Splitting the electron stream

[TinselKoala]

@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

You forget--- I have actually built 2 functioning e-Orbos, have explored the effects of which you speak, and have successfully replicated all of Steorn's demonstrated behaviors.
I don't need to prove YOU wrong...I have already proven that what Steorn has demonstrated, does not support either their claim or yours.

If you think that you are right, go ahead and build a device that will take advantage of your effect. Or explain why, if your effect is really happening, why Steorn's motors don't work.

[gravityblock]

GB,

I was only placating you when I stated you were a smart person. It is obvious you have the ability to cut and paste, zero electronics background and took high school math.

Inductance in a circuit is an analog to mass in a mechanical model UNTIL you place a shorted coil on the inductor which is what I referenced. Perhaps if you were not trying to hide your lack of knowledge while trying to solve some puzzle you have no clue about, you would have seen that and not made two stupid replies.

Furthermore, Joseph Leedskalnin wrapped two shorted coils around an inductor and proved that a magnetic field can be conserved without current flow. So if your statement that an inductor is an analog to mass in a mechanical system is true, then you can explain why there is no friction.
Your pedantic understanding of physics and EM is not going to produce a free energy device anymore than your pareidolia driven self delusional math. I told you how and why it works and your replies only prove that you can't fix stupid. You got outsmarted by the empirical science of a man with a sixth grade education well over 50 years ago. Did you find the image of Jesus on a hot pocket? Maybe you can find yourself here:

http://listverse.com/2010/01/07/top-10-common-faults-in-human-thought/

For one, when a Leedskkalnin "PMH" is charged, then it's charged with 0 inductance because of the two oppositely wound coils cancelling out the inductance in the circuit, thus the current reaches it's maximum value allowed by the resistance almost instantaneously to saturate the core material, such as iron or steel.  This is why everybody charges their PMH with a very quick tap of the battery.  So, your argument that the inductance in a circuit is an analog to mass in a mechanical model UNTIL you place a shorted coil on the inductor is wrong and is based on false premesis because the PMH is charged with 0 inductance when the two oppositely wound coils are shorted.  When the PMH is charged with a keeper on it and then the current is removed, then the magnetization of the material will fall to B_r or to the remenance magnetization of the material, which is the magnetization left over after an external field is removed (residual magnetization).  When the keeper is removed, then the magnetization will fall to H_c or the point of coercivity.  This is just describing the B-H Hysteresis loop of a core material and is well known.

I suggest you start watching at 35 minutes of this MIT video, which explains how the PMH works, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddU6HBFlvEk  In fact, it may do you some good to watch all of MIT video's.  It's obvious you have no reasoning skills.  No reasoning skills * Any amount of education = 0 understanding and 0 comprehension, so I doubt the videos will help you much.

I've been thinking about using a bifilar coil to charge the toroid with 0 inductance, then disconnect one coil shortly after the beginning of the pulse, then disconnect the other coil at the end of the pulse width.  This is how to charge a coil with 0 inductance where the current can reach it's maximum value almost instantaneously.  If there is no rate of change for the current as the dual magnets depart from TDC, then there will be no BEMF.  Sean did say in one of the demo talks that the difference in the e-orbo and the normal pulse motor was the position and structure of the coils along with a different current required, thus the reason for the rheostat.  I think Steorn may have used two oppositely wound coils or a bifilar coil to charge the toroids with 0 inductance energy in the e-Orbo, then disconnect one coil shortly after the pulse and disconnect the other coil at the end of the pulse width.  There was also a relay used in the demo talks to connect/disconnect the two coils at the appropriate time according to the optical sensor.

Did you try this also TinselKoala?  Oh, I forgot.........you tried everything under the sun.  Then again, if my memory serves me correctly, you didn't even use torroids, you didn't try dual magnets, you didn't try magnetic bearings in your replications.  Since you didn't try to replicate the obvious, then I'm sure you didn't try to replicate the not so obvious things, such as why the torroids in the e-Orbo was positioned and were structurally different than the torroids in the normal pulse motor during the demo talks, etc. in order to support the claims made by Steorn.

GB

[gravityblock]

You forget--- I have actually built 2 functioning e-Orbos, have explored the effects of which you speak, and have successfully replicated all of Steorn's demonstrated behaviors.
I don't need to prove YOU wrong...I have already proven that what Steorn has demonstrated, does not support either their claim or yours.

If you think that you are right, go ahead and build a device that will take advantage of your effect. Or explain why, if your effect is really happening, why Steorn's motors don't work.

No, I didn't forget about your replication attempts.  In your opinion you may have successfully replicated the e-Orbo, but according to Steorn you have not.  IMO, your replication attempts of the e-Orbo was more like replicating a normal pulse motor.  It was obvious you had the intent of debunking the e-Orbo from the very start, and your final replications clearly shows this.

GB

[quarktoo]

For one, when a Leedskkalnin "PMH" is charged, then it's charged with 0 inductance because of the two oppositely wound coils cancelling out the inductance in the circuit, thus the current reaches it's maximum value allowed by the resistance almost instantaneously to saturate the core material, such as iron or steel.  This is why everybody charges their PMH with a very quick tap of the battery.  So, your argument that the inductance in a circuit is an analog to mass in a mechanical model UNTIL you place a shorted coil on the inductor is wrong and is based on false premesis because the PMH is charged with 0 inductance when the two oppositely wound coils are shorted.  When the PMH is charged with a keeper on it and then the current is removed, then the magnetization of the material will fall to B_r or to the remenance magnetization of the material, which is the magnetization left over after an external field is removed (residual magnetization).  When the keeper is removed, then the magnetization will fall to H_c or the point of coercivity.  This is just the B-H Hysteresis loop of a core material.

The difference between you and I, is I understand knowledge is experience and you are filled with magical thoughts and self delusion. You can't paste a link to a lecture and make your point. However, people such as yourself suffering from pareidolia often do this. So here is a little reality check that blows your magical thinking out of the water:

Place an old inductive amp meter into the PMH circuit and note that the meter continues to indicate current flow even though there is nothing but a copper wire connecting it to the PMH coils.

What is compressing the spring in the amp meter connected only by a COPPER WIRE???

This is just the B-H Hysteresis loop of a core material.

To suggest hysteresis explains perpetual motion is laughable since they tend to suggest the opposite of each other. You loose all credibility when you make a idiotic statement like that. Consider yourself exposed as a below-average pretender.

I suggest you start watching at 35 minutes of this MIT video, which explains how the PMH works, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddU6HBFlvEk  In fact, it may do you some good to watch all of MIT video's.  It's obvious you have no reasoning skills.  No reasoning skills * Any amount of education = 0 understanding and 0 comprehension, so I doubt the videos will help you much.

I have watched quite a few of them and find them useless but then he uses a model of the atom that does not have the negative e (thanks to Einstein removing that from Dirac equations) while claiming there is a "vacuum field" surrounding the FE atom and claiming an electron is in perpetual motion while that violates the first two laws of thermodynamics, etc.

You are not smart enough to see all the flaws and hypocrisy in his reasoning while he uses math to try and validate his claims. Then you paste his pointless lecture along with your paste of some math and hold that up with your magical thinking as "Hey everybody, look how smart I am!" Unfortunately, it only impresses other morons. "Because I said so", does not work for me and even worse because someone else said so???

He in no way fully explains the PMH in that lecture. You in no way understand or describe the PHM in your pathetic attempt to explain it. To suggest hysteresis explains perpetual motion is laughable - proof you don't understand Lewin's lecture or the PMH.

You cannot explain the PHM or why it indicates current flow through the amp meter without an understanding of AB effect, persistent spin curl wave and negative e. But then, Walter Lewin probably doesn't understand it either. If he did, he would not live very long if he taught it.

I've been thinking about using a bifilar coil to charge the toroid with 0 inductance, then disconnect one coil shortly after the beginning of the pulse, then disconnect the other coil at the end of the pulse width.

More self delusion. You can't "charge" an inductor without a magnetic field. That is why it is called an "inductor" dumb ass. A bifilar coil is self inductive and thus self canceling just like your pathetic posts.

I fully understand what Lewin is teaching and I also understand what he is unable to teach and probably does not know which would account for the 22 flaws in EM theory Marinov noted prior to being murdered for teaching why with his perpetual mobile. Marinov understood the PMH along with Testatica and a bunch of other stuff.

Why don't ask Lewin if it is possible to produce a free energy device using classic EM or even quantum mechanics? He is going to tell you "no" and suggest you take a physics class or two.

Knowledge is experience. You are a pompous, self delusional empty hat hiding behind a thin layer of long math. You are so blinded by your arrogance you literally can't see the shorted coils of the Orbo compressing a magnetic field to produce acceleration which converts mass into the atomic energy of the mass.

E=MC2.

PS - You can add "escalation of commitment" to the other obvious flaws in your thought such as pareidolia. Keep pushing, my guess is you will cover the list from top to bottom but then that list is all about magical thinkers.

http://listverse.com/2010/01/07/top-10-common-faults-in-human-thought/

[gravityblock]

More self delusion. You can't "charge" an inductor without a magnetic field. That is why it is called an "inductor" dumb ass. A bifilar coil is self inductive and thus self canceling just like your pathetic posts.

That's why I said to disconnect one of the coils shortly after the beginning of the pulse, you dumb ass.  After you disconnect one of the coils, then it's no longer acting as a bifilar coil and is no longer self cancelling, you dumb ass.  The current is flowing in opposite directions in both coils at it's maximum value allowed by the resistance almost instantaneously because there is no net inductance, you dumb ass.  After you disconnect one of the coils, then you'll have a net magnetic field and a net inductance, but the current is already at it's maximum value, you dumb ass.  The end result is charging the coil with 0 inductance which allows the current to reach it's maximum value almost instantaneously with a net magnetic field after one of the coils is disconnected, dumb ass.

GB