Overunity.com Archives

Quoteask yourself whether you think Steorn would have spent 14 million Euros, have 20 full time staff, spent the last 6 years on developing this and outrightly refused offers of investment then be committing themselves to a launch and media scrutiny if they had nothing.

QuoteAnonymous - you said: "Ah ha! Maybe this will be revealing. Be honest here, lets say at Las Vega a casino was offering bets on Steorn. If you had say 100 million dollars, how much of that would you bet that Steorn had an over unity or COP>1 device? Be honest!"

All of it.

Quote from: innovation_station on December 04, 2009, 09:25:04 AM
6 years employies and millions to play with ...


hahaha

i did it on a shoe string .. alone ...

top it!

plus i already released ..  how they all work ...  and if there other ways ... and im sure there are .. then i will have to take a peek and see why they do as they do ... 

this usually takes me a watch or 2 of the video ...

ist!

he better hope he is not doing it electro magnetic ... as he will not gain 1 pattend ... why ?

thats right .....

Quote from: innovation_station on December 04, 2009, 09:25:04 AMdid it on a shoe string .. alone ...

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 10, 2009, 02:48:23 PM
Someone just emailed this to me,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vek5AKeOI8M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vek5AKeOI8M)

Very cool. Can anyone make out what it all says?

BTW, I was unaware of the new posts in this thread. Someone keeps logging into my account, reading my *unread* private messages, and sometimes disables my notifications. LOL! What's the big deal, I have no secrets.  ;D   Anyway, again, I appreciate the heads up via email on any Steorn news.

Regards,
Paul

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 10, 2009, 02:48:23 PM
Someone just emailed this to me,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vek5AKeOI8M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vek5AKeOI8M)

Very cool. Can anyone make out what it all says?

BTW, I was unaware of the new posts in this thread. Someone keeps logging into my account, reading my *unread* private messages, and sometimes disables my notifications. LOL! What's the big deal, I have no secrets.  ;D   Anyway, again, I appreciate the heads up via email on any Steorn news.

Regards,
Paul

Quote from: infringer on December 10, 2009, 11:30:25 PM
one word ...

Sweet!

Quote from: http://www.design215.com/toolbox/wordfind.php
Length     Starts with     Ends with     Contains     Unscramble
6 letters                                                             steorn
 
or less
                
any order
    
all possible

English word lists:
Standard: 99,300+ standard words and abbreviations
Extended: 167,900+ SCRABBLE® words* (INCLUDES SLANG)

   Clear

*There are issues with the extended list. Learn more >

Searched: 167964 words in 0.934 seconds
Words Found: 7    Scrambled Letters: stoner 

nestor
noters
stoner
tenors
tensor
toners
trones

Quote from: kmarinas86 on December 11, 2009, 02:16:41 AM
Steorn is an anagram of the words stoner and tensor.

"Stoner-types" are what make up "Steorn". You can see it in their consistently laid back personalities. This is how they sell their "pesty" hoax.

Tensor: Their multi-dimensional plot to twist the minds of investors in hyperbolic "goobely-gook".

Other anagrams:

nestor - Later Greek commander during the siege of "Troy", and a victim of a "Trojan horse" hoax who claimed his own side had it coming "Nestor declared that the Trojans were winning because Agamemnon had angered Achilles, and urged the king [Achilles] to appease the warrior"
noters - recorders of an outline of a speech, statement, testimony, etc., or of one's impressions of something.
tenors - the course of thought or meaning that runs through something written or spoken; purport; drift.
toners - persons or things that tone.
trones - a large pair of scales, a spring balance, or other weighing device located in a town or marketplace to weigh goods and merchandise.

I wouldn't be surprised if that name was a joke.

Quote from: ResinRat2 on December 11, 2009, 08:45:57 PM
I'm sick of it because in the end the cost will save the average consumer NOTHING! Just wait and see, just like the oil companies, they will jack up the price and drain us just like it has always been done in the past.

Sorry, just venting.

Quote from: infringer on December 12, 2009, 10:10:01 AM
They should make this a law anyone who finds a way to create energy in this manner should be payed more then the highest payed sports player by the DOE of not just one but every nation!

Quote from: infringer on December 12, 2009, 12:14:47 PM
All that I am saying is the monetary value for such a find is hard to equate but the discoverer(s) should not reside the rest of there life as paupers because they freely gave away something of such importance.

Quote from: utilitarian on December 12, 2009, 02:15:26 PMAnd Paul, if Steorn turns out to be the real thing, i.e. bona fide overunity, free energy from magnets, real deal, I will gladly reveal my real name and private information.

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 12, 2009, 06:37:14 PM
IST, 48/72 hour notice, get ready for project Guardian Steorn.  ;) Many brothers are now gathering for this global pinnacle moment.

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 12, 2009, 11:04:32 PM
The jury found no excess energy because the jury was never allowed to see anything. LOL. Ding dong low end skeptics. I'd do the same thing, blow them off and ignore them. Such skeptics say the most negative things. Hey, there's a thought. Just maybe, just maybe Sean got fed up with those ding dongs and began ignoring them.

QuoteWhy do you suppose 'The Jury' found no excess energy?

Quote from: lumen on December 12, 2009, 11:14:07 PM
Just a guess, but I think even though an energy gain may be shown on a test device using a given set of moves, building a device that can make the moves required and maintain low enough friction may not be that easy.

Judging from their last video, I looks like they may have overcome some final issues and have something operating.
At least we will all know in a few days one way or the other!

Quote from: happyfunball on December 12, 2009, 11:09:11 PM
Um, then what were they testing?

QuoteYou have to admit it's pretty odd to think that such a device would then be able to generate any real torque.

Quote from: Staffman on December 14, 2009, 01:20:27 PM
Did anyone catch this? Someone snuck in and got some pictures (no video). Apparently it was running. The person claims that the demo will be sometime this week.

http://dispatchesfromthefuture.com/2009/12/first_glimpse_of_the_demo_orbo_whirring_1.html (http://dispatchesfromthefuture.com/2009/12/first_glimpse_of_the_demo_orbo_whirring_1.html)

Quote from: grayone on December 14, 2009, 06:36:47 PM
Staffman; What was that cable attached to it for?

First thing that came to mind is he is running it under power and then when he takes the cable off it will run on its own. At least for a while for a demo?

http://dispatchesfromthefuture.com/images/demo_orbo.jpg

It looks like a cable to it to me.

Quote from: hekkmekk on December 14, 2009, 08:33:42 PM
Steorn starts another try for a public demo.

Live at http://www.livestream.com/steorn (http://www.livestream.com/steorn)
Start probably December 15th, 10AM GMT

Let's see what they have...

Quote from: hekkmekk on December 14, 2009, 09:32:34 PM
Have a look at:
http://static.livestream.com/grid/LSPlayer.swf?channel=steorn&autoPlay=true (http://static.livestream.com/grid/LSPlayer.swf?channel=steorn&autoPlay=true)

nice ya?

Quote from: happyfunball on December 15, 2009, 03:37:18 AM
Live stream of Orbo up and running. Orbo up and running. Pinch me, I must be hallucinating..

QuoteSteorn should have used a small supercapacitor, even a 0.1 farad would do.

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 15, 2009, 09:25:36 AM
Steorn should have used a small supercapacitor, even a 0.1 farad would do.

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 15, 2009, 09:46:14 AM
It's not frictionless. It might run a month, two tops on that battery.

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 15, 2009, 09:25:36 AM
Steorn should have used a small supercapacitor, even a 0.1 farad would do.

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 15, 2009, 09:46:14 AM
It's not frictionless. It might run a month, two tops on that battery.

QuoteAny chance those are laptop battery packs acting as the bases for the three Orbos?

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 15, 2009, 04:07:10 PM
Steorn claims it also keeps the battery charged. If you look at the diagram it shows the pickup coils that goes to a diode, which charges the battery. So there's more than just friction, due to the pickup coils, but that's recycling the energy.

http://www.steorn.com/demo/rig/ (http://www.steorn.com/demo/rig/)

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 15, 2009, 07:09:31 PM
Anything change? Looks like it's still spinning at least.  ;)

The problem here is that Steorn is still being very secretive. I here some people, insiders, have proof. We'll have to see.

Quote from: lumen on December 15, 2009, 10:25:35 PM
These are the batteries they used.
I think one of these, in my giant wall clock, would run about 5 years!

QuoteThat battery cannot keep that orbo going more than 2 months. Probably more like 1 month.

Quote from: lumen on December 16, 2009, 12:19:05 PM
Hmmm....... I just realized this may be working on a totally different principal than a pulse motor.
They are using toroidal coils!
My theory is that the rotor is attracted to the core of the toroidal coils. Then they saturate the core with the windings to eliminate or reduce the attraction, and the rotor magnets are free leave with less energy than they gained during the attraction.
Like the magnetic amplifier principal.

Any thoughts?

Quote from: Staffman on December 15, 2009, 06:59:19 PM
@hartiberlin

I did see something about the magnetic field configuration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=AU&hl=en-GB&v=K2eL-NlMtSI&feature=related

Here someone replicated the Steorn Toy, but called it the "90 Degree Magnet Rule".

To me it looks like a gate.

Quote from: lumen on December 16, 2009, 12:19:05 PM
Hmmm....... I just realized this may be working on a totally different principal than a pulse motor.
They are using toroidal coils!
My theory is that the rotor is attracted to the core of the toroidal coils. Then they saturate the core with the windings to eliminate or reduce the attraction, and the rotor magnets are free leave with less energy than they gained during the attraction.
Like the magnetic amplifier principal.

Any thoughts?

Quote from: lumen on December 16, 2009, 09:25:04 PM
Looks like Steorn put out a new learning module that is very close to the working concept!

http://www.steorn.com/skdb/e-learning/flash-promo/3.1/index.html

QuoteI've seen several people who've had similar cop>1 designs based on the same method, but I don't recall their names and don't have the url's. Maybe someone knows.

Quote from: gravityblock on December 17, 2009, 12:08:57 AM
MileHigh is now added to the iggy bin for trolling

Anyone who doesn't think COP>1 is possible, is a troll on this forum.  "Zero Stars", below his name.  Go join the Physics Forum where you are welcomed.

Quote from: gravityblock on December 17, 2009, 12:08:57 AM
MileHigh is now added to the iggy bin for trolling

Anyone who doesn't think COP>1 is possible, is a troll on this forum.  "Zero Stars", below his name.  Go join the Physics Forum, they will welcome you with open arms.

Quote from: lumen on December 17, 2009, 09:09:01 AM
I think all you need to do is just stop for a second and think really hard, what principal makes this device operate.
If you do this, you will see the exact reason this device is OU.
No other device uses this exact effect!
Think of the field going through the toroidal core by passing the two magnets along the upper and lower quadrants of the core.
AND when they reach the center point!

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 17, 2009, 10:34:09 AM
"Steorn have promised that in January there will be live validation and replication sessions which should provide help shed light on these issues."

Quote from: gravityblock on December 17, 2009, 06:21:22 AM
exnihiloest,

There is nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, but condemnation before investigation is folly (that makes no sense).
...

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 17, 2009, 12:38:20 PM
Both of Steorn cameras now have audio! Looks like Steorn is slowly ramping it up. We know from their ads they they want to rub it in to the closed minded skeptics. Maybe they want more to put their foot in their mouths.  ;)

At this moment the Steorn guy is explaining something to people.

Quote from: lumen on December 17, 2009, 05:43:31 PM
I suppose they should roll out this new technology at a rate to prevent any further sliding of current economies.
I mean, keeping the long term skeptics should provide a cushion that will prevent total chaos and slow the dumping of current technology during the build up.

Quote from: lumen on December 17, 2009, 05:43:31 PM
I suppose they should roll out this new technology at a rate to prevent any further sliding of current economies.
I mean, keeping the long term skeptics should provide a cushion that will prevent total chaos and slow the dumping of current technology during the build up.

Quote from: utilitarian on December 17, 2009, 05:49:17 PM
Let me see.  So the fact that the technology is unconvincing is now evidence that it's real, right?  Please.

Quote from: hartiberlin on December 17, 2009, 08:26:51 PM
This is the only private video I could find on
youtube today, that a visitor has filmed about the Steorn Orbo...

But only taped via a mobile phone probably and very bad and too shacky...:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdb1U7sGyi8

I wonder, why no visitors have put a detailed youtube video yet up,
where one could see more details, e.g.from the reed relay switch, etc...?

QuoteSomewhere I read an astute comment by someone about the new problem the Steorn system will create - the overheating of the planet.

QuoteHow well you think that's going to work when we double the solar footprint of earth?

Quote from: hartiberlin on December 16, 2009, 06:30:47 PM
[snip]

Quote
They have used really Toroidal-Ferrite coils  as Motor-Drive coils.
So as there are magnets inside the rotor,
the rotor is accelerated without any current input into the
direction of the ferrite toroid coils.

Quote
Then when the magnets arrive exactly over the toroidal ferrite core coils,
these coils are pulsed by a Reed Switch from the battery,
see:

http://www.steorn.com/demo/rig/
Part Number 23

and then repelled, so the rotor can rotate on.

Quote
One interesting fact here is, that these toroidal ferrite core coils
normally have their magnet fields completely inside the ferrite core
and only leakage flux is coming out of them..
so the rotor will probably have not much torque,
cause this will not repel strongly the rotor magnets.

Quote
[snip]
So all in all it is a pretty easy to build pulse motor
and should be easy to replicate and measure the
input and output currents.

Quote
[snip]

Gruss, Stefan.

Quote from: hekkmekk on December 18, 2009, 01:57:50 PM
...
Sean McCarthy, CEO of Steorn, will discuss and demonstrate cancelling Back EMF in Orbo electromagnetic interactions.
...

Quote from: hartiberlin on December 16, 2009, 06:30:47 PM
...
Then when the magnets arrive exactly over the toroidal ferrite core coils,
these coils are pulsed by a Reed Switch from the battery,
see:

http://www.steorn.com/demo/rig/
Part Number 23

and then repelled, so the rotor can rotate on.

One interesting fact here is, that these toroidal ferrite core coils
normally have their magnet fields completely inside the ferrite core
and only leakage flux is coming out of them..
so the rotor will probably have not much torque,
cause this will not repell strongly the rotor magnets.
...

QuoteI would be more interested in seeing him arrested or being handed a summons live for ripping all those people off.

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 19, 2009, 01:20:41 PM
Someone else posted the video, no sound  :( ,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnDW3mGyNvA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnDW3mGyNvA)

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 19, 2009, 07:40:07 PM
Could someone please post the lingo similarities? Also it didn't look the orbo.

Quote from: Earl on December 18, 2009, 04:01:05 PM


Your analysis is correct until the rotor magnet reaches the
toroid coil.  At this point a pulse into the toroid coil saturates
the toroid core since it exceeds a certain ampere-turns
rating for that particular core material and size.  When the
toroid magnetic core saturates, it becomes what I call
"synthetic air" as all its magnetic properties disappear.
Since the rotor magnet is not attracted to "synthetic air"
it continues to rotate with no braking.  The magnetic leakage
from the now air-cored toroid is small.
Once the rotor magnet is far enough away from the toroid,
the pulse is stopped and the toroid core returns to being
magnetic material.

In my opinion, this demo is completely different from all
else Stoern has done until now.

In effect, this motor is alchemy.  Instead of turning lead into
gold, it turns magnetic material into air.[/b]

Quote from: hartiberlin on December 19, 2009, 09:56:49 PM

Hi Earl,
yes, it seems you are right,
they just saturate the ferrite cores with very high input current pulses
and then the cores act just like normal air , so uR=1 and not anymore
1000 or so..what ferrite normally has..
This saturation probably needs pretty big currents and I wonder how
these current pulses could be decreased maybe via higher turn number coils.

Since it is Ampere-turns that saturate, with low turns you need higher Amps and with higher turns lower Amps.  As always there is no perfection, only a good compromise.  The more turns, the slower the current ramps up, so it takes longer time to saturate.

So it would probably be better to build lower RPM motors with more torque,
as then you can use higher turn number coils with a higher tau=LxR and thus lower switching frequencies
but bigger size and more torque to compensate for the lower speed.

Should be pretty easy to scale this effect up.

So it seems this is a real Lenzless counterEMF-less motor.

No, this motor has nothing to do with Lenz effect or Lenz-less operation.  Only a motor using current to attract or repel a magnet is subject to Lenz's law.  This motor does not use current through a coil to attract or repel a magnet, so it can *NOT* be said to be a Lenz-less motor.

It makes *NO* sense with this motor to talk about Lenz's law, there is no connection at all.

The only thing to do with this motor is measure power input consumption and power output and see if the cost of saturating the core is more or less than the output power.

I think we should all stay cool and calm until some valid measurements are made and make no conclusions now.

Regards, Stefan.

Quote from: Earl on December 20, 2009, 09:12:27 AM

Regards, Earl

Quote from: Earl on December 18, 2009, 04:01:05 PM
Harti,
your analysis is only partially correct.  Comments in-line.
Yes because the toroid core is made of magnetic material.

No, the rotor magnets are NOT repelled.

The rotor magnets are neither strongly nor weakly repelled;
they only continue coasting by without being attracted back
in the direction of the torrid core.  The pulse into the toroid
coil has NO effect on the rotor magnets, neither attraction
nor repulsion.

Your analysis is correct until the rotor magnet reaches the
toroid coil.  At this point a pulse into the toroid coil saturates
the toroid core since it exceeds a certain ampere-turns
rating for that particular core material and size.  When the
toroid magnetic core saturates, it becomes what I call
"synthetic air" as all its magnetic properties disappear.
Since the rotor magnet is not attracted to "synthetic air"
it continues to rotate with no braking.  The magnetic leakage
from the now air-cored toroid is small.
Once the rotor magnet is far enough away from the toroid,
the pulse is stopped and the toroid core returns to being
magnetic material.

In my opinion, this demo is completely different from all
else Stoern has done until now.

In effect, this motor is alchemy.  Instead of turning lead into
gold, it turns magnetic material into air.

It should be very easy to replicate this motor, add
generator coils, use optosensors for timing and then
measure input to output power.  No reed relays
necessary.

I do not think that Stoern is using generator coils in
this demo.  This demo is interesting due to the non
traditional use of magnetic core saturation, but it
shows absolutely nothing about under or over unity.


Regards, Earl

Quote from: wings on December 20, 2009, 01:34:30 PM
"they just saturate the ferrite cores with very high input current pulses"

4 coils , it is possible with only 1 AA battery?

Current and voltage starts at different time it is usual?

The ferrite core it is not visible , my be there is an hidden horizontal coil inside?
more in line with his philosophy

Quote from: hartiberlin on December 21, 2009, 05:32:40 AM

( Please remember the difference between BackEMF and CounterEMF !
This motor does not have CounterEMF. But it does have BackEMF,
which is the same like flyback coils, who generate a voltage spike,
when they are switched off. BackEMF comes from the stored magnetic
energy of the coil and core and can be recycled, which is also the case over here.

CounterEMF is the normal induction for instance in a normal DC motor,
where the movement of the coils in a magnet field are inducing a counter voltage versus
the driving voltage, so the total driving voltage is always less than the inputted
supply voltage. In the Orbo motor we don´t have such a CounterEMF !)

Quote from: hartiberlin on December 21, 2009, 05:32:40 AM
These are normal ferrite core coils as you can see from the high resolution pictures
posted.

The function is this:


So with an optimized design with BackEMF recycling you only need about 10% energy input
of what Steorn has shown now and can get the same torquexRPM= output power
out of it.

Quote from: hartiberlin on December 21, 2009, 05:32:40 AM
These are normal ferrite core coils as you can see from the high resolution pictures
posted.

The function is this:

If the ferrite coils are not energized, the magnets in the rotor attract the
stator ferrite cores of the coils.
the rotor is accelerated into the direction of the ferrite cores.

At the time the rotor magnets reach the ferrite cores of the stator coils,
the coils are energized for a few milliseconds, so the ferrite cores
get saturated and their muR=1 then, so these ferrite cores act then,
as if they would be air and thus the rotor magnets don´t see any
ferrite anymore and can rotate freely on.
Then the coils are switched off and the rotor magnets again attract the ferrite
from the next position and so the rotor can rotate on and gets accelerated
and produces torque.

Now to scale this effect up,it only needs bigger and stronger rotor magnets
and optimized toroidal ferrite core coils,where the inputted energy can be recycled.

If you go for about 1/5 tau=LR only switchon time,
you will almost have no ohmical losses in these coils and can
recycle about 90 % of the inputed energy via BackEMF extraction.

( Please remember the difference between BackEMF and CounterEMF !
This motor does not have CounterEMF. But it does have BackEMF,
which is the same like flyback coils, who generate a voltage spike,
when they are switched off. BackEMF comes from the stored magnetic
energy of the coil and core and can be recycled, which is also the case over here.

CounterEMF is the normal induction for instance in a normal DC motor,
where the movement of the coils in a magnet field are inducing a counter voltage versus
the driving voltage, so the total driving voltage is always less than the inputted
supply voltage. In the Orbo motor we don´t have such a CounterEMF !)

So with an optimized design with BackEMF recycling you only need about 10% energy input
of what Steorn has shown now and can get the same torquexRPM= output power
out of i

Quote from: Omega_0 on December 21, 2009, 09:32:28 AM
A test by someone on the tube :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBEZutgbRiM

Quote from: hartiberlin on December 21, 2009, 10:38:54 AM
Well done !
I guess now we know the real effect behind
the Steorn Orbo demo.

Tinsel Koala does not agree,
but his 4 new videos do show a totally different motor,
which I must have a closer look at still first .

He is using just aircore coils and seems to have simular CounterEMF -less
behaviour...

See:

http://www.youtube.com/user/TinselKoala


Regards, Stefan.

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 21, 2009, 11:43:08 AM
I would agree that this Orbo effect is seen in a lot of other designs. IMO it's far more complex than just saturating the core, so please consider that if saturating the core does not work. Long ago I did plenty of FEMM analysis on my designs which use this same effect, and simply saturating the core always showed less than 100% efficiency, but if you get the applied field from the electrical current just right relative to the particular core you are using, then according to FEMM it is COP>1. I managed to find nine of my FEMM sims on this type of effect, but could not find the Lua scripts to go with them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PaulLowrance

The adam motor sounds like it has potential. Any good replications? I commend Steorn on their great work. Good for them for closing the loop, successfully creating a self-runner.

Agreed, do *NOT* let this effect die. IMO it's legit. Nice going Steorn!

Quote from: teslaalset on December 21, 2009, 11:52:42 AM
Paul, can you share the lua script files that go with these designs?
I love playing with FEMM and it's been a while since I had a go.
Just curious about your simulation findings....

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 21, 2009, 11:51:34 AM
[continued]
Ben makes an interesting point about the mechanical switch in Orbo. It's true there are transistors with incredibly low resistance, but one thing I've always hated about designing such circuits is that they require a diode, and diodes have a forward voltage. One way to improve the efficiency of a solid state design is to bring the voltage levels as high as possible, so the if diode forward voltage is say 0.5V, and caps voltage is 500V, then the losses are not so bad. I know there are a high speed relays, and there's not forward voltage drop like a diode. Maybe that's why Steorn used a relay instead.

Quote from: broli on December 21, 2009, 01:01:16 PM

There's a trick to completely kill emf without the need of simulations and speculation. I'll think about it more and post it.

Quote from: hartiberlin on December 21, 2009, 02:25:35 PM
Hi Broli and all,
YES you can completly KILL the CounterEMF during your ON-Time from 6 to 8:

Just put 2 toroidal coils in series, but with one coil the polarity reversed !

This way the counterEMF will add up to ZERO !
But as the current does still flow, the effect of making the ferrite act
like air with muR=1 is still there and voila , no CounterEMF !

You probably still can extract the BackEMF, if you have seperate graetz bridge diode rectifier
circuits across the single toroidal coils, so this would be the optimal solution, I guess.

@Ben, I totally agree with you , what you said about TinselKoala.

He just has a much different setup that just shows low CounterEMF,
which his scope on these settings and due to his low tau=LR does not show.

also he has some kind of triangle CounterEMF induction waveform.
The Orbo probably has a much different very low CounterEMF, when the
magnets just go by the toroidal ferrite coils and as I said above,
this also can be canceled by putting 2 coils with polarity reversed in series !

Regards, Stefan.

Quote from: k4zep on December 21, 2009, 02:42:12 PM
Another thing, I think the micrometer on the big unit, is to raise and lower lower the main rotor tracks to get the best cancelation orientation with the paired magnets.....that is just speculation though.

Quote from: Omnibus on December 21, 2009, 05:27:42 PM
Regarding @alsetalokin's (TinselKoala) back emf (BEMF) experiment:

This is an example of bad science: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js24ZZ_6Je0. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js24ZZ_6Je0.)

Change of magnetic flux that is supposed to cause the BEMF, which is the main focus of attention here, is the change of flux caused by the pulses of current flowing through the coils. Thus, it is the emf causing these current pulses through the coils that is the subject of study here. Whether or not there is a permanent magnet nearby these coils is only a condition which may or may not change the studied emf. If that studied emf changes then there is BEMF generated. If that studied emf doesn’t change then there is no BEMF generated. In Steorn case the studied emf remained the same throughout the entire experiment despite the presence of permanent magnets near the coils and even despite their turning at various rotation rates.

Emphatically, the subject of study here is not the change of magnetic flux due to the motion of a permanent magnet that is supposed to cause emf (BEMF) in a nearby coil as the author of the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js24ZZ_6Je0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js24ZZ_6Je0) really wants us to believe. The gingerly activity of this author in the forum, supported by another ginger activist, will not change above fact and anyone caring for the scientific side of this debate should take note.

Quote from: lumen on December 21, 2009, 07:59:15 PM
And still I wonder, Why did Sean find it necessary to reverse the polarity to the coils?

Just to show it would run the same direction with reversed polarity?
Or did it need to be reversed to operate correctly?

Things are either missing, or they just do things to mislead people.

Quote from: plengo on December 21, 2009, 11:57:01 AM
.......
When the magnets approach the toroid a magnetic flux is generated on the toroid but the trick is this: a very
sharp pulse will flip the gate in the magnets causing them to repell from the toroid because of the...........

Quote from: lumen on December 21, 2009, 07:59:15 PM
And still I wonder, Why did Sean find it necessary to reverse the polarity to the coils?

Just to show it would run the same direction with reversed polarity?
Or did it need to be reversed to operate correctly?

Things are either missing, or they just do things to mislead people.

QuoteTHIRD And this is exactly what happened in the Mylow debacle all kinds of ideas began to be proposed that maybe this really does work, maybe because of the toroids coils there is some wonderful and mystical thing occuring that negates all the laws of physics.

Quote from: billmehess on December 21, 2009, 10:42:39 PM
It's a battery running a motor, replace the battery with a cap and it will run down and stop, it's really that simple.

QuoteIs a capacitor exactly the same as a battery?   No, it's as simple as that.

Quote from: lumen on December 21, 2009, 07:59:15 PM
And still I wonder, Why did Sean find it necessary to reverse the polarity to the coils?

Just to show it would run the same direction with reversed polarity?
Or did it need to be reversed to operate correctly?

Things are either missing, or they just do things to mislead people.

Quote from: billmehess on December 21, 2009, 10:42:39 PM
It's a battery running a motor, replace the battery with a cap and it will run down and stop, it's really that simple.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 21, 2009, 10:59:58 PM
Electronics 101:  V = Q/C.

In this case, Q = ((starting charge) - (current x time to run motor) + (current x time from the energy return))

If the energy returned from the Steorn motor is greater than the energy required to run it, the cap voltage will go up.

If the energy returned from the Steorn motor is less than the energy required to run it, the cap voltage will go down.

A capacitor is essentially 100% efficient in absorbing the energy returned from the motor whereas a battery is not 100% efficient.  Therefore a capacitor would be a better energy source for demonstrating a self-runner than a battery.

It's not the same as a battery, it's better than a battery for this application.

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on December 21, 2009, 10:59:58 PM
It's not the same as a battery, it's better than a battery for this application.
MileHigh

Quote from: billmehess on December 21, 2009, 11:40:48 PM
Thats what I have been saying K4zep, replace the battery with a cap. Sean will never do this he is well aware of the fact that the device will stop and the charade will be over with. He is hopeing that showing some sort of device appearing to be creating an OU condition will allow the investor dollars to keep pouring in.
It's ALL smoke and mirrors!!
All the talk about how Orbo (rhymes with horrible) could be working is all nonsence.
Like I have said it's simple a battery running a motor.

Quote from: Freezer on December 22, 2009, 12:22:15 AM
Too bad your fancy equations don't factor in radiant energy, or even acknowledge that it exists.


I'll take Bedini's word over yours any day, yes Bedini, a person who actually builds and experiments.

Quote from: k4zep on December 21, 2009, 09:11:09 AM
Hi Stephan,

I have been following the YouTube video #1 from Steorn but pulled my questions on that site as it seems that they give out very little technical information.  The video answers a lot of questions and I suspect your analysis is very correct.  There very obviously is BackEMF and little or no CounterEMF due to the toroidal coil construction. 

I had lots of problems with the design at first as I know that there is virtually no magnetic field external to a close coupled toroid coil and could not figure out how it could drive the rotor.  Finally realized it was simply a Adams motor (I assume everyone knows what a Adams motor is and how it works, if not Google it) with NO CEMF due to the toroid coil design.  It was also immediately apparent that you could recover most of the BEMF to a fast recharge the battery/supply with surprising results. 

IF you put a bridge rectifier across the coil network and drive the coils with a voltage low enough to not turn on the diodes during the pulse  (around 1.4V for a 4 diode bridge or higher if multiple diodes used in the legs of bridge) you then can recover the BEMF back to the battery.  You end up with resistive losses and very short BEMF pulses if diodes are fast enough and battery accepts a fast pulse recharge.  Thus you end up with a very efficient motor, Not powerful but super efficient in its own funny way.  Their estimate of COP around 3 for the power input vs. rotor mechanical output after all is accounted for is probably close and as seen in the Adams motor.  A standard pulse generator only has to make up for the actual resistive losses (10%?), charging losses (20-40%) air drag and bearing losses and you have a OU or super efficient device. A Super Cap should be much more efficient as a power supply than the battery used as there would be no recharging losses in the Cap. 

That they have not been able to utilize a solid state switching device is a puzzle considering the amount of money spend on this device.  There are many switches that have a very low ON resistance, are very fast devices for switching efficiency and fast recovery diodes that should work with no problem.  Anyway, I'm having fun working with this new twist.  It will take time to build one.  When you use NEO's with close coupled fields, the device must be robust to say the least. 

Happy holidays to all,
Ben

Quote from: MileHigh on December 22, 2009, 12:59:04 AM
Freezer:

You can't just "pluck 'radiant energy' out of thin air" to advance your argument.  Sean says that more power is being returned to the battery by the return wire that connects to the battery.

Actually I did do the experiments.  I made the measurements that show that the energy in a pulse discharge from an inductor is less than or nearly equal to the battery energy that energized the inductor in the first place.  That means that Bedini's "radiant energy" is B.S.  I read his 1984 "Kromrey Convertor" 15-page treatise and I almost puked from how little sense he made when discussing electricity and batteries.

So why don't YOU do the experiments.  Hook up any Bedini motor or Joule Thief or whatever your favourite flavour of pulsing inductor circuit you want and measure the power supplied by the battery compared to the power you get from the pulsing inductor.  In all cases you will find the output power is less than the input power, and you produce heat.  The output power plus the heat will equal the input power.  "Radiant energy" is just a buzz word to get you excited and induce you to believe in something that's not there.  You can prove for yourself that it is not there if you really want to.

MileHigh

Quote from: gravityblock on December 22, 2009, 02:09:38 AM
If a motor runs @ 750rpm for 10 hours with drawing a constant current from a battery, then building a motor that runs @ 750rpm for 30 hours from a same type battery is cop = 3 in mechanical energy gained vs electrical energy expended.

You have gained 3 times more mechanical energy than what the battery is capable of producing.  The additional energy gained was expended in the additional 20 hours of mechanical energy instead of being converted to electrical energy. 

.......
GB

Quote from: MileHigh on December 22, 2009, 12:59:04 AM
So why don't YOU do the experiments.  Hook up any Bedini motor or Joule Thief or whatever your favourite flavour of pulsing inductor circuit you want and measure the power supplied by the battery compared to the power you get from the pulsing inductor.  In all cases you will find the output power is less than the input power, and you produce heat.  The output power plus the heat will equal the input power.

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on December 22, 2009, 12:59:04 AM
"Radiant energy" is just a buzz word to get you excited and induce you to believe in something that's not there.  You can prove for yourself that it is not there if you really want to.

MileHigh

Quote from: IceStorm on December 22, 2009, 02:15:34 AM
Its only true if both motor have the same load, without load , the RPM mean absolutely nothing. Rotoverter is a perfect example of that.

Best Regards,
IceStorm

Quote from: gravityblock on December 22, 2009, 02:33:56 AM
If both motors have the same coils, then it has the same load.  A coil is a load on the battery, is it not?  This means the RPM is relative in both systems and is not absolutely nothing.

GB

Quote from: MileHigh on December 22, 2009, 12:59:04 AM
Freezer:

You can't just "pluck 'radiant energy' out of thin air" to advance your argument.  Sean says that more power is being returned to the battery by the return wire that connects to the battery.

Actually I did do the experiments.  I made the measurements that show that the energy in a pulse discharge from an inductor is less than or nearly equal to the battery energy that energized the inductor in the first place.  That means that Bedini's "radiant energy" is B.S.  I read his 1984 "Kromrey Convertor" 15-page treatise and I almost puked from how little sense he made when discussing electricity and batteries.

So why don't YOU do the experiments.  Hook up any Bedini motor or Joule Thief or whatever your favourite flavour of pulsing inductor circuit you want and measure the power supplied by the battery compared to the power you get from the pulsing inductor.  In all cases you will find the output power is less than the input power, and you produce heat.  The output power plus the heat will equal the input power.  "Radiant energy" is just a buzz word to get you excited and induce you to believe in something that's not there.  You can prove for yourself that it is not there if you really want to.

MileHigh

Quote from: interestedinou on December 22, 2009, 03:39:00 AM
Is there anyone in this thread that can explain a simple method to capture the flyback current and put it back in a battery?

Quote from: IceStorm on December 22, 2009, 02:40:52 AM
No its not a load for the battery, in reality , under NO LOAD , if the coil is a ideal one (no loss) it cost you nothing if you put a sin wave on it, what go in = what come back , its basic electronic for inductor with alternating current. but keep in mind that my example is for a NO LOSS coil , in real world you have lost because of the resistance of the wire but not as large as you think. Its why i said to you that you need a load on a motor to know the power you can extract form it and compare it with another one.

Best Regards,
IceStorm

Quote from: broli on December 22, 2009, 06:38:51 AM
Here's a helpful circuit:

http://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-inductkick-snub.html

But it needs an extra diode to keep the capacitor from discharging.

Steorn is right about ohmic losses. All the current that is flowing after the current has reached its maximum is lost irreversibly, as this portion cannot be recycled. This is why it's useful to preferably allow the action to happen during the still linear rise time of the current so most of the inductive energy can be recycled.

The Lindemann motor makes good use of this:

http://www.free-energy.ws/electric-motor-secrets/attraction-motor.html

Quote from: interestedinou on December 22, 2009, 07:24:10 AM
Thank you for the link. It is very interesting. Do you know of any circuits though that put the flyback current not in a seperate capacitor but back in the original battery?

Quote from: FreeEnergy on December 22, 2009, 03:51:22 AM
here let me explain...

sm bn m vnbcvvn cvnb cvn bvcb ncvbnvcbn bcv vcv v  vcnb vcnb vcbcv bcvgfh cfgh cgfh cgjkjkg hukghiughkjhgkfuk fffffffffffhgh jgfvhj cgfj cgj gdc dcvjnbcmc bncnbv mgfvhjc jcgfhjchjdchj c dcg    fg gfcj fdg hjfcg jcfgng cn cv bvxvbvc nvcbnvcn bvcnbvcnb b vcvcbn cv

search for "joule thief"


pretty simple huh? lol

Quote from: gravityblock on December 22, 2009, 06:57:36 AM
So, according to you, you can take a coil and use it as an electromagnet without it draining the battery?  I don't think so, lol.  We're not talking about transformers here.  These are two different things we're talking about.

The motor in my example where the coil is continuously energized from the battery is our control experiment to let us know how long the battery can maintain the system at a certain RPM with a continuous output from the battery.

I guarantee you that it takes energy to run a conventional motor at idle speed with no external load on it that is greater than the small loss due to the resistance of the wire.  Even when it's at idle speed, it is converting electrical energy into mechanical energy and this mechanical energy produces a CEMF that is against the EMF driving the motor and this increases the amount of energy that is consumed way above the small losses due to the resistance of the wire.


GB

Quote from: IceStorm on December 22, 2009, 11:34:15 AM
Im tired a bit to repeat because you don't know enough in electronic and you don't seem to want to put some time to learn something. I told you that with a Ideal inductor , if you put a sine wave across it , the battery in a perfect world will get back what it put in , its not mysterious , its classical EE. IN real world there loss . I told you too that a rotoverter was a good example about a no load motor, do a simple search, there people who run motor at full idle speed (NO LOAD, I REPEAT, NO LOAD) for only 15/20 Watt with a simple modification to get more VARS, do you know what is VARS ?????. A motor with no LOAD don't show ANYTHING about how much torque it has VS power consumption , you need a load at it shaft.

Look again at this site, its in the middle of the page, http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_11/2.html there a PERFECT example of what i told you yesterday you will see what happen with a pure inductive load(ideal one) ALL GET BACK.

Best Regards,
IceStorm

QuoteFrom TK
hmmmtoroid_4c

Quote from: gravityblock on December 22, 2009, 12:02:28 PM
You're confusing the issue.  Energy and power are not the same.  I could trickle a small current from a battery to a heavy load and it won't have any power, but the battery is expending it's energy source.  Since energy is a scalar quantity and we're dealing with scalar quantities for power calculation, it is missing the vector quantity associated with a force; as such it is only a simplification. Trying to infer unknown vector equations from scalar models is problematic at best.  The rules of nature explains the problems and difficulties encountered when attempting to deduce answers from conservation of energy techniques, http://www.distinti.com/docs/ron.pdf

Maybe you need to put some time into learning what is correct from what is not correct.

GB

Quote from: gravityblock on December 22, 2009, 02:33:56 AM
.... 
A coil is a load on the battery, is it not?
....

GB

Quote from: MileHigh on December 22, 2009, 12:59:04 AM
Freezer:

You can't just "pluck 'radiant energy' out of thin air" to advance your argument.  Sean says that more power is being returned to the battery by the return wire that connects to the battery.

Actually I did do the experiments.  I made the measurements that show that the energy in a pulse discharge from an inductor is less than or nearly equal to the battery energy that energized the inductor in the first place.  That means that Bedini's "radiant energy" is B.S.  I read his 1984 "Kromrey Convertor" 15-page treatise and I almost puked from how little sense he made when discussing electricity and batteries.

So why don't YOU do the experiments.  Hook up any Bedini motor or Joule Thief or whatever your favourite flavour of pulsing inductor circuit you want and measure the power supplied by the battery compared to the power you get from the pulsing inductor.  In all cases you will find the output power is less than the input power, and you produce heat.  The output power plus the heat will equal the input power.  "Radiant energy" is just a buzz word to get you excited and induce you to believe in something that's not there.  You can prove for yourself that it is not there if you really want to.

MileHigh

Quote from: IceStorm on December 22, 2009, 12:54:54 PM


I sound like you like to mix thing but look at your question you asked me :

My answer is still the same, NO , a coil is not a load because the reactive power is equal to the apparent power with a sine wave input so the true power will always be 0W IF its a ideal inductor, like i said in real world there always loss with the inductor since the wire is not a superconductor. Don't mix thing , i don't talk about motor i talk about inductor, your question is "IS A COIL A LOAD?". Do i need to past the link again so you can understand what we talk about again ? http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_11/2.html

Best Regards,
IceStorm

Quote from: powercat on December 22, 2009, 12:05:43 PM
From TK
hmmmtoroid_4c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yurZxrKkeo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yurZxrKkeo)

Quote from: gravityblock on December 22, 2009, 01:08:09 PM
You know in the examples I gave you that the coils would be expending energy in order to generate mechanical motion, thus a load.  You can't obtain mechanical energy without converting the electrical energy.  Even at an idle speed, the battery is losing quite a bit of energy due to the CEMF above and beyond the losses due to the resistance of the wire .

ENERGY AND POWER ARE NOT THE SAME THING!, so go take your power factor and through it out the window, because it is irrelevant in the examples I mentioned.

Quote from: IceStorm on December 22, 2009, 01:23:03 PM
I told you to look at the rotoverter, there people who get same idle speed , 200/300 watt input at idle  become 15/20 watt for the same idle speed, you just need to change the power factor, THERE plenty of example all around the web, just ask Ash , he is a expert in that field. But we are not talking about TORQUE here , we talk about idle RPM as you said in your first post.So what is irrelevant is you comparison of 2 motor with NO LOAD on the shaft who mean ABSOLUTELY nothing about the torque it can give. What is important is the torque it can give for X power input, that's all , stop wasting your time with your idle speed comparison. you asked me a question to know if a coil is a LOAD and now you move onto something else loll at least i took time to answer both.

Best Regards,
IceStorm

Quote from: gravityblock on December 22, 2009, 01:30:30 PM
I never said anything about Power or torque in my example.  My example was meant to figure out how long it would take a battery to discharge in a controlled experiment.  It is the same as putting a resistor on a fully charged cap and seeing how long it takes to discharge across the resistor.  This is a good way to figure out how much energy is in the battery so you can make your comparisons.  Obviously you missed the entire point.

GB

Quote from: gravityblock on December 22, 2009, 02:09:38 AM
If a motor runs @ 750rpm for 10 hours with drawing a constant current from a battery, then building a motor that runs @ 750rpm for 30 hours from a same type battery is cop = 3 in mechanical energy gained vs electrical energy expended.

You have gained 3 times more mechanical energy than what the battery is capable of producing.  The additional energy gained was mechanical energy and was expended in the additional 20 hours of mechanical motion instead of being converted to electrical energy. 
.....


GB

Quote from: gravityblock on December 22, 2009, 02:33:56 AM
If both motors have coils with the same load on the battery, then the RPM is relative in both systems and is not absolutely nothing.  A coil is a load on the battery, is it not?  This means both motors in my example have the same load!

GB

Quote from: gravityblock on December 22, 2009, 02:27:23 PM
IceStorm,

I'm not trying to figure out power or torque.  Power correction devices don't lower the amount of energy being consumed by a device, they help the watt hour meter to more accurately calculate the correct amount of energy used by a device.  The watt hour meter does not calculate energy consumed correctly and the end result is the consumer is billed for energy they didn't use.  The total amount of energy actually consumed is the same with or without the power correction device.  Calculating energy in vs energy out is not as cut and dry as you may think.

GB

Quote from: gravityblock on December 22, 2009, 02:09:38 AM
If a motor runs @ 750rpm for 10 hours with drawing a constant current from a battery, then building a motor that runs @ 750rpm for 30 hours from a same type battery is cop = 3 in mechanical energy gained vs electrical energy expended.

You have gained 3 times more mechanical energy than what the battery is capable of producing.  The additional energy gained was mechanical energy and was expended in the additional 20 hours of mechanical motion instead of being converted to electrical energy. 

Quote from: gravityblock on December 22, 2009, 02:09:38 AM
If a motor runs @ 750rpm for 10 hours with drawing a constant current from a battery, then building a motor that runs @ 750rpm for 30 hours from a same type battery is cop = 3 in mechanical energy gained vs electrical energy expended.

If you converted only half of this mechanical energy that is gained (10hrs) into electrical energy, then you have COP = 1 in electrical energy gained vs electrical energy expended with 10 hours of additional mechanical momentum to keep producing this additional energy to keep it above unity.  There is no hidden source of energy being tapped in this system.  The additional source of energy is capturing all of the potential momentum instead of killing it like we've all been doing.

GB

QuoteAll cases huh?  So I guess you have built every single pulsing circuit that could ever be conceived and tested all these without success?  You are pretty damn good!

QuoteSorry I don't do debunking, I build to make things work, not to prove things don't work, we have a team of debunkers for that, to tell us how it can't work, how it's not possible, and how it will never be done.  Same with people who said it was impossible to build a rocket and travel to the moon.

QuoteClassical theory claims Intrinsic inductance is a linear function of wire length and independent of wire diameter. According to the classical understanding of inductance, if we construct two circular loops of wire, both with the same loop shape, but with different wire gauge, then both should have the same inductance. But this is not the case and can be seen in the results below.  Since the thickness of wire does affect the intrinsic inductance, then the classical model for intrinsic inductance is incorrect.

QuoteAlso, the magnetic field around a moving charge is not toroidal or donut shaped as taught.  Simple experiments shows the magnetic field is spherical around the moving charges.  I could go on and on about how classical theory has it wrong and is incomplete also.  Classical theory can't even get the basic stuff right, and simple experiments clearly shows this.

QuoteOk - I agree that a great way to see if the system has CEMF is to test it as a generator - and we will be including that in the next experiment.

As for there being current through the coils when we say its turned off - thats just nonsence, but again we will make the switch from the power supply a lot more clear in the next one.

As for shorter and longer pulses - I assume that you are reffering to induction losses through the interaction - and there are none (in fact there is a greater energy returned from the field collapse than there is energy put into the field creation) - but THAT is the next experiment, so lets see.

Quote"Eddy currents in the core - how do you measure them"

Well you could just use a nonconducting core and then not have them at all.         

Quote"I think the main basic thing people are waiting for is the input voltage/current along side the output voltage/current. I take it this will be included in 2010 demonstrations?"

Yes

Quote"That vibration does have my attention over all the other claims."

Its the nature of the bearings that we are using.

Quote"Will you be "redoing" the experiments before or after Christmas? (Never mind, I see you said January)"

Not sure on the date, but it will be prior to Jan 10th (we may do two experiments together - will have to look at the practicality of this).

QuoteOk the first sequence of experiments are about showing that in eOrbo all the input energy goes to output as Joule heating (no back emf, no induction losses) and yet work is still done by the rotor. The second sequence is total input energy, total output energy and the energy of the system itself.

Quote"Why have the demo "Orbo"s been changed out occasionally, was this due to "issues",,, or is that in some way a future part of the demonstration?"

Its been asked (and answered) - we made a call to use reed switches - they are across an inductive load and flyback dioide or not there is still a high failure rate.

Quote"You've mentioned that the overall thermodynamic efficiency of the system is about 3X. Shall we take that to mean, that if 10W (avg./cont.) battery power input is measured, calorimetry would indicate a heat flow of 30W (avg./cont.)?"

It means that for the type of system shown to date, 1J of elec input will produce circa 3J of output (heat, work done by the rotor and electrical) - but again this has yet to be proven, and it will - but I will not open the Xmas presents early.

Quote"Can we expect some independent, 3rd party, validation of your device as a part of the demo in January?"

You sure can.

QuoteOk what is rubbish about the video was the simple fact that this guy knows that there is CEMF present in his test, but hides it with the scale of his scope traces. So its not a rebuttal at all - its clearly someone playing games.

So does he have a point behind the sillyness - perhaps there are supporting methods that can be used to show that there is no CEMF, including but not limited to the current reversal that I believe he may have decided to leave out because perhaps its a bit more difficult to do a fraudulent debunk? - and indeed you will see these in the next experiment.

The difference of course in all this is what we are dealing with in the so called "rebuttal" is a simple method to debunk through deception - so be it - not a lot I can do about that - lets see if the fella can con the next version of the experiment - as I said it will be pretty amusing anyway,

Quote from: lumen on December 22, 2009, 12:29:17 PM
Well, this shows the effect does exist.
The problem with using ferrite is you need to know which ferrite you are using.
Ferrite used in typical transformers will have an extremely high saturation point because this is good for transformers.
The ferrite that should work best would have a low saturation point. Or possibly not even use ferrite.

Quote from: hartiberlin on December 22, 2009, 09:00:28 PM
With this toroidal core saturation effect, setting muR to 1  one could also easily
build an overunity transformer with no moving parts.
Just make sure most of the magnetic flux from
a permanent magnet is attrated to the toroidal
coil´s ferrite, when the coil is not energized.
If you put an output coil into the airgap between
magnet and toroidal ferrite coil and only draw current
from it, when the toroidal input coil is not energized,
then you will have some kind of motionless orbo overunity transformer.

By the way, is it possible with FEMM to simulate also
BackEMF and CounterEMF in coils around iron ferrite cores ?
If yes, this could be modeled in FEMM too, to check for the best output.

Regards, Stefan.

Quote from: hartiberlin on December 22, 2009, 09:00:28 PM
With this toroidal core saturation effect, setting muR to 1  one could also easily
build an overunity transformer with no moving parts.
Just make sure most of the magnetic flux from
a permanent magnet is attrated to the toroidal
coil´s ferrite, when the coil is not energized.
If you put an output coil into the airgap between
magnet and toroidal ferrite coil and only draw current
from it, when the toroidal input coil is not energized,
then you will have some kind of motionless orbo overunity transformer.

By the way, is it possible with FEMM to simulate also
BackEMF and CounterEMF in coils around iron ferrite cores ?
If yes, this could be modeled in FEMM too, to check for the best output.

Regards, Stefan.

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 22, 2009, 11:05:22 PM
Here you go, a new photo taken from the demo, one for the skeptics,  ;)

Quote from: Reincarnate on December 23, 2009, 04:12:18 AM
To suggest that energy comes from nowhere is as silly and baseless as the claim that are violating the conservation of energy when it cannot be proven by anyone.

QuoteSteorn has demonstrated nothing of value

Quote from: Omnibus on December 23, 2009, 05:08:16 AM
@markdansie,

Not so. Steorn just demonstrated practical elimination of back emf (violation of Lentz' law). That's big.

Quote from: markdansie on December 23, 2009, 04:58:47 AM
I do not have the qualifications of MileHigh and many others,

Quote from: broli on December 23, 2009, 05:45:31 AM
I didn't know you could have a qualification for spouting useless crap. MH has brought nothing of value to this forum in fact I'm surprised he's not put on read only because of his obstructive ways and zero productivity on this forum.  He denies everything without reason, he strategically obstructs progress of others and infests promising threads like a cancer.

Stefan ask yourself what value it has to let a blockhead like MH run lose on your forum.

Quote from: hartiberlin on December 23, 2009, 05:58:24 AM
Well, what MH is right about,  is the way Steorn is presenting these things...
Why didn´t they show additional measurements to prove it some more
now ?

Maybe this is their internal political decision to get this done this way ?

Well, maybe they just didn´t want to show now too much,
so we could not figure it out on our own and then
they would loose customers for their SDKB license signups ?

Well, we will probably see that in January 2010.

If not we will fiqure it out on our own.

I will keep an eye on MileHigh and his postings though...

Regards, Stefan.

Quote from: esaruoho on December 23, 2009, 06:21:54 AM
hi, visited the waterways dublin centre yesterday. took photos. knock yourselves out.  click "sizes -> original". they're taken with iphone 3gs.  credit me (esa ruoho / http://www.lackluster.org / esaruoho@gmail.com ) if you use them. i see paul lowrance already took just the banners, and not the closeups. look at the closeups.
i've got 4 vids i'll post, but dunno if they'll be amazing or not. my first time recording video.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/79138147@N00/sets/72157622929469887/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/79138147@N00/sets/72157622929469887/) FLICKR PICTURES.
i had to pay 25$ to get a pro account, to be able to post these, so took a hit for you guys. either way, knock yourselves out, credit me and my site, cya! bye.

Quote from: Reincarnate on December 22, 2009, 09:47:20 PM
I think you may even find two wires going up through the shaft that connect to a coil. E.g., Thane Heins only using toroidal coils instead of I cores. Optical switches switch when coil is shorted to get past hump and using both sides of a magnet in a pulse motor. Compression yields free energy as coil mass is converted into atomic energy.

Not sure that it has as much to do with saturation as it does with pulse compression. The compression accelerates mass which converts mass into the atomic energy contained within the mass.

I don't think Thane really understands his motor beyond a classic EM which is why he feels it violates Lentz law. Lentz law does not apply to an accelerated mass. Many law of physics can be violated with acceleration and why people feel they are impossible, or violate 2nd law when they wrongly apply 2nd law to an open system since mass is fuel source which opens the system.

All free energy devices use acceleration to convert mass into the atomic energy contained within the mass as I described in earlier post. Cavitation is a form of acceleration, pulse compression is a form of acceleration, a laser can be used to accelerate, vacuum tube accelerates, electromagnet accelerator coil accelerates using pancake and coaxial coil from Tesla, etc. It t is all so simple to understand once you let go of all the BS you were programmed with regarding zero point, eather and college level physics and see big picture of the forest.

QuoteI didn't know you could have a qualification for spouting useless crap. MH has brought nothing of value to this forum in fact I'm surprised he's not put on read only because of his obstructive ways and zero productivity on this forum.  He denies everything without reason, he strategically obstructs progress of others and infests promising threads like a cancer.

Stefan ask yourself what value it has to let a blockhead like MH run lose on your forum.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 23, 2009, 08:38:20 AM
I understand technology and energy 20 times better than you and I could spin circles around you with my eyes closed. 
MileHigh

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 23, 2009, 10:00:52 AM
One thing that's nice about youtube is you can filter negative comments (any comment with more thumbs down than thumbs up). That would be awesome to have such a mod on this forum!

Quote from: lumen on December 23, 2009, 09:16:26 AM
@MileHigh

We know that changing the battery to a capacitor would be proof of OU.
But there IS a problem!
The Steorn devices contain no control electronics, so in a real OU device, how long could the device run on a capacitor?

I think about 45 seconds would be about it. That don't sound like much of a display.
After all, what good is an over unity device that only runs 45 seconds?

Quote from: Omnibus on December 23, 2009, 10:38:00 AM
@billmehes,

They a company and they are protecting themselves. Stefan explained it already. How else are they gonna earn money. This is the unfortunate way our system functions.

What they have given away already is substantial info about what they call "their technology" (which in fact is something vell known as an idea, as far as I can see) -- violation of Lentz' law which is eqivalent to having an OU device. If that doesn't wet your appetite no amount of evidence with or without caps will be sufficient to you.

Quote from: billmehess on December 23, 2009, 10:45:35 AM
Come on Omni there reason for being is to prove OU. You are right this how they raise money. Its only OU if power out is more than power in. Since they are claiming OU then this is what they must prove to be happening. They are the ones making the claim.   A cap or measurement of input power to output power would put this all to rest and they would receive more money than even they could comprehend. Its Lutec all over again. They guys are masters of misdirection. They thread is so Mylow like as the most obvious questions are not being asked.

Quote from: Omnibus on December 23, 2009, 11:01:32 AM
It isn't at all clear that they will get even more money if they reveal everything at once. All business is shady, has secrets, manipulates and so on. That's the nature of business. Otherwise everybody will be equally wealthy and that wealth differential won't exist. If you and I are angry at this kind of manipulation we should be 100 times more angry at the even greater manipulations of corporate culture we're sunk in. I'm amazed that they even showed that much.

Quote from: billmehess on December 23, 2009, 11:08:26 AM
I sure agree with you on most of this but what really have they show? Its all smoke and mirrors.

Quote from: mondrasek on December 23, 2009, 11:20:58 AM


The Steorn demo devices may not be able to generate enough electrical energy to replace the electrical energy needed to "switch" the toriodal coil to saturation.  This is due to the fact that they are not re-capturing the electrical energy that is used to switch the coils.  That energy is not being looped back to the battery and is lost (mostly as heat?).  Likewise, the work of the rotor in overcoming mechanical friction and wind resistance is also expending energy that is not recycled to the battery and is lost (again as heat).

So the system may still be OU but not able to run without an input energy source.  Still, they may be getting more energy out than in, and that is still OU.  The demo units are in this example an energy amplification device, but not a self running device.


M.

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 23, 2009, 11:50:14 AM
If the energy comes from ambient, then the calorimetry method might not work.

Quote from: gravityblock on December 23, 2009, 12:04:11 PM
This is a long post and I hope it is a good read.  Permeability is the magnetic conductivity of a material.  A higher permeable core will have a greater attraction for the rotor magnets than a low permeable core (I hope I got this right).

Now let's take a look at the "Expanding Field Model".  Let's assume a new flux-line begins as an infinitesimal small loop around the primary-wire. Since loops can not overlap or cross, this new loop must physically displace pre-existing loops outward when it is created.  Therefore magnetic fields must expand from, or contract to, the source wire.  This expanding field method is the only way that a magnetic field can expand (or contract) without violating Ampere’s Circuital Law.

The permeability of the core affects the number of flux lines that will pass into the space contained by the secondary when the primary current increases.  It is not hard to see that with increased core permeability, more flux-lines pass into the interior of the secondary for any given increase in primary current.

I hope this is helpful in replicating a Lenz free motor or even a motionless OU Generator.


GB

Quote from: lumen on December 23, 2009, 12:18:05 PM
The design was to show a simple OU device. Using a capacitor makes it much more complicated.
Now you will need something to prevent the capacitor from overcharging or it will run for about 45 seconds before it winds up and the capacitor explodes and everyone is running around thinking "I cant breathe with that smell" and others are thinking "O-my gawd, I got stuff in my eyes and it burns" and people get trampled and cut from the broken glass as they stampede through the door.

Or they could probably add a zener diode to regulate the voltage.

Quote
Permeability is the magnetic conductivity of a material. 
A higher permeable core will have a greater attraction for the rotor magnets
than a low permeable core (I hope I got this right).

Quote from: hartiberlin on December 23, 2009, 05:44:39 AM
Omnibus is right and this shows,
that Mark is not qualified enough in EE to see this.

He should quit his job going around the world for his.

Anybody who hires Mark for this job wastes his money.

Quote from: k4zep on December 23, 2009, 09:40:29 AM
Hi all,

In a positive note and a question, can we assume that those toroidal coils have a very low permeability to allow them to switch the core off with that few turns coils on them?  With even all 4 coils in series, we arn't looking at more than .5 to 1 ohm I would say and peak current with a NIMH battery in the 1.2 to 1.3 amp range.  Ideas, comments from builders???

Ho Ho HO to alllllllll......

Quote from: broli on December 23, 2009, 03:05:29 PM

Permeability in the case of the orbo is meaningless. A relative permeability of 200 or 1 000 000 will probably give the same torque and will need the same current. The magnet is emitting a certain amount of flux, both cores will be able to capture most of it about equally. The most crucial part is amperage not permeability or core saturation. The magnet can be seen as a very strong coil, what needs to be done is finding an equivalent amperage and amount of turns to cancel the field of this magnet, wether you choose 1000u core or 1milu the amperage to cancel the field will remain almost equal.

So when picking a good material anything above 200 and is non conductive is good. The only property that should be inspected is coercivity, this property should be as low as possible as it has no use in the orbo besides heat loss.

To sum it up:

-Anything above 200 relative permeability gave the same force attraction in my simulations.
-Use a soft magnetic material that doesn't retain magnetic strength after the field is gone.

QuotePermeability in the case of the orbo is meaningless. A relative permeability of 200 or 1 000 000 will probably give the same torque and will need the same current. The magnet is emitting a certain amount of flux, both cores will be able to capture most of it about equally. The most crucial part is amperage not permeability or core saturation. The magnet can be seen as a very strong coil, what needs to be done is finding an equivalent amperage and amount of turns to cancel the field of this magnet, wether you choose 1000u core or 1milu the amperage to cancel the field will remain almost equal.

Quote from: allcanadian on December 23, 2009, 04:23:22 PM
@broli
If you honestly believe that the properties of the components has little or no relevance to the operation of this device or any other for that matter then I am afraid life will be very hard for you. I have found that in fact---everything matters and nothing should ever be considered as irrelevant. This is the difference between knowledge, understanding and success versus blaming others for a lack of the former.
Regards
AC

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 23, 2009, 04:45:36 PM
Official Steorn twitter now says, "Finished up for Christmas - back in January with more live events and experiments"

Quote from: hartiberlin on December 23, 2009, 06:56:31 AM
Hi Esa,
many thanks for the nice pictures.

Could you speak with the Steorn stuff there ? Is it right, that the display Orbos still
use Reed relay switches for the coil current
switching ,but the bit different  Dec. 19th Demo unit did use optocoupler-transistor switches
for the coil switching ?
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.

Quote from: gravityblock on December 23, 2009, 05:46:40 PM
You only need enough permeability to contain most of the flux in the core.  A stronger magnetic field will require a higher permeable material.

A higher permeable material will require more amps from the pulse to eliminate the magnet from being attracted to the core in order to eliminate the CEMF.  This is the reason to keep the permeability as low as possible according to the strength of the magnetic field.

This is what I suggest:

1)  Find out what the maximum attraction force is for the least permeable material.  If there is no maximum attraction force, then find the best ratio ( I doubt this will be the case though).

2)  Match this permeable material with a magnet with a field strength that saturates this core, but not to the point where there is stray flux outside this core ( we want nearly all of the flux to be contained within the material).

3)  Find the distance the magnet is no longer attracted to the core.  This distance will be the radius we will need to wind our toroid.  This will also affect the decision we make in step 1.  We want maximum attraction force with the least amount of distance before it starts to attract. This allows our pulse to be shorter while gaining the most momentum.

4)  The smaller the surface area is for the core, the shorter the pulse will need to be.  The surface area of the core will need to be taken into account in step 1.

5)  Send a quick pulse to the coil with the least amount of amps to cancel the magnet from being attracted to the core.

6)  Correct and improve on the above

7)  Stop reading and do it!


Edit:  Wings, those links look interesting.  Thanks


GB

Quote from: lumen on December 23, 2009, 07:56:40 PM
Paul,
I used Mechanical Desktop. I use that and NX all day at work so it only took me a few minutes to draw it up.

I think it may represent what is going on in the Steorn device, but with no moving parts.

Quote from: k4zep on December 21, 2009, 09:11:09 AM
Hi Stephan,

I have been following the YouTube video #1 from Steorn but pulled my questions on that site as it seems that they give out very little technical information.  The video answers a lot of questions and I suspect your analysis is very correct.  There very obviously is BackEMF and little or no CounterEMF due to the toroidal coil construction. 

I had lots of problems with the design at first as I know that there is virtually no magnetic field external to a close coupled toroid coil and could not figure out how it could drive the rotor.  Finally realized it was simply a Adams motor (I assume everyone knows what a Adams motor is and how it works, if not Google it) with NO CEMF due to the toroid coil design.  It was also immediately apparent that you could recover most of the BEMF to a fast recharge the battery/supply with surprising results. 

IF you put a bridge rectifier across the coil network and drive the coils with a voltage low enough to not turn on the diodes during the pulse  (around 1.4V for a 4 diode bridge or higher if multiple diodes used in the legs of bridge) you then can recover the BEMF back to the battery.  You end up with resistive losses and very short BEMF pulses if diodes are fast enough and battery accepts a fast pulse recharge.  Thus you end up with a very efficient motor, Not powerful but super efficient in its own funny way.  Their estimate of COP around 3 for the power input vs. rotor mechanical output after all is accounted for is probably close and as seen in the Adams motor.  A standard pulse generator only has to make up for the actual resistive losses (10%?), charging losses (20-40%) air drag and bearing losses and you have a OU or super efficient device. A Super Cap should be much more efficient as a power supply than the battery used as there would be no recharging losses in the Cap. 

That they have not been able to utilize a solid state switching device is a puzzle considering the amount of money spend on this device.  There are many switches that have a very low ON resistance, are very fast devices for switching efficiency and fast recovery diodes that should work with no problem.  Anyway, I'm having fun working with this new twist.  It will take time to build one.  When you use NEO's with close coupled fields, the device must be robust to say the least. 

Happy holidays to all,
Ben

Quote from: k4zep on December 22, 2009, 09:39:16 AM
Show me a self running Joule Thief and I'll get excited but we are having fun arn't we?  Nice circuit, very efficient but can't keep the battery charged!  What a waste of bandwidth.... ;D

Ben

Quote from: interestedinou on December 24, 2009, 10:32:36 AM

Would you mind explaining the circuit you mentioned that could harvest flyback current?

QuoteI've been doing equations for the past three days to try to show output. I'm having trouble with the output coil equations. I know standard coil equations. But how can I calculate the amps in the output coil if the toroid is saturating and un-saturating, in say 1/1000th of a second. If the magnetic field (0.46T) generated by a coil (in response to the external magnet) around a 2000u permeable material is created by 0.02 amps of current, is that saying multiply the amps times the frequency(1000 times per sec) to get amps in one second?

Quote from: gravityblock on December 23, 2009, 08:07:26 PM
@k4zep:  I think you're right about the balance being of the utmost importance in this system.

@lumen:  Excellent concept to possibly manifest a working toroid meg generator into existence.  This is interesting and I'll have to take a good look at it.

@broli:  Thanks for your circuit and the simulations on the permeability and the information you posted.

@esaruoho:  Nice high quality videos.


This is great stuff!


GB

Quote from: k4zep on December 24, 2009, 01:59:33 PM
Hi GB.

Getting close on my proof of concept motor.  With Honney doooos, running around on Xmas Eve, time is short.  Right now, only have two pairs of magnets N/S orientation top to bottom.  Quad-filiar coil is 180T, each coil on Red form is 560 uH, when in QF mode, only have 12uH total all 4 coils @ 12.5 ohms total on coil.  Core is crap.  Interesting enough, in generator mode only about 1 mv pp, excellent balance.  Could trim coils so totally balance inductance but not till I get one to run. 

Using a A1101 Hall effect into a 2N7000 driver to a IRF1405 output.  Perfect square wave to coil.  with only 12uh measurable inductance, will Still shock the crap out of you if across the coil, have to shunt with diode across coil to keep under contro..  Extended run with it but not quiet running yet.  Even @ 18VDC pulses, core is not saturating....arrggghhhhh.  Anyway, having fun.  Sure wish I had 4 GOOD low u forms! 

To all the folk who want to know how to collect back EMF/kickback...go to Bedini School Girl Forum, Build one of their simple pulse motors, worth a thousand words.   I simply do not have the time to teach right now. 

Picture below.
Ho Ho Ho to all.

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 24, 2009, 10:40:12 AM
Here's the link,

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8411.msg216551#msg216551 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8411.msg216551#msg216551)

His images are self explanatory, as it shows the path of current during the steps.

QuoteEven @ 18VDC pulses, core is not saturating....arrggghhhhh.

Quote from: lumen on December 24, 2009, 05:26:30 PM
The idea of winding all that copper around it though, just don't sound like that much fun. Not after watching the toroid winding machines on youtube.

Quote from: interestedinou on December 24, 2009, 05:22:44 PM
Is that the circuit he mentioned that uses the diodes or bridge rectifier to dump the energy back into the battery?

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 24, 2009, 05:37:10 PM
It's the only one I've seen posted here. Let me know if you find another. Cool circuit.

Quote from: k4zep on December 24, 2009, 06:08:42 PMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT6KdUECEqE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT6KdUECEqE)

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 24, 2009, 06:17:18 PM
Nice. I wonder if Steorn's January demos will replace the relays with transistors.

Quote from: k4zep on December 24, 2009, 06:08:42 PM
Hi All,

Merry Xmas,  Stoern MOTOR ONLY replication is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT6KdUECEqE

It is the most basic drive I could build but it does work, it accelerates and there is NO measurable field around the toroid.

Ben

Quote from: Omnibus on December 24, 2009, 07:02:04 PM
@k4zep,

Thanks Ben for the vid. Great job. Is it possible to show the voltage trace at higher resolution (the higher the better) and put weight on the rotor to see if there would be even a slightest back emf? Thanks.

Quote from: k4zep on December 24, 2009, 07:23:16 PM
Hi OB,

Been working on this since 6:00 a.m., worn out.  But yes, I can show higher resolution but there is just no coupling between the coil and the magnets (well 1 mv generated CEMF) which is zilch.  I'll try to show voltage across coil and current in coil tomorrow.  Just too worn out tonight.  Funny with virtually all the inductance in the coil canceled with the filar design, there is still a hell of a INDUCTIVE kick back like a normal coil but nothing from the external magnets....It would appear that the coil as far as rest of the motor is concerned is just sitting out there doing nothing.  There is virtually no back or CEMF.   As a generator, it only induces 1-2 mv in the coil due to the core being covered/immersed in the coil. Now when the field collapses in the filar coil, it will zap you with inductive kickback!!!!.  It needs a diode across the coil to shunt it back into the coil and add efficiency to the motor.

Thats all for now.
Ben

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 24, 2009, 07:41:06 PM
Ben,

Once again, nice job! When you get a chance, could you place a DC battery along with an inductor in series with your large toroid while the magnets are spinning and show the a scope trace off voltage across the toroid? The reason for adding the inductor is to help block as much AC going into the battery so you can see the AC voltage produced by the magnets due to the toroid effective permeability changing from the magnets.

This might be revealing what I've seen in FEMM for a long time. I believe Steorn claim is legit, but I don't think it's a simple as it appears here. Indeed there would be no bemf on a perfectly uniform toroid, but this design is an entirely different animal, where the issue is a change in effective permeability.

So once again I think the excess energy would come from magnetic viscosity.

Anyhow, I think you guys will be surprised when you see how the magnets induce AC voltage on the toroid when there's current flowing through the toroid.

Quote from: broli on December 22, 2009, 08:24:52 AM
Here's the code to import the circuit in the java applet:

$ 1 5.0E-6 12.050203812241895 50 5.0 50
v 432 320 432 144 0 0 40.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
l 240 144 240 320 0 1.0 0.0786318065125002
159 432 320 304 320 0 20.0 1.0E10
159 304 144 432 144 0 20.0 1.0E10
w 240 144 304 144 0
w 240 320 304 320 0
R 368 224 304 224 0 2 20.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
w 368 160 368 224 0
w 368 224 368 304 0
w 240 320 240 432 0
w 240 432 528 432 0
w 528 432 528 144 0
d 528 144 432 144 1 0.805904783
d 432 320 560 320 1 0.805904783
w 560 320 560 96 0
w 560 96 240 96 0
w 240 96 240 144 0
o 1 64 0 35 10.0 0.1 0 -1

applet link: http://www.falstad.com/circuit/

This will dump all the energy directly back into the battery. I also attached an illustration of it. The signal generator is meant for switching the switches, in orbo's case this is the optical signal.

Quote from: k4zep on December 24, 2009, 08:33:32 PMProbably easier to energize the main coil and then AC couple to the coil and spin the magnets and see if there is external field excitation of the core when energized at various levels of current in the coil.

Quote from: k4zep on December 24, 2009, 08:33:32 PMAs for magnetic viscosity, one of many possibly good theories out there.  Perhaps you would like elaborate on that theory so I can understand what I am looking for.

Quote from: interestedinou on December 24, 2009, 09:40:33 PM
Does the following show the back EMF going in the correct direction? I am considering building this setup. I really need to know.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8411.0;attach=40150;image

Quote from: lumen on December 22, 2009, 09:31:35 AM
@Broli,
I like the circuit, but is it showing the back EMF flowing in the correct direction?

Quote from: k4zep on December 23, 2009, 07:43:25 PMI have 6 different toroids and all in the 40 to 200u + range,  Need to get some with a u in the 1-10 range, will take about a week or so to get.  its a delicate balancing act.  We don't have to totally shield the core but the better, the more output.

QuoteHave you seen how much the eOrbo rpm varies.

Quote from: interestedinou on December 24, 2009, 10:12:58 PM
Can anyone please tell us if the current is flowing in the right direction in diagram in that post?

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8411.msg216551#msg216551

I really need to know.

Quote from: lumen on December 24, 2009, 11:53:46 PM
Paul,
Do you think it's something special, or just the reed switches welding or corroding from the current.

Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 25, 2009, 12:19:54 AM
Not sure, but the Steorn tachoman in that awesome video recently posted in this thread basically said he's puzzled why the rpms are varying so much. That has me thinking.

Quote from: interestedinou on December 25, 2009, 12:48:42 AM
It's probably the reed switches failing.

Quote from: k4zep on December 25, 2009, 07:43:10 AM
I agree.  Must be solid state for long term run.  There are so many variables here and with no circuit posted on the recovery methods, who knows.  Then too, maybe not enough excess power to run electronics package.

Quote from: interestedinou on December 24, 2009, 10:12:58 PM
Can anyone please tell us if the current is flowing in the right direction in diagram in that post?

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8411.msg216551#msg216551

I really need to know.

Quote from: gravityblock on December 25, 2009, 08:34:59 AM
I'm really surprised this question isn't being answered here.   :o

Yes, the current appears to be flowing in the right direction.  The inductor wants to keep current flowing, this is basic circuit laws.  I don't think the simulation is lying to us.


GB

Quote from: interestedinou on December 25, 2009, 08:40:26 AM
The problem I see is that before and after the switches are opened the current is flowing in the same direction across the inductor.

My understanding of flyback from a collapsing magnetic field is that it produces a current moving in the opposite direction that created it.

Quote from: interestedinou on December 25, 2009, 08:15:59 AM
There is supposed to be a series of additional talks/experiments in January so perhaps we will learn more then.

By the way, I sincerely apologize for repeating myself about this. But could you explain to me that circuit you mentioned earlier that uses diodes/bridge rectifier to put flyback current back into the battery? I'm just really eager to learn how this can be done. I am planning on building a pulse motor and want to use the concept. I've read about the Bedini motors and how they charge a seperate battery, but that does not sound too interesting to me. I want to know how to charge the same battery I'm using (if it turns out to be OU or not).

Hi IOU,

Hang loose on the battery charging circuit.  I want to be sure before I post anything on that.  I know how the Bedini works as have built lots of them but this is a different turkey  Just for thought, a separate coil for isolation and then a FAST high peak current FWBR offset for battery switching voltage ought to work but time will tell.  I'm not ignoring your question, just want to be sure.  Working on video of voltage and current, can only do so much so fast and I am NOT a video edit type person.......arrggghhh.

Respectfully
Ben

Quote from: broli on December 25, 2009, 09:02:23 AM
You shouldn't get to hung on the term fly"back". Think of it as the inductor wanting to keep the momentum of the current going. When the voltage source is removed or flipped the inductor produces a voltage to maintain current flow. In AC this results in a phase shift and 0 energy dissipation (perfect inductor). In DC this results in energy being dumped back into the source in a perfect linear fashion (again for perfect inductors).

Quote from: k4zep on December 25, 2009, 09:14:27 AM
...
Remember that in this motor, inductance is virtually cancled out so you do NOT have the large BEMF pulse you normally see...That is part of the genius of this motor.
...

Quote from: exnihiloest on December 25, 2009, 10:01:00 AM
BEMF is easily recoverabe, it is done every day in conventional electronics devices. To recover BEMF is not related in any way with overunity.

Quote from: exnihiloest on December 25, 2009, 10:01:00 AM
BEMF is easily recoverabe, it is done every day in conventional electronics devices. To recover BEMF is not related in any way with overunity.

Quote from: lumen on December 25, 2009, 10:20:13 AM
Sorry guys, I have to disagree on the fly-back.
If you ground one end of a coil, then apply a current to the other end, when the current is removed the collapsing field will cause the current to flow the opposite direction of the applied current.

Anytime a current flows, a field is generated that opposes the current direction. When the current stops, the field that was opposing the current direction still exists, so the current flows backward until the field has fully collapsed.

Make sense?

Quote from: broli on December 25, 2009, 10:33:43 AM
Lumen I suggest you reevaluate your basic electric/electronic understanding. An inductor doesn't instantaneously reverse current and then decay, this would be quite amazing but it doesn't happen in simple circuits. I might understand that the confusion arises with voltages across things, when they reverse and current doesn't and what not. But the most simple view is to see inductor wanting to keep the same current (direction and magnitude going). This is why if you short out a perfect inductor It will maintain current flow with 0 voltage, like super conductors. When you short it out with a resistor it will decay exponentially since a resistor has a varying voltage drop which depends on current. On the other hand when shorted out with a battery it will be a linear ramp to 0 amps since the batteries voltage doesn't change with current flow.

QuoteSure it isn't since you have tried  or any alien race to absolutely prove this, right? I'm sure Tesla was a blockhead using simple inductive and capacitance laws to do things 1 million EE's combined can't do today.

QuoteThis thread has some good momentum behind it with already decent experimentation beginning. I will politely ask you to either contribute to encourage positive progress or not disturb the progress with your short sighted believes. Thank you for your understanding.

Quote
Anytime a current flows, a field is generated that opposes the current direction. When the current stops, the field that was opposing the current direction still exists, so the current flows backward until the field has fully collapsed.

QuoteIn this case, the mechanical gain due to no CEMF is already OU (Lenz violation).  Recovering the BEMF makes it more OU.  This really burns you naysayers to no end.  I love it.

Quote from: hartiberlin on December 25, 2009, 02:00:41 PM
MileHigh,
just wait until Ben posts his scopeshots of the hand turning induction into his
coil.
Then we can say more.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 25, 2009, 02:41:16 PM
Stephan:

Let me briefly discuss the voltage generated in the toroidal coil before he does his experiment because it will be helpful.

Suppose you have a normal coil of wire that has 10 clockwise turns and 10 millihenries of inductance.  If you move a magnet in the vicinity of this coil you will see voltage generated across the coil.

If you now add another 10 turns to this coil, but this time in a counter-clockwise direction then the 10 counter-clockwise turns cancel out the 10 clockwise turns.  Now the coil will measure 0 millihenries of inductance.  When you move a magnet in the vicinity of this 10 turns CW + 10 turns CCW coil you will see that there is no voltage generated across the coil.

So what about a toroidal coil?  Supposing you take the magnet's point of view and you are looking edge-on at the toroidal coil like you see in the Steorn demonstration clip.

The magnet sees the left side of the toroidal coil as having clockwise turns.  It sees the right side of the toroidal coil as having counter-clockwise turns.  Therefore the left and right sides of the toroidal coil cancel each other out just like in the example above.   The coils in the center of the toroidal coil do not "see" the changing magnetic flux because they are oriented in the same direction, there is no changing magnetic flux being "cut" by the coils in the center of the toroidal coil, for both the closer coils and the further away coils.  The other coils of wire in the toroidal coil that are to either side of the center line partially cut flux, but they cancel each other out also.

The net result of all of this is that the net changing magnetic flux seen by the toroidal coil in the Steorn setup is almost zero.  As the magnets fly by the toroidal coil, all of the changing magnetic flux seen by each individual turn of the toroidal coil, when they are all added together, will nearly completely cancel out.

However, it will not be a perfect cancellation, there will still be a very tiny net change in flux which will generate a very tiny change in the output voltage from the toroidal coil.

So Steorn chose a toroidal coil arrangement to saturate the core inside the coil.  This makes perfect sense.  We know that by saturating the coil it makes it appear to "disappear" when the magnet is leaving the vicinity of the saturated toroidal coil.  Therefore there is attraction when the magnet is approaching the metal core of the toroid which speeds up the motor, and there is no opposite attraction causing the motor to slow down when the magnet is leaving the vicinity of metal core of the toroid because it "dissapears."

However, the whole time the magnet is flying by the toroidal coil of wire that is wound around the metal core, Lenz's Law is inducing voltage and/or current in the coil.  It just so happens that the geometry of the windings of the coil are such that very little net change in magnetic flux is seen by the toroidal coil.  A toroidal coil is just a variation on 10 clockwise turns being canceled out by 10 counter-clockwise turns.

The real issue underneath all of this is that it takes electrical energy to saturate the coil.  You can see it in the Steorn clip and K4zep's clip.  The real question is is the electrical energy required to saturate the coil more or less than the rotational energy added to the rotor when the magnet flies by the toroidal coil?  That is the key critical question and I haven't seen any discussion about it around here.

MileHigh

QuoteGood morning to you too. Too bad you missed the train and arrived to a conclusion which everyone and his cat already accepted. But I guess that's the sickness attention seekers like you have. Next time try to be on time.

QuoteMile high has some very good observations and very good pointed questions as to theory of this device, most excellent.  We can discuss them as time passes by....Are we having fun?

Quote from: MileHigh on December 25, 2009, 02:41:16 PM
Stephan:

Let me briefly discuss the voltage generated in the toroidal coil before he does his experiment because it will be helpful.

Suppose you have a normal coil of wire that has 10 clockwise turns and 10 millihenries of inductance.  If you move a magnet in the vicinity of this coil you will see voltage generated across the coil.

If you now add another 10 turns to this coil, but this time in a counter-clockwise direction then the 10 counter-clockwise turns cancel out the 10 clockwise turns.  Now the coil will measure 0 millihenries of inductance.  When you move a magnet in the vicinity of this 10 turns CW + 10 turns CCW coil you will see that there is no voltage generated across the coil.

So what about a toroidal coil?  Supposing you take the magnet's point of view and you are looking edge-on at the toroidal coil like you see in the Steorn demonstration clip.

The magnet sees the left side of the toroidal coil as having clockwise turns.  It sees the right side of the toroidal coil as having counter-clockwise turns.  Therefore the left and right sides of the toroidal coil cancel each other out just like in the example above.   The coils in the center of the toroidal coil do not "see" the changing magnetic flux because they are oriented in the same direction as the magnetic field, there is no changing magnetic flux being "cut" by the coils in the center of the toroidal coil, for both the closer coils and the further away coils.  The other coils of wire in the toroidal coil that are to either side of the center line partially cut flux, but they cancel each other out also.

The net result of all of this is that the net changing magnetic flux seen by the toroidal coil in the Steorn setup is almost zero.  As the magnets fly by the toroidal coil, all of the changing magnetic flux seen by each individual turn of the toroidal coil, when they are all added together, will nearly completely cancel out.

However, it will not be a perfect cancellation, there will still be a very tiny net change in flux which will generate a very tiny change in the output voltage from the toroidal coil.

So Steorn chose a toroidal coil arrangement to saturate the core inside the coil.  This makes perfect sense.  We know that by saturating the coil it makes it appear to "disappear" when the magnet is leaving the vicinity of the saturated toroidal coil.  Therefore there is attraction when the magnet is approaching the metal core of the toroid which speeds up the motor, and there is no opposite attraction causing the motor to slow down when the magnet is leaving the vicinity of metal core of the toroid because it "dissapears."

However, the whole time the magnet is flying by the toroidal coil of wire that is wound around the metal core, Lenz's Law is inducing voltage and/or current in the coil.  It just so happens that the geometry of the windings of the coil are such that very little net change in magnetic flux is seen by the toroidal coil.  A toroidal coil is just a variation on 10 clockwise turns being canceled out by 10 counter-clockwise turns.

The real issue underneath all of this is that it takes electrical energy to saturate the coil.  You can see it in the Steorn clip and K4zep's clip.  The real question is is the electrical energy required to saturate the coil more or less than the rotational energy added to the rotor when the magnet flies by the toroidal coil?  That is the key critical question and I haven't seen any discussion about it around here.


MHand all

QuoteLumen I suggest you reevaluate your basic electric/electronic understanding.

Quote from: lumen on December 25, 2009, 03:37:32 PM
Well, if you think about any coil on a relay, which way is the shunt diode that SHORTS the fly back?

Hmmm... it's not in the direction of the initial current flow.

I have been in electronics for 30 years.... I probably have an idea. I have a two oscilloscopes also and can set it up to look like anything, but the term fly back IS exactly what it means.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 25, 2009, 02:41:16 PM
Stephan:
.....

The real issue underneath all of this is that it takes electrical energy to saturate the coil.  You can see it in the Steorn clip and K4zep's clip.  The real question is is the electrical energy required to saturate the coil more or less than the rotational energy added to the rotor when the magnet flies by the toroidal coil?  That is the key critical question and I haven't seen any discussion about it around here.

MileHigh

Quote from: k4zep on December 25, 2009, 02:37:37 PM
Hi Stefan,

Spun motor up to 1000 RPM @ 26VDC give or take.  Removed power,  scope shot directly across coil, 20mv./div.  50 to 60 mv peak funky sine wave due to imperfect magnet placement (shaky hands and eyeballs).  IF all 4 coils were balanced, I assume they would disappear. When I rebuild it, I will try to balance to less than .1uH. Lets see 60 mv back emf vs. 26 volts not bad.  Hope this helps.

Respectfully,

Ben

Quote from: hartiberlin on December 25, 2009, 04:06:37 PM
Hi Ben,
many thanks for the scopeshot !
Well , now we know, that with a good setup this will work.

60 mV with so many coil windings on neodym magnets is pretty low
at almost 1000RPM.
If you would take a normal coil with the same number of windings
and would use it, the induced voltage would be probably a few volts,
so we can say that the motor to generator effect is very asymmentrical,
what we also need for an OU motor.

So it seems the toroidal coil does not work well as a generator
and so the counterEMF(induction into the coil while motor is running)
is very much suppressed which
is a very good sign that this motor is just a motor  and not a generator.

This way it can be designed as an OU motor with stronger magnets  and the
right mechanical and electrical setup with BackEMF extraction and short gap magnetic
flux pathes.( low magnetic flux losses)

Quote from: broli on December 25, 2009, 09:02:23 AM
You shouldn't get to hung on the term fly"back". Think of it as the inductor wanting to keep the momentum of the current going. When the voltage source is removed or flipped the inductor produces a voltage to maintain current flow. In AC this results in a phase shift and 0 energy dissipation (perfect inductor). In DC this results in energy being dumped back into the source in a perfect linear fashion (again for perfect inductors).

QuoteHi IOU,

Hang loose on the battery charging circuit.  I want to be sure before I post anything on that.  I know how the Bedini works as have built lots of them but this is a different turkey  Just for thought, a separate coil for isolation and then a FAST high peak current FWBR offset for battery switching voltage ought to work but time will tell.  I'm not ignoring your question, just want to be sure.  Working on video of voltage and current, can only do so much so fast and I am NOT a video edit type person.......arrggghhh.

Respectfully
Ben

Quote from: lumen on December 25, 2009, 10:20:13 AM
Sorry guys, I have to disagree on the fly-back.
If you ground one end of a coil, then apply a current to the other end, when the current is removed the collapsing field will cause the current to flow the opposite direction of the applied current.

Anytime a current flows, a field is generated that opposes the current direction. When the current stops, the field that was opposing the current direction still exists, so the current flows backward until the field has fully collapsed.

Make sense?

Quote from: hartiberlin on December 25, 2009, 04:23:05 PM
Hi Ben,
could you please put a graetz bridge rectifier bridge across your toroidal coil and charge up a big cap with it during the motor runs ?
Would like to see the produced voltage and the cap uF capacity.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.

Quote from: k4zep on December 25, 2009, 10:33:05 AM
Hi Gang,

Photos of waveform on 12.4 VDC battery supply

First photo JPGxx415:

Bottom trace is voltage across coil, top trace is total system current in .1 ohm resistor.  Hence 12+ V pulse across coil and .8 amps current in coil give or take.   Average power determined by duty cycle of pulse.

Bottom voltage trace is @ 5VDC/div and top current is .5 amp div. inverted trace.  So down is current flow. Remember this is NOT precision measurement!!!!  Note short coil charge up time due to a small amount of inductance not trimmed out in coil.  Also note the integrated voltage at the trailing end of the voltage pulse @ turn off due to diode across coil.

xx416.JPG Below:

Second picture shows same but bottom traceis 20V/div now to show 50v pp giver or take, back emf pulse at turn off with diode across coil removed,  Very fast ringing pulse @ cutoff  but does not show up in current as the diode across coil keeps it in the coil.  Just the current back feeding into diode and circulating around coil.  As you can see, virtually no energy in back emf.  That is the long and short of it.  I could show the current in the coil by putting the .1 ohm resistor in series with diode but haven't bothered.

That's it.

Respectfully
Ben

QuoteIf you want to fuss, go in set down with your wife (bettery half)  and try to have a conversation about FREE ENERGY!!!!!

Quote from: lumen on December 25, 2009, 04:52:22 PM
Current actually flows from the negative but that is something for another point.

In your case, If you have one side of a coil connected to ground or negative, then you connect the other end to positive for a short pulse, the instant the connection is broken.
The end of the coil, that was positive will (fly back) toward ground but will surpass the ground point and move even more negative to a point that can damage electrical components.
This is exactly why a diode is usually placed across the coil to short this spike and prevent damage to components.
This is what they mean when the say recover the fly back in a way that can be used to recharge the battery.

I cannot understand why anyone would think the current continues to flow forward.
It may be something above me and I just don't see how at this time, but I'm always open to another view.

Quoteif you have induction  and a magnetic field INSIDE the core from nominal external excition (power supply), does the passing magnetic fields interact with the internal field and in return show up in the coil when it is balanced or cause a special type of field anti-torque reflected back into the magnetic rotor?

QuoteObviously with the coil around the core on, it is shielded from external fields

QuoteBUT you can extract about 90 % of the inputted electrical energy via BackEMF extraction.
Then you have almost the rotational energy due to the attraction of the magnet to the ferrite core FOR FREE !

Quoteould you remove the diode across L1 and instead use a graetz bridge
rectifier across L1 and use your boost cap at the output of the graetz bridge ?

Quote from: hartiberlin on December 25, 2009, 04:59:49 PM
Hi Ben,
many thanks for the circuit diagram.

Could you remove the diode across L1 and instead use a graetz bridge
rectifier across L1 and use your boost cap at the output of the graetz bridge ?

Will be interesting to see, how fast this boost-ultracap will charge up.

Probably pretty fast.

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 25, 2009, 05:01:46 PM


Stephan:

You are incorrect here.  K4zep pointed out the exponentially rising current waveform on his scope trace and stated that's where the inductor gets charged with energy and he is correct.  Once the inductor is fully charged and the current levels off, then it is just acting like a resistor dissipating energy as heat.

In Sean's demo clip, you can see how the exponential rise to charge the coils with current is around only 2% or less of the ON time.  Therefore, the back EMF that you can get from the coil discharge is only about 2% or less than than the total amount of electrical energy expended to keep the core saturated.   In K4zep's most recent clip you can see the exponential curve of coil charging current levels off after about 10% of the total ON time.  Therefore in his setup you can only recover 10% or less of the total electrical energy expended to keep the core saturated.

So there is nothing free about this process if you want to recover the back EMF after the coil has done its job of saturating the ferrite core.  You have to put out a lot more energy to make the core "disappear" than you can get back in any back-EMF recovery circuit.  In a Joule Thief circuit, the charging current in the collector coil is automatically shut off once the coil is fully charged with current, it is a self-regulating process.  Therefore a Joule Thief would return a much higher proportion of the charging energy in its inductive kickback.

MileHigh

Quote from: k4zep on December 25, 2009, 05:09:18 PM
High Stefan,

Can't do that as part of the bridge would short the coil in the wrong direction due to normal wiring but I can put a single 1/2 wave diode in there just to see what will happen.  Draw it out, will understand.  If had a separate winding like Bedini could do it but with the quadf coil, no inductance!!!!!!!!  a gotcha there.

Next post will show results.

Respectfully
Ben

QuoteSo there is nothing free about this process if you want to recover the back EMF after the coil has done its job of saturating the ferrite core.  You have to put out a lot more energy to make the core "disappear" than you can get back in any back-EMF recovery circuit.  In a Joule Thief circuit, the charging current in the collector coil is automatically shut off once the coil is fully charged with current, it is a self-regulating process.  Therefore a Joule Thief would return a much higher proportion of the charging energy in its inductive kickback.

Quote from: hartiberlin on December 25, 2009, 05:22:04 PM
You are right,
but you can start by letting the cap charge up to the power supply voltage via
the battery or power supply and then see from this point ,how much if will further charge
up over the power supply voltage.
The graetz bridge will only conduct, when the BackEMF voltage will
be higher than the cap voltage and as the cap voltage will be higher than
the supply voltage, the graetz bridge will only conduct during BackEMF spike voltage
and charge up the cap to the maximum spike voltage of the BackEMF.

Then you can calculate the difference energy the cap has got in a timeframe
by substrating the energy it had at the start with the supply voltage level.

This way also a graetz bridge will work for it, but you probably have to use
a cap that can stand around 100 Volts or more.