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

    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeMar 31st 2010
     
    Or you can view it as a Cavorite motor (qv)
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeMar 31st 2010 edited
     
    @UtD_Grant: Your curves are supported almost exactly by my data from Orbette. I also have quantitative data that relates the force/distance/current relationships for my various toroids. The only thing wrong with your graphs is that you are OVERESTIMATING the strength of the core effect. I have toroids that work very well driving the rotor; on the force/distance tests at typical currents, the reduction in attractive force with current on is only 1-3 percent, not the 10 percent that you are assuming, and this is enough to produce strong net rotor acceleration.
    I stress again: this is real quantitative force data, and your qualitative curves are correct.

    On the Steorn PF, you posted these same curves, and Tinker made the usual remarkable statements, like this one:
    Tinker (SPF)Hi again.

    Well, the curves themselves (though entirely imaginary and not based on any real data) show that net gain. Not really the correct shape as you probably realise. Force and Torque (=turning force) are interchangeable terms here. Leave that aside for a moment.
    The curve shapes are just what I found with Orbette 1 and 2. If Orbo is supposed to be different, LET'S SEE THE EVIDENCE. Tinker, your claim is not evidence.

    Since an Orbo won't spin without electrical input there remains only the question 'is the electrical input providing direct torque to the rotor?'

    A couple of things would suggest that it does not. Firstly current consumption per unit time does not vary when the rotor is braked. RPM will drop under load, but current/time remains the same.
    Not evidence. Recall that many pulse motor designs behave exactly the same way, the MSM for one, and Orbette configured with solenoid coils instead of toroids, as well as with the standard toroids, for another. This is a characteristic of pulse motors that are wasting power.


    The second point is that increasing the current available results in a drop in speed - -within limits of course. But every system has limits.
    Tinker
    To increase the "current available" the voltage is increased. How does this produce a drop in speed? No data has been shown to support this contention; in fact, the Steorn demos behaved exactly opposite: increase voltage, current increases, so does speed...within limits. If you are claiming otherwise, Tinker, please provide evidence. Oh, that's right...NDA.
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeMar 31st 2010
     
    but you're starting off with the assumption that the battery is powering the rotor
    Of course. Why else would it spin? It spins because a toroid is placed between the rotor and the stator magnets and then a timed honking big current is pulsed through it. The current comes from the BATTERY.

    In the orbominations that were shown running longer periods, a TINY and essentially negligible current was returned from the rotor through the so-called generator portion. From the geometry and size of the parts, it's clear that this "contribution" is entirely trivial.

    So we are left with the obvious conclusion that essentially ALL the current that makes the rotor run WITHOUT LOAD AND ON MAGNETIC EXTREMELY LOW FRICTION BEARINGS comes from the battery.

    If Sean had any evidence that this was not true, all he had to do was place current and voltage probes on input (battery leads) and output (generator leads). Calorimetry is entirely superfluous and is entirely not needed for any purpose while evaluating Sean's idiotic setup. Input vs output power is what needed to be shown and it wasn't. And it wasn't shown because to do so would have revealed how pitifully and extremely low the ratio of output to input really was. Maybe 1% if one is lucky, maybe even less.

    What the "Al" approximation at replication shows is what happens when you do what Sean set up but you properly meter it. And when you do that it is underunity. WAY WAY WAY underunity. This is SO obvious, I can't understand why it's the subject of any doubt whatever by anyone. Sean is an obvious, flagrant, consistent liar, deceiver, and misdirector. It's the only things he's quite consistent about.
  1.  
    Posted By: maryyugo
    If Sean had any evidence that this was not true, all he had to do was place current and voltage probes on input (battery leads) and output (generator leads). Calorimetry is entirely superfluous and is entirely not needed for any purpose while evaluating Sean's idiotic setup. Input vs output power is what needed to be shown and it wasn't. And it wasn't shown because to do so would have revealed how pitifully and extremely low the ratio of output to input really was. Maybe 1% if one is lucky, maybe even less.


    Calorimetry is clearly a massive red herring. Notice how triple zero and anyone else purporting over-unity always deftly avoids answering about how EASY it would be to put meters to measure input versus output, and starts making huge dissertations about all the heat lost in the air. Even IF all that lost heat was SOMEHOW adding up to more than was put in, it's exactly that - LOST ENERGY. Unusable. Wasted. Pointless.

    The only useful infinite energy generator is the one that will put MORE energy back into your system than you put in to start it up. And that's VERY easy to measure.
  2.  
    Posted By: evolvealreadymmmmmmmmm chocolate frying pan...
    Quite.

    I know it's been mentioned... But really, what the hell did Sean et al. do to Crastney??
    (I'd ask him directly but am afraid he might've crawled out of a crop circle with malevolent intent..)
    • CommentAuthorUtD_Grant
    • CommentTimeMar 31st 2010
     
    Posted By: alsetalokin@UtD_Grant: Your curves are supported almost exactly by my data from Orbette. I also have quantitative data that relates the force/distance/current relationships for my various toroids. The only thing wrong with your graphs is that you are OVERESTIMATING the strength of the core effect. I have toroids that work very well driving the rotor; on the force/distance tests at typical currents, the reduction in attractive force with current on is only 1-3 percent, not the 10 percent that you are assuming, and this is enough to produce strong net rotor acceleration.
    I stress again: this is real quantitative force data, and your qualitative curves are correct.


    Thanks for that, Al. Glad to see I wasn't too far off base.

    I very quickly ran off this plot tonight using a reduction of only 2%:

  3.  
    I think at this point Crastney is just so pissed at the nasty things said to him by skeptics, and so embarrassed by the strong pro-steorn stand he has taken, that he thinks he has to continue to support the unsupportable. I can't believe that he really believes as strongly as he says he does. He is no 007 or Babcat.
    I suspect even Babcat is giving them a little hell over in the SKDB about some things.
    •  
      CommentAuthorQuanten
    • CommentTimeMar 31st 2010
     
    Posted By: evolvealreadyI think at this point Crastney is just so pissed at the nasty things said to him by skeptics, and so embarrassed by the strong pro-steorn stand he has taken, that he thinks he has to continue to support the unsupportable. I can't believe that he really believes as strongly as he says he does. He is no 007 or Babcat.
    I suspect even Babcat is giving them a little hell over in the SKDB about some things.


    Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity.

    I think Crastney is just a plain dimwit which flunked basic physic, and nothing more.

    He certainly did not provide evidence to show otherwise, like having a modicum of small skepticism or something.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeMar 31st 2010
     
    I think he has just been taking a piss. It's a game that others like Vibrator seem to enjoy. Look at the three year piss OC took with his gadget.
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeMar 31st 2010 edited
     
    @UtD_Grant: Good work...now, for the "skeptical believers" who don't believe your computations, perhaps you could show what a 2 percent increase in velocity PER PULSE would add up to, over, say, 500 revolutions (2000 pulses).

    For the past couple days I have been involved in determining, precisely, the continuous power dissipation of Orbette 2's rotor.
    It appears that I severely overestimated the power requirement to keep my rotor turning at a constant RPM. I was estimating OTOO 80 milliWatts continuous at 1500 RPM, but it looks like much less than that. Over the RPM range of interest, Orbette 2.0's rotor dissipates between 10 and 20 milliWatts. This is all the power that must be supplied to the rotor, on BALL BEARINGS, to keep it turning at a constant angular velocity.
    And a typical average input power is 300 to 500 mW.

    Now, Steorn's magnetic bearings may improve this by a factor of ten, maybe. So Steorn's rotor might be dissipating OTOO 1 milliWatt. And they also claim peak power input of 1 Watt, 30 percent duty cycle, or 300 mW continuous average power.
    So there may be as little as 1/300 of the input power making its way to the rotor on Steorn's device.

    This will be very difficult to detect by any electrical measurements. Certainly none of the measurements Steorn has shown, and none that I have shown, could discriminate this tiny percentage delivered to the rotor, from the overall input power.

    Now, the continuous power dissipation of Steorn's rotor will have nothing to do with any "overunity" effect: the unpowered rundown is where this figure will come from, and no OU magic will be happening then...I hope we can agree to that. So, one can see from this work that, whatever the magic is, Steorn's rotor dissipates only a few milliWatts at the constant RPM settings that have been shown. Adding a pickup coil load increases the steady-state power dissipation, by (power output)x(generator efficiency).

    Next, I will be determining the "cost" of generating power with the pickup coil---how much power is generated, how much RPM is lost by the rotor, how much must the input power be increased to bring the RPM back to its original value, how much did the output power go up.

    One Watt peak in, 20-30 percent duty cycle according to Sean...and Steorn's rotor turning at 1500 RPM might be dissipating all of a couple of milliWatts.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeMar 31st 2010
     
    Al I think I may have figured out what the next Steorn demo will be. Mike Daly hinted at it when he said they may need to build a car. They will put a car with an automatic transmission in DRIVE, and hold their foot on the brake. Then they will slowly release the brake without completely letting go, noting that the car moves forward. They will claim that "obviously" all the engine power was going into the brakes, so the forward motion of the car comes for free from an unknown energy source.
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeMar 31st 2010 edited
     
    Certainly. After all, the motor's RPM is the same, with the brakes locked and with the car creeping forward under partial braking. Thus, the motor's power is decoupled from the car's motion, just as in Orbo. Clearly the car is moving for free, and the power for the motion isn't coming from the motor. All the motor's power is being dissipated as heat in the brake parts and the transmission fluid!
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeApr 1st 2010
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinCertainly. After all, the motor's RPM is the same, with the brakes locked and with the car creeping forward under partial braking. Thus, the motor's power is decoupled from the car's motion, just as in Orbo. Clearly the car is moving for free, and the power for the motion isn't coming from the motor. All the motor's power is being dissipated as heat in the brake parts and the transmission fluid!
    You see! Even a passive debunker hard nosed skeptic like yourself can eventually understand the great secrets of Orbodom. And it didn't even take a tap or two on the old noggin from the shillelagh of vision to get you there!
    • CommentAuthorUtD_Grant
    • CommentTimeApr 1st 2010
     
    Marvelous ! :-D
    • CommentAuthorUtD_Grant
    • CommentTimeApr 1st 2010
     
    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.


    Would you change your mind if Steorn confirmed my plots ?
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeApr 1st 2010 edited
     
    @Drakkenmensch
    Even IF all that lost heat was SOMEHOW adding up to more than was put in, it's exactly that - LOST ENERGY. Unusable. Wasted. Pointless.
    Well, I can't agree with that. If anyone showed a system that produced more energy than it was provided with, absent storage or explainable generation of energy, it would be very significant because it would violate COE. Some mechanism would have to be found. Some explanation. How the system *uses* the extra energy is no issue at all. Any system producing energy without an explanation for the source of that energy is anomalous. HIGHLY anomalous.

    Steorn's problem isn't that the form of their energy is "useless". Even plain heat can be used to run an engine or device of some sort, thermoelectric, Stirling cycle or whatever. Steorn's problem is that they can NOT demonstrate any excess energy. The calorimetry is spurious. It's either a measurement error or a fraud. I don't suppose they will volunteer which. For sure, they will not have it checked by anyone competent and independently verified. There's a really good reason why they did it "in house" and with a misspoken (or was it bespoke?) ie. home made kloodge of a calorimeter. And that reason is that if they did it right, no excess anything would show up unless they allowed Sean to breathe on it. That would provide enough alcohol to light a stove.
    •  
      CommentAuthortimetrumpet
    • CommentTimeApr 1st 2010 edited
     
    @my

    You don't know who built it, you don't know who conducted the tests, you don't know a lot of things. Your *guess* is that it was conducted "in house".

    And you may want to edit your post to read "Steorn's problem is that they cannot demonstrate any excess energy"

    If you're fast enough, no-one will notice the change this time.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeApr 1st 2010
     
    Posted By: UtD_Grant
    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.


    Would you change your mind ifSteorn confirmed my plots?
    It's perfect! Steorn lay out data that confirms conventional COE conformance and still the fuck wit fools try to shout that it is actually evidence of free energy.
  4.  
    Posted By: UtD_Grant
    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.


    Would you change your mind ifSteorn confirmed my plots?


    @utd

    I think they're lovely plots (really!) but I don't think they "prove" anything. IIUC, Steorn would have no problem agreeing that there is a pulse of current to the toroids at some point in the cycle, and that when a cycle (or rather 1/4 cycle) is complete, the rotor gains KE.

    Their argument is that the KE increase experienced by the rotor is not accounted for when the input energy of the coil pulse and calculated resistive losses are balanced against one another. Obviously the prevailing opinion is that this is shite, but that's a different discussion.

    Your plots are a beautiful visualisation of what's happening *assuming there is no anomaly*. They aren't evidence that no such anomaly exists - not that there isn't already plenty of that.
  5.  
    Incidentally, almost everybody, almost everywhere is aware of the limitations of the calorimetry as presented and are asking appropriate questions.