Can it be this simple? Magnetic Viscosity (lag) is the key?

[konduct]

Boys, you are a tad little behind.

From http://www.steorn.com/orbo/technology/

How Orbo Works

Orbo is based upon time variant magnetic interactions, i.e. magnetic interactions whose efficiency varies as a function of transaction timeframes.

It is this variation of energy exchanged as a function of transaction time frame that lies at the heart of Orbo technology, and its ability to contravene the principle of the conservation of energy. Why? Conservation of energy requires that the total energy exchanged using interactions are invariant in time. This principle of time invariance is enshrined in Noether’s Theorem.

The time variant nature of Orbo interactions can be engineered using two basic techniques. The first technique utilizes a method of controlling the response time of magnetic materials to make them time variant. This is achieved by controlling the MH position of materials during permanent magnetic interactions.

The second technique decouples the Counter Electromotive Force (CEMF) from torque for electromagnet interactions. This decoupling of CEMF allows time variant magnetic interactions in electromagnetic systems.

Orbo 1.0, the first commercial release of our platform technology, is based upon our electromagnetic implementation. Orbo 1.0 will be made available initially under license to 300 engineering companies and to the wider product development community later during the course of 2009.

That's just plain condescending. I would say Steorn is the late one...it's their tech and how late are they? Quit promoting these alcoholic wankers.

[mikestocks2006]

Hi folks, thanks for the feedback. Yes a lot of this info has been out there for a long time.
Also, see Noether’s theorem etc.

Let’s see if it is realy simple.
Ok lets test the principle of operation for a solid state device, it maybe easier and simple to build vs a mechanical one that requires high rotational/translational speeds.

Solid state device. (for the shake of simplicity assume all heat/resistance losses, Eddie currents etc are accounted for or make the components perfect etc. With perfect components the most we expect to achieve is unity, 100% of what goes in comes out in the same form etc. Since it’s electrical device, than the best we’d expect to do is to get 100 of all the electric energy out.

First let’s establish the basics of what we know is happening.
A simple coil.
Air core.
We apply AC to the coil and no other load on it. AC 60Hz - 16.7 milliseconds (mS) period
Energy went from the source to electric to magnetic back to electric back to the source, no loss or gain.
If we pulse it once with one cycle sine wave, same results, all in all out no loss no gain.

Next lets do ½ sine wave, only rise and fall on the one side of the wave, let’s say 0 to 15 volts and back down from 15 to 0. This will result to a mag field from 0 to some value Mv then from Mv back down to 0
Again, nothing lost nothing gained.

Next, let's replace the air core with a ferromagnetic material, let’s say a standard transformer core (make it perfect as above)

Apply the pulse, no load anywhere.
Again, no loss no gain

Now make the core a U core, let’s annotate the 4 corners or the core as A,B,C,D

Our coil is at AB section of the core.
Pulse it as above.
Again, no loss no gain.

Next, place another coil, same as the one we have been using, to the CD section of the transformer.
Do not place any load on the CD coil

Now what we have is a simple U core transformer, Primary at AB section and secondary at CD section of the core.

Pulse the primary. (lets call this STEP ALPHA)
There is no load on the secondary.
No loss, no gain from the source, there is no output on the secondary (no load) so no net final energy transfer from the source to the secondary
And ofcourse, the best we’d expect at the secondary is a Voltage of 0 to 15 rise, followed by a fall from 15 to 0 volts, and last but not least no Current there. (no load)

So Far So Good?

Next, lets place simple load on the secondary, a small resistor. R

Now if we pulse the primary, some energy will be transferred to the resistor and dissipated as heat and ofc, due to the magnetic coupling with the secondary through the core, what ever is left over will be returned to the source. So now there was some energy transfer from the source, through the primary, through the core, through the secondary, onto the resistor and manifested as a Rcurrent and Rvoltage on that resistor.

Again so far so good, we are all in agreement?

All energies are accounted for, all are balanced, best we can do is 100% efficient energy transfer from the primary to the secondary. (in reality it is less, but a quick search, will show some expensive transformers operating in the 99% plus efficiency)
Again the most we can hope fore is 100% or Unity right?

Well here is were Magnetic Viscosity or also Magnetic Lag, comes into play.

The magnetic coupling between the primary and secondary is through a ferromagnetic material that has a certain amount of magnetic viscosity.
That viscosity is in the order of microseconds per unit length and per unit flux.
In our common device that operate in the 60Hz range (16.6 mS period) a quantity of few microseconds doesn’t enter the picture. Its effect is close to zero. BUT it is there.

So now lets say, the BC/DA sections of our nice little transformer above ar about 1 inch length.
And lets say helped graph on the first post, that (and this is generous) it takes 200 microseconds (uS) for the magnetic front to travel from point B to C

Now lets say, our pulse to the primary only lasts 150 microseconds (75 rise,75 fall)

By the time -200 microseconds later- the magnetic front wave reaches the secondary, our primary is OFF, the switch to the source is off. As far as the primary is concerned it’s like STEP ALPHA above. No loss no gain on the primary. The fields are back to zero, no magnetic coupling has had the chance to be completed to the secondary, the source has seen no load, and it is now off (at time 150 microseconds)
HOWEVER; the secondary after 200 microseconds, starts to experience a rise and fall due to the magnetic front going through the CD section, resulting in a Voltage and a current across that resistor and ofc loss of the magnetic field energy at section CD.

But none of this loss is getting back to the source through the primary, Remember, the primary is off by this time.
So we got some energy out on the secondary, without any loss on the primary.

Isn’t this simple?
Easy to test, a ferrite or iron U core transformer, a cope and a sig generator that can provide a very short on pulse and a long off delay per cycle.

Is the Conservation of Energy law preserved?
IMO yes for each leg of the transaction.
Yes on the primary electric field to magnetic to electric back to source.
Yes on the secondary, Magnetic to electric to heat dissipation on the resistor
The issue is during the magnetic coupling. The Magnetic wave front travel is not instant.

There is a time delay (temporal or time variant effect taking place)

Actually I think the energy does come from somewhere, I’ll possibly post some more thoughts on this sometime in the future, but all we care for now is that the primary sees no loss and the secondary, shows some output.

Yes a lot of this info has been out there for a long time.
Also, see Noether’s theorem etc.
Again a side question, is this stuff patentable, can one license these designs and principles?

Thanks
Mike

[PaulLowrance]

A lot of people seem to be stuck on one type of magnetic viscosity. Magnetic viscosity is not limited to a wave traversing through the magnetic core. The entire core could be wrapped with a coil that's wound around the entire core, which would cause no waves through the core, yet there would still be magnetic viscosity.

Magnetic viscosity, simply put, is the materials inability to react instantly. That's it!  The ferromagnetic atoms do *not* flip instantly. This is even a misconception amongst a lot of 8-5er physicist who specialize in quantum physics. IBM and various companies know full well that it typically takes on the order of a few nanoseconds for each ferromagnetic atom to flip in ultra high speed magnetic cores. To be more precise, the ferromagnetic atoms precess as they flip. This is conventional knowledge in this field.

One method of causing magnetic viscosity is microscopic eddy currents that retard the magnetic avalanches. A magnetic avalanche has been described as a fire that spreads within the core, but quickly dies out. There could be millions of ferromagnetic atoms that flip per magnetic avalanche, which is nothing in terms of the entire core. As the applied field (could be from a coil) increases at a linear rate, there are thousands of magnetic avalanches occurring with the core. This is heard with sensitive equipment as pops.

My research has show there's bad and good magnetic viscosity in terms of "free energy."  The type we want is magnetic viscosity that's *caused* by a *microscopic* effect such as microscopic eddy currents, *not* macroscopic eddy currents. The microscopic eddy currents in a laminated core retards magnetic avalanches, but it offers no appreciable retardation to changing external magnetic fields. A laminated iron core is an example of good magnetic viscosity. Although, there's an optimized lamination thickness. To thin, and it hinders the microscopic eddy currents. To thick, and it pushes out an appreciable amount of changing external magnetic fields.

I'm putting together a new website dedicated to my magnetic research, which now contains numerical mathematical analysis using conventional physics that clearly shows over 200% efficiency. The "free energy" comes from ambient thermal energy, which always exists in all matter. -->

http://globalfreeenergy.info

2009 *will* be the year of global free energy, period!

PL

[mikestocks2006]

Sure, why not?
Where would the energy come from?
From the domain of time. Time < = > energy, or “time is a matter of energy”?
We are dealing with a time variant energy transaction.
During each leg (and location in time) the conservation of energy laws and equations hold true are not violated. 
But also note that the equations(s) describing conservation of energy are lacking the term (element of time). That is where viscosity and in this case magnetic comes in place.
Considering magnetic viscosity as the time it takes for the magnet to register an opposing force when the magnet is exposed to a magnetic field. (as it is shown on the experimental graphs above) it would make sense.

A simple way to demonstrate:
Imagine a spring with a final spring constant of let’s say 1 Newton per meter. K=1N/m
Now assume that the spring has a time delay of 1 second (viscosity) to express this constant, after 1 meter deflection. At time 0 K=0 (or some other value less than 1N/m), and at time = 1 second k=1N/m

Now you push the spring 1 meter and you do that in less than 1 second. The spring will start reacting after 1 second.
First leg conservation of energy holds you’ve used no or little energy to move the spring, and after 1 second you have the spring ready to push back with 1 full Newton.
The difference is the gain in energy, rinse and repeat.

The time delay based on the experimental graphs above are very sort, so it would require high speeds of bringing the materials together. So move two magnets close in repulsion mode very fast, and within that small window of time before they start reacting to each other.
The net energy cost for that magnetic transaction is low or zero, then and after the time lag passes the magnets will pull apart due to the repulsion (after the time delay has passed and they register the repulsive force)

Is this patentable?
The information has been publicly available for sometime.
Edit to add another link to the graph, since it appears the original one posted about a year ago is not working anymore.
http://sites.google.com/site/steornpower/steorn1.jpg