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

[Omnibus]

With the above I've reached the limit of what I can do with the equipment I have at the moment. Unfortunately, one crucial element is missing -- measurements with a current probe. Obviously these types of measurements we're discussing here cannot be done on a shoestring budget. As far as I can tell so far only Steorn have achieved the necessary level of experimental quality, also in this respect, and, like I've said many times, they are way ahead of everybody. I'll see what I can do in the coming days to verify, using a current probe, that the current I'm measuring in the indirect poor man's way, by dividing the voltage measured across a resistor by the resistance of that resistor, is indeed the applied current. Once again, as I noted earlier, one objection to measuring the current in this indirect way may be that the voltage that is being measured across the resistor may in fact be voltage due to inductance and therefore its phase and amplitude may not coincide with the phase and amplitude of the actually applied current which would lead to wrong values of the measured energies. This may be especially true for the frequencies I use in my last experiments. A current probe measures the current from the magnetic field generated by the actually applied current and no problems stemming from inductance will interfere with the measurement. If the current probe measurement confirms that the currents, respectively energies I'm reporting here are the true currents (energies) then what I've shown would be a discovery with far reaching consequences. Therefore, it is mandatory to complete this study and reach a definitive answer one way or another.

[Pirate88179]

Omnibus:

I am very impressed with your efforts and documentation here.  This is an incredible research effort you are doing.  I am learning a lot from being here.

Thank you,

Bill

[exnihiloest]

Refering to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Transformer_equivalent_circuit.svg

By just removing Rs/Xs and the secundary coil, we are left with an equivalent circuit of a real saturable inductor.
Rc is the core loss equivalent resistance. We have no direct means to measure Rc. Nevertheless Rc is a real resistance viewed from the coil input and thus Rc*Ic is (partly) the energy for saturating the coil core.
Steorn didn't account it for losses, and thus its conclusion about OU is erroneous.
Exprimenters must be beware that measurements are not enough to conclude, when ideal models are taken instead of real ones and wrong math is done for computing the energy balance.

[teslaalset]

Steorn didn't account it for losses, and thus its conclusion about OU is erroneous.

I don't totally agree with this, exnihiloest, with all respect.
Steorn's coils are not energized with both positive and negative currents, as far as they publicly explained.
They show only positive currents.
Thus there will be no core losses that related to the B-H cycle, simply because they don't full cycle the cores.

I mentioned before, in such case (only positive currents) the only core losses are due to viscosity.
But these are factors smaller than B-H cycle losses.
The higher the pulse frequency, the smaller these minor core losses.

[Omnibus]

Core losses are irrelevant as an argument against OU. On the contrary, a I already said, if core losses are taken into account in the energy balance discussed here the OU effect will be even greater.