It can be proven as an Overunitiy system but only if

[mikestocks2006]

Good post.

I think there is an error here "Ec(b)-Ec(a)<=Er", should be Ec(b)<=Er.

When Ec(b)<Ec(a), the left hand side will be negative and will not make sense. Also, Ec(a) has no role to play in scenario (b).

The only necessary condition to demonstrate OU is to show that net energy required to A the shielding field is less than net gain in rotor KE, per cycle.

One does not even need to build an orbo or a self runner, one just need to setup an experiment with a toroidal coil and a magnet and some careful measurements. Building a self runner is an engineering problem and will take some time to develop fully, however, the above condition is easy to show for someone with a good lab.

I hope someone with a good lab is reading this, because proving this result will boost the confidence a million times and we will see more sincere replications all over the world. Some of which will become self runners eventually.

Hi Omega_0,

I see what you mean. We are on the same page.
However, if the statement(s) you are referring are:

Ec(a)>=Ec(b), Ec(a) is greater or equal to Ec(b) and the Er is a free ride.
Or
Ec(b)-Ec(a)<=Er, the added energy required to built the field in scenario b is less that the Er

There is an Or separator.
The first Ec(a)>=Ec(b) so the Ec(a)-Ec(b) term is positive.
In the second it is reversed, and implied, where the Ec(b) is greater than Ec(a) so the term is still positive. Maybe it should have been explicitly stated.
There are only 2 possibilities stated, either Ec(a)>=Ec(b) Or Ec(b)>Ec(a)
Examining all different scenarios for this particular transaction.

“The only necessary condition to demonstrate OU is to show that net energy required to build the shielding field is less than net gain in rotor KE, per cycle”

Yes true on the condition, that would prove it, but it can also be greater and it could still be OU if:
The captured back energy during the field collapse of the toroid/coil is algebraically added to the expended energy required to build the field.
It is the net result of that part of the transaction that need to be less than Er and it would prove OU.

Simple example per on/off cycle
Energy to build the “shield” by step1 eclectically energize the coil is e.g 10 Joules
Er is 5 Joules
Energy recaptured in step 3, when the mag is far away and the field collapses switch off is eg 7 joules (70% efficiency in flyback recapture)

The energy to build the shield is greater than Er
But the net energy expended on the coil, is added in step one and returned in step 3, 10 â€" 7 = 3 Joules
So total cost is 3 but Er (gain) is 5 etc.

Unless by net energy you already account for the flyback recovery, then yes agreed.

Fully agree again on the testing and lab sourcing.

I hope this helps
Thanks for the feedback
Mike

[Omega_0]

Yes, by net energy I meant the difference of energy used and energy recovered.

Steorn's (secondary) claim is that the recovered energy is more than the energy fed. (Estimated at 108% of energy fed), which makes things more interesting. Because if this is tested, and if the recovered energy is found to be equal to the energy fed, if not more, then also the OU is proven beyond doubt, as the rotor is spinning using 0 net energy.....

Just to be clear, I'm obviously not counting the heat energy here, which is an engineering problem, as you said. Superconductors or silver or other methods can be used to minimize heat. (If the application is not that of a heating device, else heating will be desired instead)