STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM

[captainpecan]

Hi Paul,

I respect Sean most highly, but from the "demo" motor, I must say that if it looks like a duck, quacks like duck, has a spark across the reed relay (inductive kickback) and drives off the side of a Toroid coil, gee, it must be a duck!  Remember CEMF does not make a field outside the core of the toroid and hence can not drive the rotor......But then in the past I have learned to LOVE roasted crow, lightly salted.  I remain.......

Respectfully
Ben

I have to agree with you here.  First off, they could simply be referring to the fact that MOST of the replications use a significant amount of current to operate.  And others, that do not use much current, are not using the dual magnet scenario that steorn has shown.  So he could easily say nobody has successfully replicated it yet.  BUT...  That does not mean we haven't come DAMN CLOSE!  But, I'm like you here.  From all the details we have on the demo unit, and watching it's operation, I think we have gotten the effect pretty well nailed down.  Making it more efficient, and getting more torque from it are still being worked on.  Steorn could help a bit by at least releasing any kind of data as far as how much current was being used, or something.  But I think everyone has done very well, considering this thing has had to be picked apart from the outside in.

[PaulLowrance]

IMO people need to start testing for excess energy. Getting a motor to run on as little power as possible doesn't prove that.

[markzpeiverson]

I think @Broli gets the 'attaboy' for figuring out one of the KEY elements!!!!

I've been scouring the Steorn discussion groups for any explanations by Sean/Steorn people and found this explanation from Sean:

+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Ok - thats the basics - the inductance of a coil is LESS in the presence of an
external field. What this means in our system is that you get a greater energy
return from the collapse of the field of the EM than the energy it took to create
the field, because at the point of field construction you have lower inductance than
when the field collapses - hence you get an inductance energy gain thru the
interaction rather than the inductance loss that was being discussed in this thread.

While the greater return from inductance is interesting - what really counts is that
you get this extra inductance energy and the rotor does work - and quite a lot of
work.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+

I'll be posting some more 'technical tidbits' from Sean in a few mins.

-Mark

[markzpeiverson]

Here are some additional technical tidbits straight from the horse's (aka Steorn's Sean McC) mouth... and comments from a few other people as well.  Hope they help in some way...

Link to source page:
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=62353&page=1

-Mark
=======================

MrEntropy:
If you look very closely at steorn's current trace from demo 1, you can see the extra cost of saturating the core with the magnet in place. It's the curve at the "leading edge" of the current pulse. Without the magnet it would be a sharper
corner.

Thanks. There is the loss mechanism, which takes the Steorn demo machine back into the realms of ordinary non-OU motors.

Well this in an interesting theory - induction losses - seems rational - but then perhaps you should look at the basic theory of induction and the effect of permeability of the core material?

But easy enough to disprove anyway - so January is indeed going to be fun!
=======================

Using the right measurement equipment, one can show the total electric energy (integral over U.I) to saturate the stator toroid is higher with the pre-magnetization by the rotor magnet than without. When neglecting hysteresis losses, this extra electric energy would be exactly the same as the kinetic energy of the accelerated rotor. The kinetic energy that the rotor won by concentrating the magnetic field lines in the stator ferrite is exactly the same as the extra electric energy needed to 'push' them out again when saturating the stator. The balance is zero.

Let's just wait for the next level of obfuscation, maybe with materials that have funny permeability behavior. I'm starting to enjoy it.

Well this is the inductance loss argument - pretty simple to test - or you can wait for our test and then throw stones at that.
======================

Or maybe you should look at the relationship of permeability to the BH curve, then permeability to inductance â€" because you should then be able to prove your point right here and now?
======================

IMHO. As most of you know I was experimenting with trapping the energy in the coil to increase the 'shielding' time based on the time constant for inductance, which is: Time in seconds = Inductance in Henries / Resistance in ohms. I made up a new coil yesterday out of a ferrite material and tried testing it tonight. It has about 5 millihenries of inductance and .1 ohms dc resistance. Again, very close in physical size to the one's Steorn is using.  I was experimenting with a pulse generator, mosfet and diode assembly and wanted to try something. I brought a 1/2 inch Neo over near the toroid and noticed what looked like a change in the clamp time of the diode. This was telling me that the inductance was changing.  Sure as shit I stuck it on an LC meter and could see the inductance decrease more than a factor of ten by bringing the Neo up against it. It went from 5 millihenry to .3 millihenry and all values in between as they got closer. This is not trivial. What is formed here is a variable inductor, an inductor who's value increases with increasing magnet / toroid separation. What is going to be claimed as OU energy will turn out to be a result of this variable inductance and it will be erroneous."

http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=611&page=1
==========================

Ok - thats the basics - the inductance of a coil is LESS in the presence of an external field. What this means in our system is that you get a greater energy return from the collapse of the field of the EM than the energy it took to create the field, because at the point of field construction you have lower inductance than when the field collapses - hence you get an inductance energy gain thru the interaction rather than the inductance loss that was being discussed in this thread.

While the greater return from inductance is interesting - what really counts is that you get this extra inductance energy and the rotor does work - and quite a lot of work.
==================

This comment of Sean's does not take into account the energy required to make the change in the coil's inductance, i.e. to bias the toroid core to saturation.
==================

[captainpecan]

@mark,  interesting stuff. 

Ok - thats the basics - the inductance of a coil is LESS in the presence of an external field. What this means in our system
is that you get a greater energy return from the collapse of the field of the EM than the energy it took to create the field, because at the point of field construction you have lower inductance than when the field collapses

Is it just me, or does that describe a bedini monopole pretty well?  I'm not so sure this is a STEORN discovery.  We'll have to see if more comes out of this info as to the key to how eOrbo is supposed to be COP >3.