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

[Pirate88179]

Properly documenting is the first step to protecting IP. This forum does *not* qualify as prior art. Why doesn't anyone here tell you that.

This is funny.  Paul is saying that the only way to preserve open source is to patent something?

This makes no sense at all for good reason.

I will post here again, if I have to, the screen shots of his site where he says he will look around for an FE device and when he finds it, he will sell it.

He has already said he was going to do this, otherwise, why would he worry about "prior art"?

He just said he is not learning anything from anyone here.  He also says he will patent any device he makes.

So, once again, Paul, why are you here on a free OPEN SOURCE forum? (He will never answer this question)

I agree with GB that this topic is covered elsewhere but I wanted to set the record straight with this guy.  I have given him my real name a number of times but yet he "claims" I am hiding behind my OU screen name.

I do background investigations for a living and, well, Paul does not want me to post my findings here.  Not that he has anything to hide, except, his website does not reflect the real owner's address.  I wonder why that is?

Bill

[gravityblock]

There is another possibility.  Instead of returning the core material to it's virginal state, the linear portion could be between the saturation magnetization (M_s) and the reminent magnetization (M_r) on the M-H Loop of the material.

OC or anyone, please let me know if the near linear curve is from it's virginal state to the saturation magnetization or from the reminent magnetization to the saturation magnetization.  This has to do with the voltage ("B"), current ("H"), and the constant during this linear curve of the core material which determines the proportionality between the voltage and current in order to find the resonance of the system.

Thanks,

GB 

[0c]

There is another possibility.  Instead of returning the core material to it's virginal state, the linear portion could be between the saturation magnetization (M_s) and the reminent magnetization (M_r) on the M-H Loop of the material.

Someone's finally paying attention. Now I'm not a member of the SKDB and have absolutely no inside knowledge. And I don't have the resources to test it myself. This is only coming from funny images flickering in my head. But even after a lot of research, I don't see why a minor loop between remanence and saturation wouldn't be ideal WRT to minimizing input energy costs, maximizing saturation, and maximizing any possible gains from the flyback.

There are some issues to watch out for. The DC input power must always be the same polarity and the flyback diode must prevent any reverse current in order to retain a maximum remanent magnetization. I also think each pair of rotor magnets should have the same orientation, but I'm not absolutely certain of this.

I've also mentioned some other factors that may come into play. I'm willing to give them some more attention whenever anyone is ready to listen to my rants.

[Jimboot]

It's P4AS04IG. The S means it's a square loop. An F would mean flat loop. Your P4AF001G is a flat loop. I have no idea what that L4AS01DU core is.

Thanks! Nor do I but I'm looking forward to finding out. I won't be disappointed now if I can't replicate your results

[Pirate88179]

Most people in the public will want to buy a machine, not build it. Patents are good if you want to sell such machines to the people who has no interest in making one. I'm told that here in the USA if a company sells such a device without a patent, LOL, OMG, another company can patent it, legally claim it, prevent you from selling them, and sue the h*ll out of you if you don't stop.

Good grief, at least get a provisional patent for a single owner, which is like $100.

Steorn had no choice but to patent. They're a business. Sean means business, and he's made it very clear anyone who builds and sells their devices will be in court so fast.

This says it all.

Bill