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

[hartiberlin]

The banned user MileHigh wrote in another forum:

Hi Eatenbyagrue and all interested in the recent Steorn demo,

Thanks for your comments and I will be an OU Exile on Main Street and I can live with that.  Thanks for the info about Omnibus and this posting will be my simplified analysis of the actual power-in/power-out of the Lucite pulse motors that Steorn demonstrated.

Anyone can feel free to copy and paste the following into the OU thread at your own risk.  Perhaps posting a link would be less riskier.  Anybody can copy this to the Steorn forum if they want also.

For starters, I noticed that K4zep/Ben on the OU forum has basically already given the correct description of the energy dynamics of the motor when running at a steady-state speed and I heartily congratulate him for that.  I will be stating essentially the same thing but perhaps with a bit more detail.

So we know that the Steorn pulse motors are attraction motors, and when they are running at a steady-state speed the power in must be equal to the power out.  If you look at a finite time interval, then the energy in must equal the energy out.  This is a simple fact that is applicable to any type of motor.  When you first plug in a motor, the rotor speeds up and levels off at a speed where the power in equals the power out, it is as simple as that.

The power in consists of the electrical power in, and there are no other sources.

The power out consists of the friction in the bearings (heat), the air friction (also heat) and the energy that the generator coils send back to the battery (which becomes stored electrical energy and heat).

To keep things simple, we will lump the friction in the bearings and the air friction together, and call that "friction."

Therefore, (electrical power in) = (the mechanical friction power out) + (the mechanical generator coil power out).

Stating it like this may be a little clearer for some: (electrical power in) - (the mechanical friction power out) - (the mechanical generator coil power out) = 0.

This is what is going on when the Steorn pulse motor is running at a steady state speed.  Everything is in balance.

Steorn is claiming that the generator coils are returning three times the electrical power in and sending that back to the battery.  We are going to see if this claim is likely true or not true.

I am going to talk about the motor energy dynamics at an abstract level.  This means for this discussion I don't care about the specific measurements or the RPM or whatever, I just want to get a handle on what is going on first.  If I want to later I can make some measurements and punch in the numbers.

I am going to talk about "units of energy," when I analyze what the motor is doing.  It is more convenient to use "units of energy" instead of "units of power" but the analysis either way will be the same.  To repeat, these "units of energy" are an abstraction, and they can be considered a "currency" for purposes of the analysis because we know that energy goes from one place to another and changes form.  Even though the energy changes form, for the purposes of this discussion everything is expressed in terms of units of energy.

For starters, let's assume that when the rotor is spinning at its steady-state speed, that it stores a minimum of 100 units of energy.

Ben made a very astute observation when he stated that the rotor is always accelerating and decelerating when it turns.  The rotor accelerates when it gains energy from the magnetic attraction and decelerates when it looses energy due to friction and when it transfers energy into the pickup coils.  This important fact will be critical to the energy analysis.

The issue of how the Steorn motor is driven can be simplified also.  Simply forget for a while that it is a system where a magnet is attracted to a ferrite core and then the ferrite core is made to "disappear" when the toroidal coil is energized.  The only thing that you need to know is that you put a pulse of electrical energy into a coil, and the rotor speeds up, it is as simple as that.  It is no different than having a conventional pulse motor and either generating an attraction pulse before the rotor magnet reaches top-dead-center, or generating a repulsion pulse after the rotor magnet has passed top-dead-center.  My gut feeling is that the conventional attraction and repulsion pulses are more efficient than the Steorn "core disappearing" pulse but the true answer to that would require testing or simulation.

I am going to repeat this again because I know this simple fact will "upset" some of the readers here:  It DOES NOT MATTER if it is an attraction pulse, a repulsion pulse, or a "core disappearing" pulse, they all do fundamentally the same thing:  You expend electrical energy by pulsing a coil and the net result is that the rotor speeds up.  Let that sink into your brains because the statement is absolutely true.  You pulse electricity in and you end up with the rotor spinning a bit faster for ALL THREE FLAVOURS OF PULSE.  Some of the electrical pulse energy gets stored as rotational energy in the rotor, some of it is lost as heat.  Let this fact sink in.

So, let's look at what is happening in the motor using the abstract "energy units."  I can imagine some people out there objecting to this concept.  Just go with the flow and perhaps learn something new.

Here is a chronological breakdown of the events relative to the Steorn motor with respect to a single pulse.  This can then be applied to all of the pulses.  It is all about using your mind to visualize what is really going on, where we will "slow down time" and look at the sequence of events step by step.

1.  <before the pulse>..................................... rotor spinning with 100 units of energy
2.  <pulse event>........................................... 10 units of electrical energy pulsed into the toroidal coil
2.1 <heat slice of pulse> ................................ 5 units of electrical energy pulse lost as heat
2.2 <useful energy slice of pulse>..................... 5 units of electrical energy transferred into the rotor
3.   <rotor energy after pulse>.......................... rotor now spinning with 105 units of energy
4.   <friction losses>....................................... 1 unit of rotor energy lost due to friction
5.   <rotor energy after friction losses>.............. rotor now spinning with 104 units of energy
6.   <rotor energy transferred into pick-up coils>.. 4 units of rotor energy transferred into pick-up coils
7.   <rotor energy after pick-up coils>................. rotor now spinning with 100 units of energy
8.   <GO BACK TO STEP 1>


The above gives you an absolutely accurate energy breakdown of what is happening when the rotor is spinning at at steady state speed.  Even if your tachometer says 2000 RPM, if you have four magnets on your rotor then the above sequence of events happens four times per revolution, every 90 degrees.  The rotor is constantly accelerating and decelerating.

So where does that leave us with respect to energy (or power) in vs. energy (or power) out?

You can see that you pump 10 units of energy into the motor and you get only 4 units of energy back from the pick-up coils.  We will further divide the energy coming back from the pick-up coils into 1 unit lost as heat due to the diodes in the full-wave bridge rectifier and the charging efficiency of the battery.  That leaves us with 3 units of recharging energy going into the battery from the 10 units of electrical energy that we first put into the system, 30% efficiency.

I am giving you an estimate of 10 units in, and 3 units back for 30% efficiency.
Steorn is stating 10 units in and 30 units back for 300% efficiency, an over unity device.

Notice that this analysis has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the energy in the spinning rotor like Omnibus on OU believes.  He is absolutely wrong and should take a physics course.

Some of you may want to challenge the 5 units lost as heat when the electrical pulse of 10 units is delivered to the motor.  I don't know what the precise split is but with 100% certainty I can tell you that there IS a split.  The Steorn attraction motor method looks very inefficient to me.  When the magnet is 2/3 away from the saturated toroidal core the attraction forces that you are eliminating are very low, yet you are still energizing the toroid with the full pulse power.  Don't forget the toroid gets hot in Ben's clips, and heat is lost energy.

By the same token, where does Steorn get the 30 units of energy back like they claim?  WHERE?  Look at the sequence of events above again and tell me where the extra energy comes from.

If some of you think that the magic extra energy comes from the "core disappearing" pulse then I have got some news for you.  If this was true then it would have been discovered in the 19th century and we would all be living in a free energy Jetson's Age right now as we speak.  There is not a chance in hell that the "core disappearing" pulse is a source of over unity and miraculously speeds up the rotor to produce over unity.  Anybody that thinks this is true is going to have to prove this with experimentation and theory.  Good luck.

So, now that we have an understanding of the energy dynamics of the Steorn motor, all that you have to do is make the measurements and punch in the numbers so that the abstract energy description above becomes real-world measured values.

If you are following what I am saying and you agree with me, then here is the crux of the matter with respect to the Steron demo in Dublin for their Lucite motor setups:

1.  Connect the differential voltage probe across the 1.5 volt source battery.
2.  Connect the current probe to the output wire from the battery powering the motor.
3.  Push a button on the high-end DSO and get an output power reading.
4.  Connect the current probe to the power return wire coming from the generator coils section.
5.  Push a button on the high-end DSO and get an input power reading.
6.  Compare the power reading in step #5 with the power reading in step #3 to confirm or deny their claim of three times the power being returned to the battery as compared to what was being consumed by the pulse motor.

Stop and think for a second.  They had all of the measurement equipment in place and it would have taken a maximum of 10 minutes to make the measurements above but they did not do it.  Look into your hearts and souls and try to find the answer to that question.

Why didn't Steorn make the above measurements to prove their claim of over unity when the Lucite pulse motors were all there and running off the batteries, and the high-end Tektronix DSO with the differential voltage probe and the fancy current probe were all there and available on site?   Why didn't they do it?

The answer is because their Lucite pulse motors were conventional under unity devices and they dared not do it.

MileHigh


==============================================
==============================================


My answer to this is:

Hi MH,
if you build a bigger EOrbo Motor with a BackEMF recycling circuit
you can get it as follows:

1.  <before the pulse>..................................... rotor spinning with 100 units of energy
2.  <pulse event>........................................... 10 units of electrical energy pulsed into the toroidal coil
2.1 <heat slice of pulse> ................................ 7 units of electrical energy pulse lost as heat
2.2 <useful energy slice of pulse>..................... 3 units of electrical energy recycled to the BackEMF circuit
3.   <rotor energy after pulse>.......................... rotor now spinning with 150 units of energy as the bigger magnets have done attaction work= force x distance
4.   <friction losses>....................................... 1 unit of rotor energy lost due to friction
5.   <rotor energy after friction losses>.............. rotor now spinning with 149 units of energy
6.   <rotor energy transferred into pick-up coils>.. 40 units of rotor energy transferred into pick-up coils
7.   <rotor energy after pick-up coils>................. rotor now spinning with 109 units of energy
8.   <GO BACK TO STEP 1>

So rotor accelerates and BackEMF and pickup coil circuits put more
energy out than energy was put in.

The attraction forces of the magnets to to ferrite core
and thus the mechanical output power
does not have anything to do with the electrical input to
saturate the  ferrite cores...

Regards, Stefan.

[LarryC]

Interesting points from Steorn forum regarding inductance:

From Dareka01:
I don't know much about the details of science, but is this what you are talking about?

"sonoboy 9 hours ago edited
quote
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 Steornn are 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."

Steorn reply:
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.

Regards, Larry

[broli]

Stefan by posting MH's garbage you are contradicting the reason he got booted from this forum and that post of his just reaffirms it.

MH does not do science what he does is denience, if that's a word. Notice how in that entire essay of his there's not a single talk about the magnetic interactions and time variants of parameters or possible reasons it may or may not work. There's not a single figment of true science in it. It's kind of insulting actually. He has done not a single experiment to back up his moronic statements or even have an open minded technical talk involving the principles.  How is repeating "but energy out is always equal or less than energy in" a million times productive in any way? Even a 5 year old child can do that.

Please leave his mindless posts away, there's nothing anyone can learn from them. There are quite a few skeptics on here who you can debate with on a reasonable level and which they or you can be convinced of each others conclusions. MH brought nothing of that kind of reasoning to this place. He's a broken tape who keeps repeating the same thing in long winded and boring posts.

Soon I'll make a new thread, since I don't want to distract this thread, about some ferromagnetic concept which was derived from the Orbo which shows that simple calculations can give big energy anomalies. It has exactly to do with inductive energy input vs output which Sean mentions.

[lumen]

Soon, things are going to pick up at Steorn and I think MileHigh will be about a MileOff.
IMO

[Cloxxki]

How hard would it be for the replicators to, once the required input for a steady rpm is established, to add any quantifyable amount of input power, and see at which rate a weight can be lifted at that same rpm?
The weight lifting setup can be super-low loss. A non-stretch teflon coated aramid bicycle derailer cable, a fixed pulley, and a means to attach the cable around the rotor or its axle for self-winding.
If a motor can't bear a load it's useless anyway? What could possible be harder to be misinterpreted than a weight being lifted? Load (weight and axle diameter) are easily trimmed for experiment's convenience. Height gain, or vertical speed even, are easily measured. Many ways about it.

Friction at (say) 1000rpm is established at 1W
Input is increased to say 2W or any figure, and weight to be lifted and axle diameter (gear ratio) can be adjusted to end up at 1000rpm again. A simple calculation will tell what we get for that 1W extra. After the useful work (weight lifted) exceeds all input, we have OU.

We all know this, but it seems impopular to actually carry out these simple tests. OU researchers rather look at a multimeter and cry OU. Who argues results claimed, is outcast.

All I see are super smooth turning rotor being kept spinning. Putting a load (finger) on it may not affect input, but really, bearing friction and air friction are substituted for finger friction.

I can believe Steorn motors are more efficient that usual motors though, who knows soon we'll have electric cars that get more of a battery this way?