E-Orbo replications

[Omega_0]

Data in text format (CSV) for anyone who is not an Excel2007 user.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=398

[Omega_0]

Below is another plot for a experiment I did today. The red line shows the net Ein with rotor a bit farther than in usual place and rotating at a slow speed.

The blue trace shows the net Ein when rotor is place far away (4 inches approx from the coils), so that it does not rotate and does not influence the coils but is still able to trigger the reed. It was spun up by hand in this case.

The important thing to learn here is that the slope of the trendlines of these traces in both cases is almost exactly the same. The slope represents the net power being consumed. This means that the coils are consuming same power with or without the rotor.

This also means that no power is being transferred to the rotor during normal operation and the rotor is spinning for free, just as steorn claimed.

[Omnibus]

@Omega_0,

No need to repeat you're doing a great job. I'm trying to convince prestigious labs to try to reproduce these experiments but so far I'm only meeting with complete lack of willingness. They don't want to hear about it. So, I just wanted to let you know as what the status of this is as of now. I'll continue the effort and will keep you posted.

Wonder if you're following the other thread where I was hoping that somehow this discrepancy will show up theoretically. That would've been the only way to raise any interest at all. So far to no avail. In addition, I'm studying the possible sources of experimental error and it very well may be that the 8 bit scope I have is just of not enough sensitivity for such studies, despite the current probe I got. Even Steorn's equipment may not be of enough accuracy for this kind of claim. This is something that has been bothering me from the get go but that's the most I could afford. What do you think about that?

[Omega_0]

Omnibus

Steorn has a bad reputation, and free energy/overunity has worse. So I suggest not to refer to these terms when trying to convince the established guys on the matter. This is at most "an accounting discrepancy in energy" at this stage, and should be called so.

No financial gains are there in such studies, so no one will waste their time on this. Only the curious types will touch this. I agree with you that the precision needed to measure the quantities here is extreme, and is beyond the capabilities of an average hobbyist, which includes me. There are so many issues of probe loading, accuracy, tolerances and what not, which cloud the results and you are left with nothing but uncertainty.

I do read the other thread and you are doing a great job. Your persistence is remarkable, this quality is most needed in OU research. As I posted there a few days ago, the results you are getting are below the noise floor. You can't be certain about them. If there is really an energy discrepancy in "steorn-like" systems, it will show up in a variety of circuits, but it will be below the range of classical instruments.

Either one must devise something which can operate above the noise floor and produces very solid measurements or one must lower the noise floor by controlling the environment and using non-intrusive methods. Only a big lab can do that.

[Omega_0]

Update at last...
I've gotten hold of a 4-wire kelvin bridge micro-ohmmeter which can measure up to 4 decimal places and is calibrated using a standard resistance box at the factory and the calibration can be traced back to at least national level standards. Another news is that, now I'm a proud owner of Metglas cores, both MAGAMP and MAGNAPERM (its part no. 2510P4AS and 2510V4AF). A dozen of them

So first thing I did is to measure all the resistances involved. It turns out that my earlier estimates do not match well with new (more reliable values), as I doubted. Now plugging in these values makes OU disappear completely. So a new struggle starts now.

Earlier I was using the scope values to get the Rin (= resistance of sense resistor(Rs)+that of coils), assuming Rs = 1. So I always got IV-I^2R = 0 perfectly when a DC was passed into the coils and current and voltages were measured with the scope. Which may mean that the earlier plots are still valid, but there is no surety that system is OU in reality.

With actual Rs and Rin values measured from micro-ohm meter and pure DC applied, I get a residual net energy (Pout<Pin, See the attached plot-1), which means the readings must be compensated to get a 0 net energy (Pout=Pin, see plot-2)

These baseline measurements are very important. I must measure every resistance at actual operating temperature to get an accurate enough reading and then must also compensate the scope values to get an agreement between micro-ohmmeter and the scope.

After that I must apply these corrections to the pulses measured during an actual run of the device. Its really too difficult and delicate affair.