Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Posted By: maryyugoBut what is driving the motor?Just offhand, I'd say what drives the motor is an Ansmann 10 amp hour storage battery, regularly recharged when Orbo goes "off line". Or did you think that's done because of bearings overheating? As someone noted somehwere "Reed switches are the new bearings!"
Magnetic "energy"!
Posted By: Knuckles OToole
But what is driving the motor?
Posted By: overconfidentI thought I heard Sean say it was induction.Posted By: maryyugoBut what is driving the motor?Just offhand, I'd say what drives the motor is an Ansmann 10 amp hour storage battery, regularly recharged when Orbo goes "off line". Or did you think that's done because of bearings overheating? As someone noted somehwere "Reed switches are the new bearings!"
Magnetic "energy"!
And if what Sean is saying, and what is now beginning to look plausible, all the energy expended by the battery can be accounted for as joule heating. So the energy is taken from the battery, gets converted to heat, yet the motor still spins?
Where does the energy come from to spin the motor?
Posted By: overconfident
And if what Sean is saying, and what is now beginning to look plausible, all the energy expended by the battery can be accounted for as joule heating. So the energy is taken from the battery, gets converted to heat, yet the motor still spins?
Where does the energy come from to spin the motor?
Posted By: hairykrishnaA generator using rotor kinetic energy is supposedly charging the battery. Does that make the energy required more impressive?Posted By: overconfident
And if what Sean is saying, and what is now beginning to look plausible, all the energy expended by the battery can be accounted for as joule heating. So the energy is taken from the battery, gets converted to heat, yet the motor still spins?
Where does the energy come from to spin the motor?
Woah there. The energy required to keep the rotor spinning is miniscule. Sean has not demonstrated that all of the energy from the battery is converted to heat. I would suggest that almost all of the energy is converted via heating in the electronics and some is dissipated (mainly as heat) due to friction.
Posted By: maryyugoBut what is driving the motor?Just offhand, I'd say what drives the motor is an Ansmann 10 amp hour storage battery, regularly recharged when Orbo goes "off line". Or did you think that's done because of bearings overheating? As someone noted somehwere "Reed switches are the new bearings!"
Magnetic "energy"!
Posted By: hairykrishnaPosted By: overconfident
And if what Sean is saying, and what is now beginning to look plausible, all the energy expended by the battery can be accounted for as joule heating. So the energy is taken from the battery, gets converted to heat, yet the motor still spins?
Where does the energy come from to spin the motor?
Woah there. The energy required to keep the rotor spinning is miniscule. Sean has not demonstrated that all of the energy from the battery is converted to heat. I would suggest that almost all of the energy is converted via heating in the electronics and some is dissipated (mainly as heat) due to friction.
Posted By: overconfident
Woah back at ya. I said "Sean said", not "Sean demonstrated".
Posted By: overconfidentWoah back at ya. I said "Sean said", not "Sean demonstrated". The energized coil is NOT being used to drive the rotor. It is only being used to saturate the core. Friction has nothing to do with how much energy is consumed by the coils, so is not a factor WRT external energy requirements.
Posted By: AngusPosted By: overconfidentWoah back at ya. I said "Sean said", not "Sean demonstrated". The energized coil is NOT being used to drive the rotor. It is only being used to saturate the core. Friction has nothing to do with how much energy is consumed by the coils, so is not a factor WRT external energy requirements.
Of course the coil drives the motor. This is another version of the argument we had before about having to take account of how you got to the beginning of an experiment that supposedly starts with two separated permanent magnets.
In this case the coil prevents the motor from stopping after the magnet passes by the coil. That takes at least as much work as to move it from stopped to the position of the coil.
And if what Sean is saying, and what is now beginning to look plausible, all the energy expended by the battery can be accounted for as joule heating. So the energy is taken from the battery, gets converted to heat, yet the motor still spins? Where does the energy come from to spin the motor?"Sean says" again? Are you that stupid? Sean said that the Kinetica demo didn't go off because heat from some lights damaged the bearings. He said that the bearings would be repaired and the demo redone (implied: with the same gadget) SOON. He said all the things we keep regurgitating about power density, scalability, reproducibility, that it's been seen and agreed to by universities but they won't be quoted. How much more incredible and untrue "Sean says" do you want.
it is only energising the coil.It takes plenty of energy to drive those fat solenoids (I accidentally type soilenoids and that may be as accurate). Until Sean does an obviously adequate job of metering the battery or lets someone else do it AND proves there's no other power source, you can't know what's going on. And I predict he won't do any of those things in any credible way because he knows it would expose his crookery for all to see in plain sight. Not his style. Obfuscation, camouflage, subterfuge, cheating, lying, weaseling, rewording, and simply not keeping promises, that's his style.
Posted By: overconfidentPosted By: hairykrishnaPosted By: overconfident
And if what Sean is saying, and what is now beginning to look plausible, all the energy expended by the battery can be accounted for as joule heating. So the energy is taken from the battery, gets converted to heat, yet the motor still spins?
Where does the energy come from to spin the motor?
Woah there. The energy required to keep the rotor spinning is miniscule. Sean has not demonstrated that all of the energy from the battery is converted to heat. I would suggest that almost all of the energy is converted via heating in the electronics and some is dissipated (mainly as heat) due to friction.
Woah back at ya. I said "Sean said", not "Sean demonstrated".
The energized coil is NOT being used to drive the rotor. It is only being used to saturate the core. Friction has nothing to do with how much energy is consumed by the coils, so is not a factor WRT external energy requirements.
So, if the coil doesn't drive the rotor, what does?
Posted By: maryyugo
"Sean says" again? Are you that stupid?
Posted By: alsetalokin
Whoa there your own self. What you said was "beginning to look plausible". Which it is not. The idea that the core can be switched "for free" is no more likely now than it was last week or at the Kinetica demo. Work is being done against field lines, or however you want to express it. This is being done in a lossy core material. It heats up. A teeny tiney bit of this work is converted into the milliwatts needed to spin the rotor at , what was it, 1250 RPM? Peeenuts. The magnet--core interactions are mostly conservative, right, no matter how strong they are, so once the initial cogging is overcome the thing would spin a long time even without any power. So we are talking about extracting a signal representing milliWatts of power to the rotor, from a signal representing perhaps tens of Watts going into heating the coils and cores. Good luck doing it live in front of people with only a $20K scope.
This one's going to need a sensitive power analyser or calorimetry.
Posted By: Angus@OC
Bad wording. No - I wasn't confusing you with Mozart - the "we" referred to us here on the forum.
The power dissipated in the coil is actually large. It has to have enough steam to saturate the core of the toroid, and it also has to drive it around the M-H hysteresis loop. In fact it will be at least as large as if you just used a solenoid coil to attract the magnet as in a more common type of permanent magnet motor.
This BTW is an opinion, based on Al's complaint about the hot coil, and on the known hysteresis curves of ferrites.
Posted By: overconfidentPosted By: alsetalokin
Whoa there your own self. What you said was "beginning to look plausible". Which it is not. The idea that the core can be switched "for free" is no more likely now than it was last week or at the Kinetica demo. Work is being done against field lines, or however you want to express it. This is being done in a lossy core material. It heats up. A teeny tiney bit of this work is converted into the milliwatts needed to spin the rotor at , what was it, 1250 RPM? Peeenuts. The magnet--core interactions are mostly conservative, right, no matter how strong they are, so once the initial cogging is overcome the thing would spin a long time even without any power. So we are talking about extracting a signal representing milliWatts of power to the rotor, from a signal representing perhaps tens of Watts going into heating the coils and cores. Good luck doing it live in front of people with only a $20K scope.
This one's going to need a sensitive power analyser or calorimetry.
So the question boils down to, "Does it take more power to saturate the core when the rotor magnet is interacting with it than it does when there is no rotor magnet"?