Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Steorn: The proof

Bottom of Page

221 to 230 of 316

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. ...
  4. 19
  5. 20
  6. 21
  7. 22
  8. 23
  9. 24
  10. 25
  11. 26
  12. ...
  13. 32
  14. >
    • CommentAuthorMileHigh
    • CommentTimeFeb 7th 2010 edited
     
    So if you subtract the resistive dissipation during the pulse, and the resistive dissipation in the coil and the diode after the pulse, the net energy remaining is the increased rotor angular velocity.

    The extra "kick" that the rotor gets from the input electrical pulse is split between resistive heating losses due to bearing and air friction, and whatever goes into the pick-up coil. After all of this slicing of the pie, there is not much energy that ends up going into the pick-up coil.

    The input energy to the motor is just v * i integrated over the pulse time. That's it, there are no power factor issues or stuff like that.

    What happens to that energy was described above. If you really want to you can figure out where all of the resistive energy dissipation goes with respect to time and location. Subtracting all of this resistive energy dissipation as heat is a farce, and Sean is just cranking out blarney for the believers and to feign the pretense of "extra energy coming from somewhere."

    I'll repeat, that stupid energy integration curve makes no sense as far as I am concerned, it simply does not fit into a scenario where you imagine that the pulse is energizing a toroidal coil that has a fly-back diode. It simply doesn't fit.

    The burden is on STEORN and SEAN to explain that bogus integrated energy trace and in all likelihood we are going into hibernation followed by bankruptcy, so it's never going to happen.

    MileHigh
  2.  
    Posted By: 0893690The shorted output coil energy calculation using only a current probe should be correct as long as they measured the coil ohms correctly. Power factor would only come into play on the output coil inductor if they actually tried to run an output load.

    Correct, maybe, but useless anyway. Even more correct would have been to use a matched load resistor, non-inductive, and 2 voltage probes, one on either end of the resistance. That way actual readings of voltage and current could have been used. But the scope doesn't have enough channels and traces for that. Channels, yes, there is one left, but the math part is overloaded and wouldn't be able to do the simultaneous input and output integrations if a second measurement was taken on the output coil. I think.
    But they do have two of those scopes, after all.
  3.  
    Al I am going with more like a 1N4000 group for the diode. I suspect it has a Vd of say .7volts or so.. Don't discount the voltage clamping of the differential probes as seen in the first demo.
    • CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeFeb 7th 2010
     
    There is a special spot in hell kept extra hot for people who present their evidence with coordinate plots that have unlabelled axes. I learned that in my vain attempts to pick up a bit of economics in university. Sean is just another disingenuous and pitiful example.
    • CommentAuthorcwatters
    • CommentTimeFeb 7th 2010
     
    Posted By: maryyugoI'll bite. If you place a current probe around one battery wire and a voltage probe across the two battery wires (or power supply wires) why is not the integral from 0 to t of V*I dt a measure of the energy drained (or supplied) from (to) the battery during the period zero to t?


    You are correct, it is. The integral of (battery voltage x battery current) is the energy supplied by the battery.

    The problem is that Steorns waveform has periods where the slope is negative. That means the total energy supplied is falling. That can only happen if energy is flowing out of orbo back into the battery. The battery voltage is allways positive so it can only mean there must be periods where the battery current is negative - but this version of orbo doesn't have recharging coils connected.

    Sean hinted that it was energy recovered from the coils when the coils are switched off - but that should decay reasonably quickly. Hard to believe there is still current flowing and the coil voltage is still negative when the next pulse occurs.

    Sean also said the input power was 'net of joule heating' or something like that. That could mean one of several things. Several of us have had a go at trying to explain the input trace taking into account all the statements made but none that I've seen account for all the detail of the trace.

    Anyway, why should we have to speculate on what they were measuring? That's not the way to do science. Sean said they were going to publish all the details.
    • CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeFeb 7th 2010 edited
     
    Thanks CW. That clears up very neatly for me what people find is a mystery. I appreciate your explanation. I have no problem believing that the Orbo with the generating coils returns a small amount of fluffy charge to the battery as spikes.

    OK, so it's harder to locate a source for the return current in an Orbo without the generator coils. But it still has plenty of inductance in the magnet-masking coils. And it has reed switches that generate huge switching transients when they open.

    It's such a trivial thing compared to Steorn's claims that I have trouble staying interested in it. I could be wrong but I think most of the believers who aren't into the minutiae would go away if it could be shown for sure that Orbo isn't OVERALL overunity (out > in), doesn't run itself, and doesn't charge its battery-- even if none of those are clearly claimed by Sean.

    I understand trying to define Sean's bizarro waveform is fun for some. But it's pretty silly. If Sean won't put his fancy scope's probe in the right places on Orbo and do the appropriate calculations, he might as well place them in his rectum for all it matters. IMHO of course.

    Your last remark is right on. It's not how science works. It's exactly how transparent, silly scams work though.
  7.  
    "Your last remark is right on. It's not how science works. It's exactly how transparent, silly scams work though."

    True.
    And the method used gets rid of 74 to 75 percent of rise time before it subtracts the flyback.. To dam obvious form most folks. It is just as bad as the battery and then saying well if we wanted to we could use a capacitor. Right,if they could the would, LOL Part of the reason I never worried about the battery capacitor argument, LOL

    I was watching the demo, and going; what the hell is this crap. Talk about the in your face stuff..
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeFeb 7th 2010 edited
     
    @Mary: the only Orbos with reed switches are the obsolete "running" orbos with the big D-cells. We have seen essentially no scope traces or other data from these versions. I don't think even the very first trace shown was done with a reed switch.

    ALL of the "real data" we have seen comes from Orbos that use optical commutation triggering OTS solid state relays, which are child-proof Mosfet switches optimized for fast rise and fall times at their rated power capacity.

    I tried some reed switches on Orbette; most of them didn't last 2 cycles before welding shut, much less the 2 million that Orbo needs to even run out the D-cell.

    The choice of reed switches for the Orbos was clearly another last minute kludgy engineering decision and any pulse motor builder would have warned them off reed switches for this duty. Mosfet switchers can be optimized to give quite fast fall times for particular applications but this isn't necessary for such a low speed device. 100 Hz !! Give me a break. Mosfets are used as final output transistors in OTL audio amps that operate at up to 40 kHz without appreciable signal distortion.

    The special core material can indeed prolong the current in the coil to ridiculously long decay times, see sonoboy's work with his cores.

    The 1n4000 rectifier series is probably fast enough; in the Ainslie affair TK couldn't tell much difference (there was some) between a 1n4001 and the "fast" MUR1100E diode. Whatever diode is used, it's got to be able to withstand the full anticipated voltage in the Spike, which can exceed 125 volts even with slow mosfets and cheapo cores being fed with 1.2 volts.
  9.  
    Had to move this over here also.

    Now back to the quotes;
    " we calculate the inductance energy by removing the joule heating form the input into the system by basically the integral of VI."
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7i7P63IByY#t=0m48s

    The VI statement is about 0m59sec.

    Then he goes into the soak test.
    ---------------------------
    It is exactly what I though they were doing to the input traces on the last part of the demo. Voltage times amperage x time. LOL

    Already seen this, and the why ,of the way the device is hooked up for measurement.

    Again no input, no inductance change. Strange that part is being ignored by Steorn..

    Just ignore that battery: And that is exactly what was done in the demo. Input is ignored to say OU.

    Talk about BS.
  10.  
    The scope traces"
    " we calculate the inductance energy by removing the joule heating form the input into the system by basically the integral of VI."

    "energy of the output coil: and that is basicly I^2 time r"

    So input is calculated by VxIxT, and utput is I^2xrxT.

    Just ignore that battery folks, it does nothing..

221 to 230 of 316

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. ...
  4. 19
  5. 20
  6. 21
  7. 22
  8. 23
  9. 24
  10. 25
  11. 26
  12. ...
  13. 32
  14. >
Back to Discussions Top of Page