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

[Omega_0]

JLN replication V2 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM3rGz_KyDg

V2 power calc:

P(in) = 12*2.5*0.2 = 6 W

[lumen]

Nevertheless it does not work for the reason I have previously given: the current pulse in the coil waste energy to align the magnetic domain along its own flux but against the torque that exerts the permanent magnet (even though there is no macroscopic motion).

I agree that domain switching in the core takes energy and this may be a possible problem, but you are missing an important factor! In the toroid, at the point when it is energized, the domains are aligned along two separate paths. One half of the core is already aligned in the direction the coil is about to align to, and the other half is in the opposite direction. The current only needs to align one half of the core while the other half enforces the current direction. This condition means that the maximum COP<2. With the heat and core losses it may still be possible to sneak under the wire and end up at some point with a COP>1.

[tinu]

My rebuttal is that this is relative. If you are considering an ideal setup why not make the inductor ideal as well? Meaning it has no resistance and is super conductive, now all the energy from the battery will never be lost theoretically as you can collapse the field into a capacitor after the magnet has passed by. So your argument is just relative from the setup you have on hand. Of course superconductivity toroids aren't easy to come by so you can just simulate this by using the right parameters to find optimal power performance. But that is rather an engineering issue.

Current in a superconductive coil will follow an exponential law too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductor
So yes, you can take the inductor as being ideal; it won’t change the validity of my arguments.

Besides, I’ve shown here http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8411.msg217975#msg217975 the possible mechanism that is responsible for coupling electrical input with B field in toroid and further on with B field of the rotor. So even if you collapse the entire field, as you propose, and even if the motor is absolutely ideal, you’ll still recover less electrical energy because part of the initial energy was already transformed into kinetic energy of the rotor.

Do we talk serious business here, pls? 
Or can I also say that Steorn is simply wrong because they’ve failed to take into account the gravitational lead-out energy? 

Cheers,
Tinu

[broli]

Current in a superconductive coil will follow an exponential law too.

Before you belittle people educate yourself some more. In an ideal conductor current will rise linearly. An inductor is a very good example of F=ma where I is propotional to speed. If E is constant ie F then v or I will increase linearly. If you have a resistance on the other hand your mechanic system will have an counter force F=-kv exactly like wind friction. And as we know with wind friction a body will drop until it hits the thermal velocity in our case being the ohmic current limit. It will do this by starting out linearly and dieing off exponentially just like an RL circuit.

That is serious business my friend.

[tinu]

Hi to all,

I just watch at yours work since Steorn last presentation. I think you are doing grate job, and I hope that this project will succeed!
I want to point on Steorn patent:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8411.msg218173#msg218173

I think it explains how orbo works, and how it should be optimized to work most efficient. Charts are self explanatory, and you can learn a lot. The main thing is that magnetic interactions in static system - due to the so called "magnetic viscosity" - are different than dynamic. According to patent when you increase relative speed between core and magnet, the core saturation is lagged in time and therefore its value decreased. While torque doesn't change as fast as saturation change (saturation decrease for about 100 times, but torque only 2). I wont explain every thing, you all have to read this. It is better explained there. Correct me if am wrong about this.

All the best!!!

marek

@ marek

Thanks for pointing on Steorn patent and welcome here!

The patent brings indeed some light, especially if it’s being worked in-between the lines.
Still, I can’t grasp the whole picture of Orbo… arrrgh.

How do you read Fig 16? (Anyone, pls?)
I’m asking simply because I believe part of the puzzle is hidden behind it.
On the other hand, please expand on the excitement about decreasing torque. I probably didn’t get the point right. I mean that the torque referring in the patent is what resists the movement; that torque goes directly into thermal loses. I can see the joy after having it decreased by a factor of 2.2 but not when it requires increasing the input power by a factor of 10k.
Also, I can not find trace of decreasing saturation. The patent talks about peak magnetic flux values and it’s movement from 180 to about 210 degree. Did you find or deduce something about saturation or it was just a typo?

Welcome again and best regards,
Tinu