Nice pictures Grant, but we still need quantitative data. Kinetic energy is gained at the expense of electrical energy. Using optimal materials, winding, spacing, and timing; reducing losses to a minimum; how much is gained vs. expended?

The obrO effect:

Posted By: Quanten
That's why for me orbo is all chewed and spit out. From what was shown, and what we know, the battery *IS* driving the coil, and from COE , it is a done deal that it is UU. Since Steorn did not demonstrate the contrary, this is a dead fish with his belly up in the water.

You have to admit that at this point, Sean has the firm tenacity of the pet shop owner telling you that your norwegian blue is pining for the fjords.

"He's not pining, he's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! He's expired and gone to meet his maker! He's a stiff! Bereft of life, he rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed him to the perch he'd be pushing up the daisies! His metabolic processes are now history! He's off the twig! He's kicked the bucket, he's shuffled off his mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleeding choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!"

@cwatters

It *is* vibrating badly, unless it's balanced correctly (mechanically and magnetically). I believe @al confirms that McSean wasn't far off when he said there were considerable radial forces to deal with.

Also this isn't a single rotor pair passing a single stator toroid - they are arranged as "pairs of pairs" opposite one another.

so they're not pics of something extant then? they're based on values you just made up?
about as much use as a chocolate frying pan.

what you've got is a pic of how you think it should work, based on values you made up!

it's incredible that you think that this would be convincing enough to 'prove' that it's not OU.

pft!

Posted By: Crastneyso they're not pics of something extant then? they're based on values you just made up?
about as much use as a chocolate frying pan.

what you've got is a pic of how you think it should work, based on values you made up!

it's incredible that you think that this would be convincing enough to 'prove' that it's not OU.

pft!

Are you still on the fuck wit idea that it is up to someone to prove the default?

Posted By: Crastneyso they're not pics of something extant then? they're based on values you just made up?
about as much use as a chocolate frying pan.

what you've got is a pic of how you think it should work, based on values you made up!

it's incredible that you think that this would be convincing enough to 'prove' that it's not OU.

pft!

I'm not out to say anything about OU with these diagrams. You really make me despair at times.

I wanted a qualitative illustration of how an asymmetry in the acceleration curves causes a net velocity increase over the course of an interaction. That's the mechanism by which energy is transferred from the battery to the rotor. People like yourself and Grant Hodges say this is impossible.

Posted By: Crastneybut you're starting off with the assumption that the battery is powering the rotor, and then making stuff up to create the 'correct' diagrams to 'prove' that the energy is transferred.

unless you're showing what is actually happening (rather than what you think might be happening) you aint got shit.

Hu. NO. *YOU* folk start by dropping all known science, and simply state shit like " the battery is not powering the rotor". Plllleeeeeasse. We told you time and time again, the MECHANISM by which *CURRENT* SCIENCE tells us the energy go from the battery to the rotor. adding number do not add anything to the qualitative understanding as it is already basic science that the battery power the rotor, adding number only allows to show HOW MUCH energy the battery pours in the rotor. .

You do have the SLIGHTEST understanding of physic. You are the DREGS of the believer, similar to creationist you just reject basic science because it does not go with your belief.

Your objection is similar to this: you pretend stone can fly, we tell you that basic science tell us that object let down at the earth surface just fall down, somebody qualitatively show an object falling down using some parabolic equation, and you come back and tell us "give me number, if you don't tell me the exact gravity constant value and the exact equation I don't believe you". Duh.

It is not up to us to prove that the battery is powering the rotor, NORMAL CURRENT science tells us that already, it is up to you the free-energy-creationist to prove YOUR CLAIM that the battery do not power the rotor

jeez, rationalism and logic must be a word which has been erased from your dictionary.

ETA: edited changed motor to rotor

Posted By: Crastneybut you're starting off with the assumption that the battery is powering the rotor, and then making stuff up to create the 'correct' diagrams to 'prove' that the energy is transferred.

unless you're showing what is actually happening (rather than what you think might be happening) you aint got shit.

True, I did make the assumption that the battery HAD TO BE powering the rotor - there's no other source !

But it was intriguing to me as an engineer when I first encountered the core effect. I don't mind admitting that I had to do a bit of thinking to figure out how reducing the attraction between a PM and a ferromagnetic core could possibly transfer energy. The diagrams I created were just a solid realisation of the conceptual images I had in my head once I figured the system out.

1. Integrate the acceleration curve over the course of one interaction to obtain velocity curve.
2. Without energising the coil, the acceleration from -45 to TDC perfectly balances the opposite acceleration from TDC to +45. No velocity gain or loss.
3. If instead you energise the coil at TDC, then the acceleration from -45 to TDC does NOT balance the opposite acceleration from TDC to +45.
4. This asymmetry in the acceleration curve yields a positive net gain of velocity.

This is how energy is transferred from the battery to the rotor. If you disagree, then show which step above contains the faulty reasoning.

The pictures are merely aids to understanding and purely for my own satisfaction. If anyone else finds them useful then it's a bonus. Happy to share.

Posted By: UtD_Grant
True, I did make the assumption that the battery HAD TO BE powering the rotor - there's no other source !

And there is the minor issue that without the battery the motor does not run. The whackado view is that the battery simply operates a catalyst mechanism and the that real energy comes from an unknown source and operates through an unknown means. So here we have a nice little qualitative illustration of the elements in play: The transcendental, but symmetric torque curve w/o powering the coil, and the asymmetric curve when powering the coil biased to one side of TDC or the other giving rise to the observed Orbomination, the Orbo0 "energy destructor" and the not shown Orbonought symmetrically driven coil that just changes the oscillatory period. These concepts of: force / torque, linear / angular acceleration and linear superposition are just too much for certain fuck wit science drop outs to manage.

But it was intriguing to me as an engineer when I first encountered the core effect. I don't mind admitting that I had to do a bit of thinking to figure out howreducingthe attraction between a PM and a ferromagnetic core could possibly transfer energy. The diagrams I created were just a solid realisation of the conceptual images I had in my head once I figured the system out.

1. Integrate the acceleration curve over the course of one interaction to obtain velocity curve.
2. Without energising the coil, the acceleration from -45 to TDCperfectlybalances the opposite acceleration from TDC to +45. No velocity gain or loss.

Symmetry is a beautiful thing.

3. If instead you energise the coil at TDC, then the acceleration from -45 to TDC does NOT balance the opposite acceleration from TDC to +45.

Or if you energize biased before TDC it comes to rest faster than with no battery. Or if you energize balanced across TDC it comes to rest in about the same amount of time as undriven, but oscillates at a faster rate.

4. This asymmetry in the acceleration curve yields a positive net gain of velocity.

This is how energy is transferred from the battery to the rotor. If you disagree, then show which step above contains the faulty reasoning.

Don't hold your breath. He says that he flunked out of science, and he's been mostly taking a piss here anyway.

The pictures are merely aids to understanding and purely for my own satisfaction. If anyone else finds them useful then it's a bonus. Happy to share.