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

[gravityblock]

there was a mistake in the circuit 10Kohm in series to the toroid is now 220 ohm the input/output power ratio goes down from 98 to 2.2 anyway more than 1

here the corrected circuit and estimation:

Thanks for the correction.  Very well done in breaking everything down in order to see the COP estimation of 2.2 in regards to input vs. output.

GB

[Airstriker]

He's measuring the magnetization of the toroid core across RLoad of the output coil for a very good reason.  The reason is to increase the power density.  Increase of power density is possible by increase of H_c up to 10-15 A/M by selection of core material, increase of frequency, and by a high speed diode.

Did anybody here understand this ? Power density ? Whose theory is this now ?

@wings
Your estimation would look a bit better if you add the energy stored in the toroid (which can be recycled) to the output. The question is how much of it would really be recycled with nanoperm.

[Airstriker]

Thanks for the correction.  Very well done in breaking everything down in order to see the COP estimation of 2.2 in regards to input vs. output.

GB

So now you're saying JLN is wrong ? You really have to decide ;] No offense, I just want us to make a clear view of what is really happening here.

[gravityblock]

So now you're saying JLN is wrong ? You really have to decide ;] No offense, I just want us to make a clear view of what is really happening here.

There was an error in one of the values for a resistor on the schematic posted by JLN.  JLN corrected the error, then wings recalculated the output/input COP estimates.  The error was probably a copy and paste mistake on paper and doesn't affect the COP measurements of 13.7 by JLN.  The simplest things go right over your head.  You can't piece nothing together on your own.

The estimated COP ratio between the output to input is 2.2
The COP ratio between the demagnetization to magnetization is 13.7

This means it has excellent potential to be a true OU device that would be self-efficient without the need for an external energy source to drive it.

The magnetization-demagnetization ratio is a good indicator on excess energy generated.  This doesn't mean the excess energy generated can be utilized if it's lost in heat, etc.  The out/in ratio of 2.2 estimate posted by Wings suggests that some of this excess energy being generated during the demagnetization is successfully being trapped and converted into useful usable energy that is above the energy put into the system to magnetize the core.

I'm not saying JLN is wrong or right.  I think the method he used is sound in determining if there is excess energy being generated, regardless if it is useful or not.  There are always possibilities for errors, miscalculations, etc. in any experiment.  The ultimate test will always be if it's self-efficient or not.  There is always a possibility of any system to be OU, even if it's not self-efficient.

GB

[gravityblock]

Did anybody here understand this ? Power density ? Whose theory is this now ?

That's not a theory.  Power density is nothing more than the ratio between the energy received during demagnetization and the energy spent in magnetization.  That came from Zaev.  I believe you need to re-read his articles, because you should have known this if you payed attention.  You probably just skimmed over it real quick if you did read it.

GB