L, mu etc. Once values of this set of parameters is established we would look for matching materials. Kinda reverse engineering of the materials and conditions used. Sounds reasonable.

[Omega_0]

Only comparison that should be done is the input cost to the out put cost.
This can be done by joule heating input only (not subtracting flyback): and out put joule cost.
The rate of change will be the same for both if the rest of what goes on in the black box is not subtracted from the input cost.

If you see the video 2/2, he mentioned 1.5 to 2 mJ per revolution and the output is 3x, so its 6mJ per cycle. There ... you have the measurements of energy, not merely scope traces.

Of course, after adding the heat loss at the input, it is NOT ou and I guess they are trying to solve this problem since 6 years and had no success.

Now, there is no question of trusting this claim, and they did not show it on wattmeters or by lifting weight, for reasons you will understand only after reading this whole thread. But he openly said not to trust his figures and invited everyone with their own toys to measure themselves. Which is fair enough.

Lets us wait for independent measurements and hope for the best !
Meanwhile try to build your own, because you won't get the tech spoon fed from them , its only for paid and gagged members.