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

[gravityblock]

GB... If you dont saturate the core, ORBO will not work. So you cannot stick to the linear part of M-H curve as it doesn't lead to saturation. We don't want saturation on magnetic tapes but we do want it on ORBO' core. If you don't have saturation in ORBO the rotor will stop right next to the core.
After all I think 0c might be right that going between remanence point and saturation point would be best (yes it's linear in Metglas for example). And that would indeed explain quite a big gap between rotor's magnets and core. In such case the magnets should be positioned in a way, that they (magnets) alone will not fully saturate the core and also in a way, that only very little electric power is needed to make it go into full saturation mode. Once again precision needed.

When a core material is driven deep into the saturation region, the 'flat' upper and lower portions of the curve as shown in the below image, the incremental inductance approaches that of an air core inductor. Essentially all of the magnetic domains present in the material have been aligned with the magnetic field.

About the origin, in the somewhat steep and linear regions of the curve (L1 and L2 in the image below), there are large numbers of unaligned magnetic domains at any point, and an increase in H (current) will cause a correspondingly linear increase in the number of aligned magnetic domains.  This is the reason for the fast rise time in current for the Orbo.  Remember "H" is proportional to the current and "B" is proportional to the voltage related by a constant on the linear portions?  This means our voltage and current will remain steady, and this is what has been shown in the Orbo.  This also has to do with the Resonance of the system and the gap between the dual magnets and toroid.

Between these two regions is a transition region. In this portion of the curve, which can be relatively large dependent on the material, the number of unaligned magnetic regions is becoming smaller, and the B-H curve flattens.  As you can see, the steep linear regions do lead to saturation according to the material. This region, dependent on the core material, can be rather small or even quite large.

Below is a sketch of a lossless B-H curve. This drawing shows a curve of a hypothetical lossless, saturating core. Such a B-H loop approximates the midpoints of a curve for a material such as a ferrite, which can have a 'skinny' B-H loop, representing little core loss. The 'flat' top portion can represent an extended transition region, or an air-core, fully saturated region of operation, again dependent on the material.

As you can see, the steep linear portions do lead to saturation in certain materials.  When the gap between the dual magnets and toroid are larger, then you will need less domains aligned and won't need to be on the "flat" top or bottom portions of the "fully saturated" regions.  The closer the dual magnets are to the toroid, the further you need to be into the saturated regions.  The Orbo is sitting at it's highest point of this steep linear curve.

B is proportional to the integral of voltage across an unloaded inductance model on the nonlinear portions and B is proportional to the voltage related by a constant on the linear portions, while H is proportional to the current through the device.  e = n * (dphi/dt)

B = (µ0 * µr) * H, and H is proportional to current, so why is not B proportional to current? Well, it is a function of current, so in a linear core or in that region where the core is linear, then it is related by a constant.  In the region where the core material is nonlinear, then the core effective permeability is a function of current but not a linear one.

[Edit:]  The "flat" portions representing the fully saturated regions is nonlinear in respect to B, which means it is related by an integral and not related by a constant.  This means going from M_r to M_s, "B" will be related by an integral and not by a constant, which I think means the current won't have a fast rise time and the voltage/current won't remain steady under load.  Maybe it depends on if the material is a square loop core or not, in regards to which method to use.  Maybe OC can give us some insight into this.  Like I said, I see potential in both methods and my mind is split between the two.

GB

[PaulLowrance]

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.

It's a good thing I have good friends online who alert me when you are lying. Man, you are one massive liar.  I challenge you, shows these people a screen shot!

Notice how he does not show my quotes.

[PaulLowrance]

Bye bye, 

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8784

[exnihiloest]

You are applying test book examples to each part of the system in an independent way.

I'm applying laws of physics.

The effects need to be calculated as they occur.

The problem is not to calculate. It is to know how to calculate.

First, no work needs to be applied to cause the rotor to rotate as it attracts itself to the core.

You don't understand what is work. A magnet far from a ferromagnetic material has a high magnetic potential energy relative to the material, and when it approaches, it loses it.
Naturally there is a work done to attract the magnet, at the expense of the potential energy. It is the same thing than a weight falling in the gravitational potential: the magnet "falls" onto the ferromagnetic material, it gains kinetic energy while loosing magnetic potential energy. All these movements are based on the same principle: to reduce the whole energetical state of the system. It is related to the Maupertuis's principle and to the principle of least action.

The core domains are aligned along the core material traveling around each side equally...

Too many approximations !
The main one is the direction of the magnet flux. Steorn is using 2 magnets side by side with opposed poles facing. Their flux linked one another in a vertical plane. Thus the flux from the coil is globally perpendicular to that from the magnets, no matter the half core in question.

TIME is important and if the removal of the magnets was faster, would conserve energy.

No sense.

[exnihiloest]

...My interest with the Orbo replication is to see if the mechanical version can self-run, thus overcoming such losses. If it self runs...

The Steorn claim is only based on the joule losses because Steorn substracts them from the total energy to calculate the useful energy.

Thus if Steorn over-estimates the Joule losses, his motor is not OU.

Steorn presumes that R*I² is the Joule losses, where R is only the coil resistance, and every one accepts it as evidence. But it would be true only if there was no resistance in parallel with the coil.
As the coil current works in aligning the electron spins against the magnet field, this work should be viewed by the generator as a supplementary resistance in which current is wasted (because from a voltage generator, all consumed energy is viewed as a current in a resistance).
I confess that I did not yet succeed in putting this equivalent resistance in the equations of the coil circuit but we must keep this hypothesis or explain in a different way how is done the work for spin alignement. Naturally I would prefer to be wrong and that a self-running motor proves it.