Steorn's Patented Measuring Device & SKDB

[gravityblock]

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

Orbo started its life as a measurement anomaly during the course of the development of a permanent magnetic micro-wind turbine. The anomaly in question related to a simple rotary interaction between permanent magnetic components. Rotation in one direction lead to a loss of the system's kinetic energy; rotation in the opposite direction lead to a gain the system's kinetic energy.

Steorn didn't use a spin down test to do their measurements.  They used a magnetic torque measurement system instead.  A gain in the system kinetic energy may not necessarily have a longer spin down time if it is doing work, and this is why Steorn measured the torque of the system to determine if there is a gain or loss in the kinetic energy.  Measuring the torque is the proper way.

The skeptic is under the impression, if there is a gain in kinetic energy in the pmOrbo, then they could demonstrate a self-runner or OU without having to do measurements or the need to have a current and coils in the system, such as the eOrbo.  This was the reason to use the hypothetical spin down tests to show how there could be a gain in kinetic energy without it being a continuous self-runner.

GB

[exnihiloest]

...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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[Omnibus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Wikipedia won't make you more competent. You need real education to have the nerve to pass judgement on scientific matters.

[exnihiloest]

Wikipedia won't make you more competent. You need real education to have the nerve to pass judgement on scientific matters.

but Wikipedia perfectly explains your inconsistent attitude
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[exnihiloest]

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.

The sticky spot slows the rotation only when the magnet is moving away. When it is approaching, it is accelerated, leaving us with a null overall effect.
Thus with a perfect device, the rotation CW or CCW with magnetic interactions should be the same like without interactions.

...
You should not have a gain of 30 seconds with sticky spots, over the control test that has no sticky spots. 

The sticky spot induces large radial forces. If the diametrically opposed forces are not exactly balanced (and imho it is very hard to maintain a perfect symmetry on 360°), there is a non null radial resultant force onto the axis, that can significantly change the frictions.

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. 
...

It is non sense due to your confusion between "gain" and "less losses".
What you say is the same as saying that replacing a coil of resistance R by a identical coil of resistance R' with R'<R, gives gain and is OU when it is just reducing losses!

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.

Your regular ad hominem attacks mean that you have no solid rational arguments. Sorry if my messages, coming from a critical and scientific thought, are the cause of shaken faith syndromes among devout believers.

Please put me on your ignore list.  I will not respond to any of your postings, from this point on.

Only the scientific truth matters to me. I reply about what is written and not about who was writing. When I estimate that untruths are written, I give my position independently of who wrote them. It is a question of intellectual honesty, not a question of individuals.