Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Posted By: overconfidentNice pictures Grant, but we still need quantitative data.
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.
Posted By: overconfidentNice 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?You are demanding quantitative analysis? LOL!
Posted By: cwattersIf the velocity varies like that why isn't the whole thing vibrating badly. I don't believe it.The velocity modulates rather smoothly. The torque has abrupt cusps. But the torque is so low and the mass so large the effect is filtered to almost nothing. The Orbomination takes something like 30s - 60s to spin up to steady state speed of 60pps or so. That's a time constant ratio of thousands to one.
Posted By: Crastneyso they're not pics of something extant then? they're based on values you just made up?Are you still on the fuck wit idea that it is up to someone to prove the default?
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!
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.
Posted By: Crastneynot at all joshs, but if you're trying to disprove something, at least give it more effort than making shit up, and pretending that it shows something that it clearly doesn'tbecause you made it up!Crastney are you going to pretend you do not understand the word default? LOL! Are you working on fuck wit of the year?
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.
Posted By: UtD_GrantAnd 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.
True, I did make the assumption that the battery HAD TO BE powering the rotor - there's no other source !
Symmetry is a beautiful thing.
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.
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.
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.
Don't hold your breath. He says that he flunked out of science, and he's been mostly taking a piss here anyway.
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.