http://www.overunity.org.uk/showthread.php?869-Steorns-PM-Orbo
Gary.
Quote from: DeepCut on January 22, 2011, 06:43:29 PM
http://www.overunity.org.uk/showthread.php?869-Steorns-PM-Orbo (http://www.overunity.org.uk/showthread.php?869-Steorns-PM-Orbo)
Gary.
if you can not access to this link
here the attach pdf :
This is one of the best ideas I've ever seen in any of the OU research efforts. This inherent internal switch which allows to overcome the sticky spot naturally is also at the basis of their eOrbo. Of course, it's much more important to demonstrate a working Orbo than eOrbo, that is, to demonstrate a purely mechanical (based on permanent magnets in this case) system. However, as in every such case of a good idea it's one thing to just propose it compared to actually demonstrating a working model based on it. There's a world of difference in that. I guess in this case the difficulty would be, in addition to @broli's concern about the need for magnetic bearings, to find the material (ferrite and neo magnets) which would ensure the necessary non-linearity in that working part of the hysteresis curve where the OU effect arises. That may not be as straightforward as it seems.
http://www.overunity.org.uk/showthread.php?869-Steorns-PM-Orbo...
Clanzer has already started the build :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieOWCNoT-RY&feature=player_embedded
Gary.
Yes, and I see that he will be testing the device by comparing rundown times from a given RPM, with and without the stator magnets installed.
What an interesting idea. He will thus be exploring a complete RPM range as the device slows, and so will be able to see any RPM dependence. In addition, he will have a clear reference (the no-stator condition) for comparison, so that any slight change in configuration can be rapidly and easily tested to see its effect.
I know that Sean has a Shimpo recording tachometer and will do a good job of these tests. It will take 10 minutes or so for each rundown, and three or 4 should be averaged for each condition, so rundown testing can take some time, especially with a good platter turning on fine bearings.
The Shimpo generates graphs that look like this one I made while investigating MyLOW's little joke.
Do you realize, however, the difference between Mylow's and this proposal? In the Mylow case the motor doesn't fulfill even the first of the two conditions for asymmetry defined in Steorn's document and therefore it shouldn't be expected to be a working device at all prior to even testing it.
Makes you really wonder why the Steorn guys should put out a document such as this one: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10253.0;attach=50453 presenting measurement of torques rather than just make and demonstrate the working model, once they obviously know, as seen from the data in that document, what the right ferrite-magnet couples are.
I went to the library today to do some literary search of studies on magnetic hysteresis (unfortunately, this search can only be done in a library which is subscribed to most of the journals publishing these articles). As expected, doing these measurements right is quite involved and is beyond the means of most of us here. That's if we need to approach the problem systematically. Otherwise, it will again be a trial and effort pursuit which would againg drive us, most likely, into a dead-end street.
I was wondering if somebody would remember where those FEMM sims we used to discuss are here in the forum. I tried to dig them out to no avail. Maybe someone can find them and post links. Of course, as seen from Steorn's document just an asymmetry found by an FEMM (or, better, by Maxwell3D) won't be enough but it won't hurt to have it. Then we will try to find the second component of the needed asymmetry (the non-linear part in the MH curve) somehow and that would bring us closer to the goal.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 23, 2011, 01:57:58 PM
Yes, and I see that he will be testing the device by comparing rundown times from a given RPM, with and without the stator magnets installed.
What an interesting idea. He will thus be exploring a complete RPM range as the device slows, and so will be able to see any RPM dependence. In addition, he will have a clear reference (the no-stator condition) for comparison, so that any slight change in configuration can be rapidly and easily tested to see its effect.
...
Maybe Clanzer forgot all those numerous "wind-down" tests from the 2007 SPDC? Ok... Maybe he just misses those good old times... ;)
------------
Any practical experiment made at the time has shown that
no matter what type, orientation (geometry) or combination of magnets and/or ferric materials (in Steorn's PM Orbo) yielded only to shorter stopping times, compared to the
blank test (usually with the stator magnet(s) being replaced by a "dummy").
This practical tests are simple, and quite reliable. So anyone can easily see, how much certain magnetic interaction "contributes" to a complete energy bill.
And you don't need any fancy equipment, like expensive scopes, probes, vacuum chambers, ZeroF bearings, space materials, etc..
Low-cost optical (preferably contact-less) RPM counter, and a stop-watch (PC timer, mobile phone app, a cockoo clock,..), will do the trick just fine..
Which probably means, that their "always proven to work technology" actually never worked as was advertised...
According to one of the most important result of mainstream physics, the work done to move from a potential A to a potential B doesn't depend on the path. This has been verified by thousands of sensitive experiments in all domains (electric, magnetic, gravitational). It follows that if we go from A to B, and then from B o A, the energy is balanced: we can't expect for a gain from a cyclic motion through potentials.
In the paper from Steorn given above (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10253.0;attach=50453), an asymmetry is built in order a permanent magnet to move through a magnetic path different from A to B than from B to A. Measurements are given which indicate that the energy balance is broken. All the physics laws collapse! ::)
But what are the facts? The unbalance is very very weak: less than 1 mJ. We must reckon that 1 mJ is the work done on earth to lift a weight of about 0.1 g to an height of 1 mtr. When we know that here magnetic forces are several orders of magnitude stronger and that an asymmetry path can drastically change the strength of the forces between the outward and return paths (but not their work), inducing different mechanical losses in the 2 sections due to different frictions not taken into account by their evaluation of the measurement uncertainty, we understand that this measurement of an almost imperceptible unbalance of the work of strong forces is far under the measurement accuracy. A real joke.
In such a goal, only a self-sustaining device would be convincing.
Nice to see the craftmanship of ClanZer once more I must say.
The only problem I have with the topic is that Steorn once more comes up with another monkey out of their sleeve.
Pitty, they are not able to convince and let the earlier claims grow mature.
Quote from: exnihiloest on January 25, 2011, 04:54:09 AM
According to one of the most important result of mainstream physics, the work done to move from a potential A to a potential B doesn't depend on the path. This has been verified by thousands of sensitive experiments in all domains (electric, magnetic, gravitational). It follows that if we go from A to B, and then from B o A, the energy is balanced: we can't expect for a gain from a cyclic motion through potentials.
In the paper from Steorn given above (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10253.0;attach=50453), an asymmetry is built in order a permanent magnet to move through a magnetic path different from A to B than from B to A. Measurements are given which indicate that the energy balance is broken. All the physics laws collapse! ::)
But what are the facts? The unbalance is very very weak: less than 1 mJ. We must reckon that 1 mJ is the work done on earth to lift a weight of about 0.1 g to an height of 1 mtr. When we know that here magnetic forces are several orders of magnitude stronger and that an asymmetry path can drastically change the strength of the forces between the outward and return paths (but not their work), inducing different mechanical losses in the 2 sections due to different frictions not taken into account by their evaluation of the measurement uncertainty, we understand that this measurement of an almost imperceptible unbalance of the work of strong forces is far under the measurement accuracy. A real joke.
In such a goal, only a self-sustaining device would be convincing.
Yep.
One of my forum pals from another board once said , that a "working prototype of an OU machine is to an OU claimant the same as is a sunshine to a vampire..." Or, something similar..
Maybe that's why Steorn so carefully avoids showing something that works in reality? ;D
Asymmetrical paths for magnetic interactions are quite tricky.
One can easily get a feeling (or even a "convincing" result) that there's something extraordinary happening...
Usually, a simple rundown tests show all there is to show... In practice.
Cheers!
As I have already shown, there are other instances of asymmetry which lead to OU, inherent in the existing theory. See, for example, the following experiment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnqXJbwpNRo . OU in this case is due to the fact that force as a function of distance has a different form along two paths of bringing the test body from maximum to zero force. Because work is the integral of force over distance, the work done along these two paths will be the maximum work that can be done in each case and it will be different in each case. Therefore, the work W1 to pull out the spherical magnet from point A of maximum force to point B1 of zero force will differ from the work W2 to pull that same magnet from point A of maximum force to another point of zero force, point B2. Therefore, the integral of force over distance along the closed lAB1B2A loop will not be zero (noticing that the work to move the magnet from point B1 to point B2 is zero along a path of equal gravitational potential) and if W1<W2 it will result in OU.
Notice that the difference between W1 and W2 is a matter of principle and science isn't interested at all as to whether that difference is infinitely small or enormous. As long as these two works are different, as they are in this case, the violation of CoE is undeniable.
The making of a device exhibiting continuois rotation (which isn't the necessary condition to claim violation of CoE but is only a technical application of the above phenomenon of violation of CoE) is difficult in this case because of the need to utilize the excess energy produced along one direction of translational motion for inducing translational motion in another direction.
Steorn's way of violationg CoE seems more technically feasible for the purposes of producing continuous rotation since the excess energy obtained due to internal reasons is always along the direction of' motion. As in the other cases of producing excess energy due to so far unnoticed (or suppressed) asymmetries inherent in the standard theory, there are technical difficulties here as well, which can hardly be overcome by enthusiasts working at substandard conditions, all the proper infrastructure being deliberately cut off from such studies.