Steorn's Patented Measuring Device & SKDB

[gravityblock]

If this worked as specified, then it would be very very easy to build a PMM with a magnet rotor and asymmetric ferrite pieces around on a stator. No need of current. No need of coils.
Why does Steorn not build one and show us?

The anomaly in the PM Orbo, is rotation in one direction lead to a loss of the system's kinetic energy; rotation in the opposite direction lead to a gain in the system's kinetic energy.

Systems like this can be easily tested with a spin down test of the rotor without any magnetic interactions and with magnetic interactions.  Spin the rotor to 300 RPM, then measure the spin down time with no magnetic interactions.  Let's say this test has a spin down time of 90 seconds.  Now, spin the rotor to 300 RPM, rotating CW and with magnetic interactions with the stator, then measure the spin down time with the rotor interacting with the stator.  Let's say this test has a spin down time of 120 seconds.  Do the previous test with it rotating CCW and take note of the spin down time.  Let's say the spin down time is 60 seconds in this test.

Spin down time with no magnetic interactions = 90 seconds (Control Test)
Spin down time with magnetic interactions CW = 120 seconds (A gain of 30 seconds in kinetic energy)
Spin down time with magnetic interactions CCW = 60 seconds (A loss of 30 seconds in kinetic energy)

As you can see, there is a gain in kinetic energy in one direction, and a loss in kinetic energy in the other direction in this hypothetical experiment and this is the same claim for the PM Orbo. This anomaly in the PM Orbo, led to the creation of the eOrbo because there is a need for current and a need for coils.  The eOrbo has led to research into a ssOrbo, with no moving parts.  You don't understand the claims, you don't understand the experiments, and you don't understand the system itself.

GB

[exnihiloest]

...
Spin down time with no magnetic interactions = 90 seconds (Control Test)
Spin down time with magnetic interactions CW = 120 seconds (A gain of 30 seconds in kinetic energy)
Spin down time with magnetic interactions CCW = 60 seconds (A loss of 30 seconds in kinetic energy)
...

Obviously it is not a proof of "gain". There are only more or less losses depending on the cases. And there are many possible reasons for that (not perfect ball bearings, asymetric forces influencing the frictions -only work is theorically symmetric-...).

[gravityblock]

Obviously it is not a proof of "gain". There are only more or less losses depending on the cases. And there are many possible reasons for that (not perfect ball bearings, asymetric forces influencing the frictions -only work is theorically symmetric-...).

The sticky spot during the magnetic interactions will slow the rotation, thus the rotation CW or CCW with magnetic interactions between the rotor and stator, having a sticky spot, should both be less than the control test of 90 seconds with no magnetic interactions or sticky spots.  Do the control test both CW and CCW, to see if there are asymmetric forces influencing the frictions (this way you can be sure it's not influencing the experiment and that the spin down time is the same for both directions of rotation for the control test).

You should not have a gain of 30 seconds with sticky spots, over the control test that has no sticky spots.  Air friction and friction from the bearings is irrelevant in this experiment, because all 3 tests were rotated to the same RPM of 300, which means all 3 tests has the same amount of friction.

In order for it to self-run, which would represent running for an infinite number of seconds, then you would need a COP of infinity.  A spin down time of 135 seconds, which is a 45 second gain, represents a COP of 1.5 in my hypothetical test (above the control test of 90 seconds, is COP > 1).  It is OU, but it's not able to self-run, without current, coils, and batteries to capture, to store, and to transfer this energy in order to close the loop and to feed this excess energy back into the input.

I am through with you.  You do not contribute to this forum in anyway.  Your arguments are baseless and you're always misinterpreting the results and data from an experiment.  Please put me on your ignore list.  I will not respond to any of your postings, from this point on.

GB

[Omnibus]

Your opinion also is stated. It is not the question.
This topic is not reserved to believers for repeating their act of faith, hoping it will make the reality.
The question is to say the truth about Steorn. There is no proof of OU but a erroneous calculus of energy balance: energy for aligning electron spins in the magnetic domains is accounting for losses! Hence Orbo principle is a hoax.

Steorn's creation may or may not be OU but you have proved (and are proving again in the above post) that you're incompetent to asses that. You have no place in these discussions.

[maw2432]

The anomaly in the PM Orbo, is rotation in one direction lead to a loss of the system's kinetic A; rotation in the opposite direction lead to a gain in the system's kinetic energy.

Systems like this can be easily tested with a spin down test of the rotor without any magnetic interactions and with magnetic interactions.  Spin the rotor to 300 RPM, then measure the spin down time with no magnetic interactions.  Let's say this test has a spin down time of 90 seconds.  Now, spin the rotor to 300 RPM, rotating CW and with magnetic interactions with the stator, then measure the spin down time with the rotor interacting with the stator.  Let's say this test has a spin down time of 120 seconds.  Do the previous test with it rotating CCW and take note of the spin down time.  Let's say the spin down time is 60 seconds in this test.

Spin down time with no magnetic interactions = 90 seconds (Control Test)
Spin down time with magnetic interactions CW = 120 seconds (A gain of 30 seconds in kinetic energy)
Spin down time with magnetic interactions CCW = 60 seconds (A loss of 30 seconds in kinetic energy)

As you can see, there is a gain in kinetic energy in one direction, and a loss in kinetic energy in the other direction in this hypothetical experiment and this is the same claim for the PM Orbo. This anomaly in the PM Orbo, led to the creation of the eOrbo because there is a need for current and a need for coils.  The eOrbo has led to research into a ssOrbo, with no moving parts.  You don't understand the claims, you don't understand the experiments, and you don't understand the system itself.

GB

GB,   Thanks for the explanation.    Are there any videos that demo this anomaly that show the gain in the spin down time?    I would like to see this.  Is this the anomaly that started Steorn's research?

Bill