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

[Omnibus]

@Omnibus,

This open loop current transducer from digikey is $18.00 US. http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?lang=en&site=US&WT.z_homepage_link=hp_go_button&KeyWords=csla2cd&x=24&y=20

I have this setup. This item with a 9 volt battery in the circuit and connected to the voltage probe is all you need for accurate current testing.

Plus, I don't understand why a .1 ohm carbon resistor has an inductance problem. It is good enough for JLN and in most of my testing, but not for you?

Just curious, how do you have an expensive high end 4 probe tek scope (~15,000) and can't afford a much cheaper current probe (~500)?

Regards, Larry

What's very important is to have a current probe based on Hall effect and not a transformer based probe as the one $1300 Tektronix probe I got today by going all the way to the North shore of Boston. It's a Tektronix P6021 current probe. That type of a current probe is not appropriate for the experiments we're discussing because, being a transformer, it cannot measure the DC offset component of the input current. I took it temporarily just to check the form of the waves and to compare them to the forms I'm getting using my method of measuring the current. The Agilent Hall effect based current probes were not in stock and when they arrive (will know for sure tomorrow when they'll arrive) I'll exchange the Tektronix probe with them and hopefully will report the results as soon as I obtain them.

As for why the inductance problem has to be addressed. Well, you know full well what controversy such claim stirs up and critics will be grasping at straws. The goal is to allow them as fewer straws as possible.

[exnihiloest]

This is easy to test by removing the rotor and pulsing the coil alone. Have you tested it, or is it only a theory ?

It is not "easy" here because the effect is weak. And if you pulsed the coil alone without magnet moving around, no work is needed (except for fighting losses).
We have to see the magnetic domains as current loops. The field generated by the coil tends to rotate them in its own direction and the field from the moving magnet tends to move them in another one.
The 2 fields are coupled through the core materials and provide a resultant field that is viewed from the magnet as a leakage flux, weakly repulsing it and allowing it to move away with less backward attraction. This weak field is enough to rotate the motor but needs energy to be created, like any ordinary field used in magnetic motors. This energy is viewed from the electric generator pulsing the coil, as current in a resistance in parallel with the input (electric energy for rotating a motor is always seen by an electric generator as a current in a resistance).
But if any current is accounted for losses in the measurement process, of course OU is found because the current for the useful work is denied! It is Steorn's methodology 
My viewpoint is just a conventional explanation according to the physics laws and what we observe. Steorn's motor "mystery" is founded on the false idea that a magnetic field would be confined in a toroidal coil. It is true when the B field is also "toroidal" and the material is used in its linear characteristics. It is false when the material is not linear (varying and unbalanced magnetic permeability) and the field is not "toroidal" (due to the permanent magnet action).

[teslaalset]

What's very important is to have a current probe based on Hall effect and not a transformer based probe as the one $1300 Tektronix probe I got today by going all the way to the North shore of Boston. It's a Tektronix P6021 current probe. That type of a current probe is not appropriate for the experiments we're discussing because, being a transformer, it cannot measure the DC offset component of the input current. I took it temporarily just to check the form of the waves and to compare them to the forms I'm getting using my method of measuring the current. The Agilent Hall effect based current probes were not in stock and when they arrive (will know for sure tomorrow when they'll arrive) I'll exchange the Tektronix probe with them and hopefully will report the results as soon as I obtain them.

As for why the inductance problem has to be addressed. Well, you know full well what controversy such claim stirs up and critics will be grasping at straws. The goal is to allow them as fewer straws as possible.

@omnibus,
The sensor LarryC is referring to is Hall sensor based, so it looks suitable from that perspective.
I am not sure about the suitable bandwidth. Response time is 3 us which is quite high.

[teslaalset]

Don't know if customs in Holland would charge a fee otherwise I can send one to @teslaalset as long as I know the address to send it to. If you're not in the US I can send it to you too. Just let me know.

@omnibus,
My spare time is very limited, sorry.
I am not convinced your way of calculation energy is correct.
We need to agree first on the basic calculation of the input energy before I spend extensive time on this.

We seem to differ opinions here, so let's first agree and discuss here (or via PM).
You continued expressing input energy using positive and negative values (see posting #3123), so  you seem to disagree with my analysis earlier (see posting #3120) that negative currents into a load also consumes energy, rather than delivering energy.

To be to the point: the blue curve shown in posting #3123 shows energy consumption and energy production. I think this is not correct.
It may be that there is just a simple mistake rather than a fundamental difference in opinion.
Anyway, let's find out, first.

[Omnibus]

@teslaalset,

The data I presented in my posting #3123 may just be a measurement mistake due to, as I already mentioned, unaccounted for parsitic inductive voltages appearing at the frequencies studied -- the parasitic inductance voltages would then be included in the voltages I use to calculate the current by dividing them by the resistance of the resistor. Whether or not that's the case is something I'm trying to establish now by replacing the method for measuring current with one using Hall effect current probes. As I said, because of the significance of the claim these probes have to be quite reliable and well calibrated, in addition to being Hall effect probes. The sensor @LarryC quoted is indeed a Hall effect sensor, however, specific studies have to be done with it (to determine its frequency response, for instance) to develop it as a suitable instrument in this case. Therefore, it seems preferable at this point to rely on already studied devices such as the Agilent probes I'm waiting for.

Now, if we suppose that the data in posting #3123 were correct then it would definitely be an even more interesting case of OU than the reansformer case. Indeed, in #3123 we don't even need to know what's going on in the secondary coil -- the negative value of the power is enough to conclude that we have an OU device based solely on the data for the primary coil. The negative sign of the power values indicates that energy has been returned to the device, in addition to the energy that has been dissipated through Ohmic losses and losses in the core (hysteresis, eddy currents, magnetostriction, etc.) The novelty here is that during the functioning of the device one not only gets energy produced in the form of these losses but gets back electrical energy. This is a self-sustaining device par excellence. Therefore, it is crucial to ascertain that we're not dealing here with simple measurement errors.