Splitting the electron stream

[TinselKoala]

The embarrassing problem is, of course, that no gain has been demonstrated.
Not by Steorn nor by anyone else working on this problem.

However, the scope traces which Sean McCarthy and Steorn claim to be illustrating "gain" have been demonstrated.


Something else to think about is that the equation you are using doesn't apply to dynamically changing inductances.

[gravityblock]

Something else to think about is that the equation you are using doesn't apply to dynamically changing inductances.

I agree, but not in this case.  Compare the first TC to the fifth TC and you will see the TC's are relativley constant, thus your argument is based on false premesis.  The change in inductance is varying at the rate of the RPM.  At higher RPM's, the changes in inductance will vary at a faster rate, and since the TC is based on L/R and L is increasing which means "t" is decreasing at a faster rate proportional to the RPM.  At a minimum RPM, the current will reach it's maximum current allowed by the resistor in less time than the ~0.005 of the total of 5 TC's.  Any further increases in RPM is a gain in energy proportional to the increase above this minimal RPM, which occurs at a low RPM.  This is a "time varying field" effect and is responsible for the gain in energy.

[Edit:]  Try to wrap your mind around what I'm doing below.  Then it will become clear to you.

Assuming the inductance is increasing 39mH from 0.961mH to 1.000H according to a RPM at a rate 5 times faster than the TC, then we have the below.

V = 12
R = 961
I = 0.01248
L = 0.961 - 1.0H
TC = 0.001 - 0.001162

V / L = Constant rate of change of current
12/ 0.961 = 12.486 in 0.001 seconds
4.44 / 1.00H = 4.44 in 0.001040 seconds. Rate of change of current is equal to the voltage. 0 inductance gain. Break even point!
1.6248 / 1.039 = 1.5638 in 0.001081 seconds. Inductance gain at this point! Rate of change of current is less than voltage. Ohms violation!
0.601176 / 1.078 = 0.55767 in 0.001121 seconds. Another gain in inductance. Rate of change of current is less than voltage. Ohms violation!
0.22243512 / 1.117 = 0.199136 in 0.001162 seconds. Another gain in inductance. Rate of change of current is less than voltage. Ohms violation!

Inductance gain of 117mH after 5 time constants.

GB

[gravityblock]

V = 12
R = 961
I = 0.01248
L = 0.961 - 1.0H
TC = 0.001 - 0.00104

Assuming the inductance is increasing 7.8mH according to a RPM equal to the TC, then we have the below.

V / L = Constant rate of change of current
12 / 0.961 = 12.486 in 0.001 seconds
4.44 / 0.968 = 4.586 in 0.001007 seconds
1.6248 / 0.9758 = 1.665 in 0.001015 seconds
0.601176 / 0.9836 = 0.611 in 0.001023 seconds
0.22243512 / 0.9914 = 0.224364 in 0.001031 seconds. Rate of change of current almost equals voltage, thus resistance losses.

Assuming the inductance is increasing 23.4mH according to a RPM at a rate 3 times faster than the TC, then we have the below.

V / L = Constant rate of change of current
12/ 0.961 = 12.486 in 0.001 seconds
4.44 / 0.9844 = 4.510 in 0.001024 seconds
1.6248 / 1.0074 = 1.612 in 0.001048 seconds.  Inductance gain at this point!  Rate of change of current is less than voltage. Ohms violation!
0.601176 / 1.0304 = 0.58343 in 0.001072 seconds.  Gain in inductance. Rate of change of current is less than voltage. Ohms violation!
0.22243512 / 1.0534 = 0.21115 in 0.001096 seconds. Gain in inductance. Rate of change of current is less than voltage. Ohms violation!

Energy Gain through "time frame" manipulation!

GB

[gravityblock]

@TinselKoala:

Why don't you use the correct formula for a dynamically changing inductance and prove me wrong?

Inductance at TDC = 0.961mH.  Maximum inductance of coil = 1.0H
Assuming the inductance is increasing 39mH from 0.961mH to 1.000H at a RPM that has a rate 5 times faster than "t", compute the following:

V = 12
R = 961
I = 0.01248
L = 0.961 - 1.0H

After you compute the calculations, I'll almost bet they're in close agreement with my calculations.

GB

[spinn_MP]

"Steorn's effect" successfully reversed Engineered?

Lol!