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

[Airstriker]

Here's my current understanding of how the solid state device is working and it should apply equally well to the eOrbo as well.  This doesn't mean I have it correct.

There is a magnetization-demagnetization process.  During the magnetization of the toroid core from the pulse, the pickup coil is opened (Can't be coupled here).  After the pulse has ended the magnetization of the core doesn't stop immediately.  Induction lags in ferromagnetic materials with quick changes in tension of the field.  This phenomenon is attributed to magnetic viscosity. 

After the pulse, the pickup coil is closed while the induction change is still occurring in the core material due to magnetic viscosity (No coupling here either because the toroid coil is opened).  The continued magnetization of the core after the pulse causes the magnetic field of the magnets to fluctuate which cuts the wires in the pickup coils to induce an EMF.  This causes excess heat to be generated in the toroidal core from the load and the core is demagnetized due to heat.

Using this lag in induction allows the magnetic interactions to be decoupled from each other.  The excess energy is due to the heat generated in the ferromagnetic materials from the load during the demagnetization process.

Spontaneous magnetization in the area H=(1.2 + 1.4)Hc is a basis for COP>1 when demagnetization is due to heat.  The excess energy is not coming from the magnets, but is coming from the ferromagnetic materials.

The magnetic interactions are decoupled, thus No BEMF.

GB

Ok now my opinion. I may also not be right but it simply seems bulshit to me. The funny thing is that you have read the paper by Nikolay E. Zaev and you are trying to apply his work to what you see (as you did many times so far with hundreds of different and strange theories). But these in fact are two completely different designs and different theories do apply.
First of all, you don't have a single coil here as Zaev has. Secondly you don't have any load on your toroid coil! Thirdly, why the pickup coil has to be opened during the magnetization of the toroid coil ? What one has to do with the other ? Just please take a real toroid coil to your hand, put it into the cylindrical coil in any orientation you like, fire up your function generator feeding the toroid coil and have a look at the output of your cylindrical coil. Do you have any EMF there ? Any ? NO! So why are you saying that the toroid's coil demagnetization influences the output of the cylindrical coil??! It doesn't ! All that does influence the output of the cylindrical coil is the magnet alone! The magnet is decoupled from the toroid coil. So when the magnet reacts with the cylindrical coil (during the toroid's satuaration phase) it doesn't affect the toroidal coil. This is just simple as that. Comm'on man it's pure ORBO concept. The difference here is that you don't get a magnet's rotation but make the magnet do a different job - make the B-field's changes in the cylindrical coil.
If you still don't agree, let's add another thing to the design. Let's simply recycle the energy stored in the toroid's coil. If you would do so, according to your explanation you should get a lower output on the cylindrical coil. But hey, you know what ? Nothing really changes. And you got some of your imput energy back. If you don;t trust me, check out Magluvin's video.
However, as for Magluvin's design, I think 2Sgen design has a better potential - the field of magnets is "isolated" in a better way from the cylindrical coil. In Magluvin's design some of the magnet's field leak to the cylindrical coil during the toroid's non magnetized state (no current in the toroid's coil) - thus lowering the B-field change observed from the cylindrical coil point of view when the toroid is saturated by the provided current.

And for a dessert:

Here's a video on the Hysteresis Loop, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddU6HBFlvEk

Please watch between 20:00 - 45:00 in the video.  Starting at 20:00 minutes he talks about the hysteresis loop. At 30:00 he talks about demagnetization and shows how to use an AC current to return the ferromagnetic material back to it's virginal state.  What he refers to as B_vac is actually the "H".

After the demagnetization experiment, he shows the retentivity of a material and the point of coercivity H_c.  Between 40:00 - 45:00 he does an experiment with a nail.  I am most interested in this experiment.  The magnet releases the nail when another ferromagnetic material approaches the magnet because the field of the magnet weakens on that side.  This probably doesn't have anything to do with the Orbo, but I find it most fascinating how the attraction force is weakened on that side.  I just wanted to bring it to everyones attention.

Here's a good site for anyone interested in learning electronics and magnetism.  Free education for all, http://www.edforall.net/index.php/sciences/physics/12-electricity-and-magnetism/267-magnetic-materials

Thanks,

GB

Actually the experiment with the nail has very much to do with 2SGen.

[gravityblock]

Ok now my opinion. I may also not be right but it simply seems bulshit to me. The funny thing is that you have read the paper by Nikolay E. Zaev and you are trying to apply his work to what you see (as you did many times so far with hundreds of different and strange theories). But these in fact are two completely different designs and different theories do apply.
First of all, you don't have a single coil here as Zaev has. Secondly you don't have any load on your toroid coil! Thirdly, why the pickup coil has to be opened during the magnetization of the toroid coil ? What one has to do with the other ? Just please take a real toroid coil to your hand, put it into the cylindrical coil in any orientation you like, fire up your function generator feeding the toroid coil and have a look at the output of your cylindrical coil. Do you have any EMF there ? Any ? NO! So why are you saying that the toroid's coil demagnetization influences the output of the cylindrical coil??! It doesn't ! All that does influence the output of the cylindrical coil is the magnet alone! The magnet is decoupled from the toroid coil. So when the magnet reacts with the cylindrical coil (during the toroid's satuaration phase) it doesn't affect the toroidal coil. This is just simple as that. Comm'on man it's pure ORBO concept. The difference here is that you don't get a magnet's rotation but make the magnet do a different job - make the B-field's changes in the cylindrical coil.
If you still don't agree, let's add another thing to the design. Let's simply recycle the energy stored in the toroid's coil. If you would do so, according to your explanation you should get a lower output on the cylindrical coil. But hey, you know what ? Nothing really changes. And you got some of your imput energy back. If you don;t trust me, check out Magluvin's video.
However, as for Magluvin's design, I think 2Sgen design has a better potential - the field of magnets is "isolated" in a better way from the cylindrical coil. In Magluvin's design some of the magnet's field leak to the cylindrical coil during the toroid's non magnetized state (no current in the toroid's coil) - thus lowering the B-field change observed from the cylindrical coil point of view when the toroid is saturated by the provided current.

And for a dessert:
Actually the experiment with the nail has very much to do with 2SGen.

Actually everything I described is how Naudin's 2SGen is working.  Look at Episode 6 on the scope shot and you will see the pickup coil is opened during the pulse to the input coil while the core is being partially magnetized.  It says, "Core magnetization - Not used (Open Circuit)", in regards to the blue trace which is the output coil.  After the pulse, the core is still being magnetized and the output coil is closed during this period. 

Episode 7 was a way to measure COP, but you don't agree with that either.  You also don't agree with Naudin saying the magnet is used to set the operating point in the MH curve of the toroïdal core.  You don't agree with most of anything, but yet his experiments is showing No CEMF/BEMF.  My description was nothing more than how the 2SGen is operating.  In one sentence you say the 2SGen is more promising than MagLuvin's design, then the next sentence you're disagreeing with everything about the 2SGen.  LOL

GB

[gravityblock]

By no Back EMF, do you mean the return voltage spike when the Toroid is switched off or
do you mean the induced coil voltage by the passing magnets?
There is a big difference in these two "voltages".

He was talking about the induced voltage of the passing rotor magnets.

This is the reason to use the term "CEMF" in reference to the induced voltage of the rotor magnets and to use the term "BEMF" in reference to when the toroid is switched off.  It's the only way to avoid confusion, but people always want mix the terms up or use the same term for both.  I"ve recently been using whatever term to describe whatever because nobody cares to make a distinction between the two different things.

GB

[Airstriker]

Actually everything I described is how Naudin's 2SGen is working.  Look at Episode 6 on the scope shot and you will see the pickup coil is opened during the pulse to the input coil while the core is being partially magnetized.  It says, "Core magnetization - Not used (Open Circuit)", in regards to the blue trace which is the output coil.  After the pulse, the core is still being magnetized and the output coil is closed during this period. 

Episode 7 was a way to measure COP, but you don't agree with that either.  You also don't agree with Naudin saying the magnet is used to set the operating point in the MH curve of the toroïdal core.  You don't agree with most of anything, but yet his experiments is showing No BEMF.

GB

Sure this is what you can see in JLN's lab. But who said that it must be the right way ? I'm saying that it's not the right way. And Magluvin has showed it to you also.
I've never said, that I don't agree with the idea to set the operating point in the MH curve the way JLN did. Actually I'm saying that it's a very good idea.
And yes I don't agree at all with the COP experiment idea.COP is OUT/IN and not OUT/OUT like JLN did. IN is in the toroid's coil and nowhere else.

[gravityblock]

Sure this is what you can see in JLN's lab. But who said that it must be the right way ? I'm saying that it's not the right way. And Magluvin has showed it to you also.

And yes I don't agree at all with the COP experiment idea.COP is OUT/IN and not OUT/OUT like JLN did. IN is in the toroid's coil and nowhere else.

How did Magluvin show his way is the right way and Naudin's way is the wrong way?  Did he show NO BEMF in reference to the input power not changing when the output coil is loaded, like Naudin did with the 2SGen?

You think Magluvin's design is the right way, but then you say Naudin's 2SGen is more promising while it's not the right way?  What kind of sense does this make?  It makes no sense at all.

Also, why can't there be more than one right way?  Why does it have to be this and can't be this or that?  Sometimes there is more than 1 road taking you to the same location.

GB