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

[PaulLowrance]

You people can do whatever you want. The few poor innocent legit researchers at this forum listening to you guys, and they'll lose control over the invention.

Myself, I'll *NEVER* let thugs trick me! As stated for years, I'll get the documention ready to do a quick prior-art publishing at a 3rd party company, but will not click the send button just yet. Before doing so, I'll spend ~ 10 hours handing out fliers that contains all of the exact details & part numbers for people to build it to help get it open-sourced while demonstrating the device to people. Then I'll quickly submit to hundreds of forums, and send out to a large email list. Then I'll come back home and click the submit button to quickly submit my prior art to the 3rd party company (~ $100 to $150).

[gravityblock]

Here's how I think the M-H positions are being controlled in the materials.  Anyone who skips this long post will lose valuable information even if it's not 100% correct.  If you follow the M-H Loop, you will notice the core material never reaches a value where both the M and the H are 0.  We don't want this.  We want both the M and the H to be 0 after the interactions and put the core material back into its virginal untouched state. 

The dotted lines in the M-H Loops represent this virginal state.  This is the very reason why the Orbo will operate in the same direction when the polarity of the battery is reversed without having to change the timing, because the material is always left in it's virginal state after the interactions.

Reversing the battery polarity reverses the direction it is following in the M-H Loop, but it always returns to it's virginal state so when you reverse the battery polarity again, it starts at this virginal state and follows in the opposite direction in the M-H Loop while being left in it's virginal state for the next interaction without needing to change the timing.

The "H" is proportional to the current and "B" is proportional to the integral of voltage across an unloaded inductance model.  So "B" is a function of the current.  In a linear core or in that region where the core is linear, then it is related by a constant.  In the region where the core material is nonlinear, then the core effective permeability is a function of current but not a linear one.  If we're working with the linear portions of the core, the "B" will be proportional to the voltage.  This means the voltage and current must be proportional to each other based on a constant (resonance) if we're going to stay on the same linear positions of the M-H Loop.  Reference material for this, http://www.beigebag.com/case_xfrmer_4.htm

According to the above paragraph and reference material, I have a feeling that the voltage and the current must be proportional to each other based on a constant.  Example, 12 volts @ 1000mA may be proportional to 1.2 volts @ 100mA.  The ratio between the voltage and current is 10 in this case, so the constant is 10.  The next higher resonance is 120 volts at 10 amps in order to stay on the linear portions of the M-H Curve to return the material back to it's virginal untouched state.  Anyone following me on this?  This may be the reason for the 1.2 volt battery in the live demo, because a 12 volt battery @ 1000mA or 120V @ 10A are the next resonances in order for the voltage and current to operate on the same linear portions of the core material, and with that size of a battery, it would be really unbelievable. 

The gap between the dual magnets and the toroid will determine which resonance you are on.  At 120V, the gap is very small while with 12 volts the gap is large and with 1.2 volts will have even a larger gap (Note, there is a limit in the upper and lower resonances that can be reached in any particular system and having a smaller constant means having more resonances a particular system can operate at).  You will notice in the SKDB presentation, it talks about resonance and I believe this is what it is referring to in this case.

I gave an example to how I think the M-H positions of the material is being controlled.  Is it correct?  I don't know, but it makes a lot of sense to me at the moment.  If this isn't totally correct, then it's pretty close IMO.

GB

[Pirate88179]

You people can do whatever you want. The few poor innocent legit researchers at this forum listening to you guys, and they'll lose control over the invention.

Myself, I'll *NEVER* let thugs trick me! As stated for years, I'll get the documention ready to do a quick prior-art publishing at a 3rd party company, but will not click the send button just yet. Before doing so, I'll spend ~ 10 hours handing out fliers that contains all of the exact details & part numbers for people to build it to help get it open-sourced while demonstrating the device to people. Then I'll quickly submit to hundreds of forums, and send out to a large email list. Then I'll come back home and click the submit button to quickly submit my prior art to the 3rd party company (~ $100 to $150).

Paul:

The only reason you keep throwing around legal terms like "prior art" is because, as you have said, you are going to apply for a patent.  Applying for a patent and OPEN SOURCE do not even come close to being the same thing, as you claim.

ANY exposure to the "general public" would protect someone from having their device patented by someone else.  This disclosure can come from sales or just having many world-wide replications.

So, go ahead, learn everything you can here from other folks and then run off to patent "your" device.

You once again are admitting to what you keep claiming I am lying about.

I said you were going to find an FE device, run off and patent it so you could sell it.  So, there it is.

That is why I continually ask you what are you doing on an open source site?

If you do build a device and patent it, I hope you do sell it, I really don't care.  I just hope you share your profits with all of the good folks here that taught you how to build one.

I am not holding my breath on that one.

PS  Do some research on Patent law in the US before you accuse folks here of conspiring to convince others not to get a patent.  Not everyone works for Big Oil as you seem to think.

Bill             

[PaulLowrance]

This will be posted when Pirate88179 replies soon after my post, as he  follows me around telling lies:

Pirate88179 is on my blocked list because he's deceitful &  blatant liar. I'm told that he gets a sick enjoyment from replying to my posts telling out right lies when he knows I don't see his posts because he's on my blocked list, and that's the way I want it. I will not dwell long on a sick Soul. So I don't see his posts, unless someone alerts me. He copies a partial sentence from my website to twist to truth because anyone who reads the full sentence will know Pirate88179 is lying. My public statement was published from the start that my designs are open-source. He tries to get people to think I'm here to ripoff information, when the opposite is the truth, as I'm here to give information. In nearly every case I'm the one that's giving, and not learning much at this forum. It is so obvious what is happening here. BTW, I'll do a background check exchange with any suspicious person such as username "Pirate88179." So far he will not do it.

[gravityblock]

There is a thread on "Open Sourcing Vs. Patenting", http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1821.0

Please divert your comments on Open Sourcing or Patenting to the appropriate thread.

Thanks,

GB