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

    •  
      CommentAuthorlegendre
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009
     
    Kinetica thingy was totally different.

    And again, for the record, the lights didn't melt the bearings ;-)
    • CommentAuthorJanDM
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009 edited
     
    Posted By: alsetalokin
    Here's the kicker: the attraction of the cores/magnets is switched OFF by the application of current to the coil. I have verified this experimentally, as has MrEntropy; my video experiment is uploading now.

    Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yurZxrKkeo

    @alsetalokin: great work, thanks!
  1.  
    •  
      CommentAuthorNoSideSam
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009
     
    Great stuff! Here is a quote from the first one:

    I claim: I am the only one that knows how to make this Perpetual Motion Motor and it work! I started on it when I was 8 years old, My Father told me that we are the Caretakers of the Earth, So I Established My Goals to make this Perpetual Motion Motor at age of 8 years old and this is my claim!
  2.  
    I wondered that he didn't sign the paper with "Lisa Simpson"
  3.  
    Actually the torque developed is a lot more than I thought it would be. The ferrites are strongly attracted to the magnet when the current is off, the wire of course doesn't affect this. And this attraction can be almost completely cancelled, apparently, with careful choice of ferrite, spacing, and current, i would wager.
    Since it is "logical" that the coil's field is confined to the toroid, and the field from the coil itself produces little or no thrust when on...therefore the field from the coil is not driving the rotor, it is only going into heating things up. Following this line of reasoning the rotor drive comes for free.
    From somewhere.

    Actually it's coming from Frank's banana, I think, but I'm not totally sure. That is, the area inside the hysteresis loop represents the energy transaction that is occurring in the ferrite, and the drive energy does, as it must, come from the coil's power source.
    At least I hope so. I haven't eaten a crow in some time. Let's see...where's that recipe for four-and-twenty blackbird pie got off to?
  4.  
    Posted By: bloodymediaThat's what I try to explain for some days...


    Perhaps you should just share your source material directly. Your explanations make about as much sense as Sean's do. Sorry, but it's true.
  5.  
    Al, we're getting worried about you. Maybe you should steer clear of bananas and crows for a while, step away from the toroid, and go and have a nice cold beer ;-)
  6.  
    Posted By: QuantenQUestion , what difference would it do for the work function of the motor, if instead of having :
    -> a ferrite core around on stator atracting possibly magnet on the rotor when current is off, but being shioelded when current is on
    -> same PM magnet on rotor, but on stator a magnet which is off when no current , and on with the same attraction / B vector felt by the magnet when the curernt is on

    If the case below is more easily modellable or known, then gut feeling for me is that there would be no difference in the final outcome, except that instead of switching off the stator you switch it on.


    The difference is in that CEMF thing. Also in the first case, the Orbo case, the rotor gets thrust only when the coil is OFF so it's harder to track the energy flow and easier to be garden-pathed into starry-eyed oblivion. It's almost got me sucked in, and I haven't even been misedutained.
    •  
      CommentAuthorQuanten
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009
     
    Posted By: alsetalokin
    Posted By: QuantenQUestion , what difference would it do for the work function of the motor, if instead of having :
    -> a ferrite core around on stator atracting possibly magnet on the rotor when current is off, but being shioelded when current is on
    -> same PM magnet on rotor, but on stator a magnet which is off when no current , and on with the same attraction / B vector felt by the magnet when the curernt is on

    If the case below is more easily modellable or known, then gut feeling for me is that there would be no difference in the final outcome, except that instead of switching off the stator you switch it on.


    The difference is in that CEMF thing. Also in the first case, the Orbo case, the rotor gets thrust only when the coil is OFF so it's harder to track the energy flow and easier to be garden-pathed into starry-eyed oblivion. It's almost got me sucked in, and I haven't even been misedutained.


    I am not sure about the CEMF thingy, but it looks to me that generating a B field or shielding it should take the same energy, should be symetrical. Should not it ?
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009 edited
     
    Posted By: Quanten

    I am not sure about the CEMF thingy, but it looks to me that generating a B field or shielding it should take the same energy, should be symetrical. Should not it ?


    Yes, and that's where accurate measurement of heat flux comes in. I am afraid that the only way I can see at this point is to put the damn thing in the MOAC, with the shaft output stirring a water bath, and see if the whole thing gets too warm or not.
  7.  
    I guess this is as good a place as any to say this:

    I have believed all this time that Steorn had nothing interesting, much less revolutionary, and that their mistake, if it was one, was a simple one. I think otherwise now. I still think they have nothing revolutionary, but at least they have something moderately interesting, and I'll bet there is a run on ferrite toroids right now. And their mistake is slightly less simple.

    Anybody know the exact ferrite used by the lads?
  8.  
    Posted By: alsetalokin
    Anybody know the exact ferrite used by the lads?


    I've asked the question here: http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=481

    and here: http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=62262

    But no answers yet.
    •  
      CommentAuthorcouldbe
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009 edited
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinI have believed all this time that Steorn had nothing interesting, much less revolutionary, and that their mistake, if it was one, was a simple one. I think otherwise now. I still think they have nothing revolutionary, but at least they have something moderately interesting
    Electro-magnets have been around, what, 150 years or more? They have been studied, I thought, to a fare-thee-well; yet even an adept such as yourself is surprised by the results of a very simple experiment.

    Is it reasonable for civilians like me to think that the properties of magnets are far from being known completely, despite what has been said on these forums in the past?

    And if you could nearly eliminate cemf so easily, is it possible that Sean was right when he claims that, with care, it can be eliminated completely?
  9.  
    What will 007 say after the latest comments by Al? I think he might be in danger of exploding with glee.
    Also, it'll be interesting to see whether Steorn still don't care what people say.
    • CommentAuthorDivalent
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009 edited
     
    Posted By: bloodymediaIt seems to be pretty easy in the US to get a PM patented:


    Actually, those aren't patents, they are patent *applications*. You can apply for a patent for anything, but that doesn't mean you get it. All patent applications are published 18 months after submission, unless the applicant requests that it be published sooner.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009
     
    Posted By: maryyugoInteresting. So it's a very extremely super-INEFFICIENT motor which barely works as a motor and as such requires extremely low friction to even turn itself. Sounds like a great way to develop overunity, doesn't it? I hope Sean puts his fancy scope on the battery like he told someone at the other forum that he would. That would be fun to see.

    So to summarize, if Al is right, Orbo is mainly a fancy room heater type plastic sculpture. It happens to spin because you can make it go around with magents if you switch some of the magnets off at the right time with a complex set of switches and solenoids. So it's what... 0.1% efficient? .001%? And the rest of the current from the battery ends up as heat? And that is what Steorn claims is an overunity generator?
    YES!!! You get what Steorn's saying: They have a 0% efficient motor, all input energy goes into heat, but it still turns, so there must be more than the input energy. Steorn are now well on their way to an exit strategy of presenting themselves as the world's biggest engineering goof balls.
    •  
      CommentAuthortimetrumpet
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2009 edited
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinI guess this is as good a place as any to say this:

    I have believed all this time that Steorn had nothing interesting, much less revolutionary, and that their mistake, if it was one, was a simple one. I think otherwise now. I still think they have nothing revolutionary, but at least they have something moderately interesting, and I'll bet there is a run on ferrite toroids right now. And their mistake is slightly less simple.

    Anybody know the exact ferrite used by the lads?


    I don't think that's been revealed anywhere IIRC, just general terms.

    Two things:

    1) Can you consider unblocking me (as "ingliss") from your Youtube channel? I'm not interested in any personality issues, so I'd like to think that lot could be put to one side. I don't intend to be posting replies or comment on anything other than whatever the video may be FWIW.

    2) You've stated recently that the rig turned CW and then CCW. I don't think this is correct.

    Sean Mc, certainly confused matters by saying this during the demo. I asked if he'd misspoke and he confirmed this; he meant to say "CW" both times.

    I've confirmed this by running the video through VLC at (I think) 1 / 5 speed. CW both times.


    Edit: erroneous "Steorn" (I set em up...)
  10.  
    Well, sad to say, but it's not even a room heater. It's mainly a core magnetiser that, if nothing goes in the way, may spin a wheel.
  11.  
    Posted By: couldbe
    Posted By: alsetalokinI have believed all this time that Steorn had nothing interesting, much less revolutionary, and that their mistake, if it was one, was a simple one. I think otherwise now. I still think they have nothing revolutionary, but at least they have something moderately interesting
    Electro-magnets have been around, what, 150 years or more? They have been studied, I thought, to a fare-thee-well; yet even an adept such as yourself is surprised by the results of a very simple experiment.

    Is it reasonable for civilians like me to think that the properties of magnets are far from being known completely, despite what has been said on these forums in the past?

    And if you could nearly eliminate cemf so easily, is it possible that Sean was right when he claims that, with care, it can be eliminated completely?


    This effect is known and has been patented; it is used in generator technology; and I am in no sense an adept at electromagnetism. I just do eyes.
    Certainly it is fine for you or anyone to assume that properties of the universe are not fully known or understood. Anyone who claims otherwise must be God. However, if you do find something truly new, diddling around in your garage, please let me know about it. It's harder than you seem to think.
    And it's easy to completely eliminate CEMF. All you have to do is not ever energise your motor. Then you will have achieved 100 percent efficiency--that is, all the energy you are providing will go into the motion. That is, none.
    Of course, completely eliminating CEMF in a motor with moving magnets is another issue. Eliminate it without also eliminating thrust and you will be a step closer to unity. Not overunity, for that you need to get more energy from somewhere, not just use what you've got better.